Thread: The more I learn and the more I think about the existance of aliens

Edit: Of course I guess you could argue that it is impossible to mimic consciousness without being conscious via evolutionary means.

That's a fair point, and I would certainly like to believe it, but, like all science, in humility we just have to agree that we don't know currently, and it is yet to be found out.

Originally Posted by Zotoaster

That's a fair point, and I would certainly like to believe it, but, like all science, in humility we just have to agree that we don't know currently, and it is yet to be found out.

Doesn't that suck! Hehe.

Btw I was trying to get at what I think you were trying to get across, did my quote accurately decribe what you were trying to state?

Zotaster; interesting. A couple of things.

Firstly, you say that a turing machine should be able to simulate a brain... maybe. But there are some things which are mathematically impossible for a turing machine to do.

Secondly, obviously there's nothing intrinsically 'conscious' about neurons, they're blobs of water and protein and ions. The nervous system could just as well have evolved to be made of something else entirely. This is why I consider functionalism to be such a strong argument, there's no way around it. What's so special about a turing machine that makes it not conscious?

Then again, the functionalism approach has some paradoxes of its own. These are made clear when you consider the 'conversation with Einstein's brain' analogy, where a book of instructions of how to emulate Einstein's brain is written. Are we to believe that using this book creates consciousness? What if lots of people read it at the same time? What if they only read little bits? Or read it wrong? Or read it backwards? Have you got little bits of consciousness popping into existence and doing all kinds of bizarre things?

Originally Posted by Xei

Zotaster; interesting. A couple of things.

Firstly, you say that a turing machine should be able to simulate a brain... maybe. But there are some things which are mathematically impossible for a turing machine to do.

Secondly, obviously there's nothing intrinsically 'conscious' about neurons, they're blobs of water and protein and ions. The nervous system could just as well have evolved to be made of something else entirely. This is why I consider functionalism to be such a strong argument, there's no way around it. What's so special about a turing machine that makes it not conscious?

Then again, the functionalism approach has some paradoxes of its own. These are made clear when you consider the 'conversation with Einstein's brain' analogy, where a book of instructions of how to emulate Einstein's brain is written. Are we to believe that using this book creates consciousness? What if lots of people read it at the same time? What if they only read little bits? Or read it wrong? Or read it backwards? Have you got little bits of consciousness popping into existence and doing all kinds of bizarre things?

As for your first point, I've never heard of this problem, but I'm sure it must crop up somewhere - atleast for human brains. The current intelligence they have so far is that of a cricket, and this is basically through big "if-then" machines. A cricket has a brain btw (j/k, not trying to be insulting).

Your second point is very interesting too. There is nothing conscious about neurons, I agree. But I don't think it's what the "processor" (brain) is made of, I just think it's the process that goes in behind it. I am currently working on a project that evolved neural networks through some Darwinian evolution to see what kind of patterns I get. Google "Polyworld", a similar program - they have got behaviours such as mimicry popping up, for survival. When you ask why a Turing machine can't be conscious, well, as I already stated I think it's the process that creates the conscience, but, as the aptly named Zoto paradox suggests, perhaps the actual processes in the computer that simulates the reasoning that we have will create the same effect, even though it's a different process. I think this is similar to your Einstein's brain analogy.

Zoto I know you already stated that you believe there are different levels of consciousness (flies vs. humans and the like) but could there be different kinds of consciousness? (In relevance to consciousness made via computer programming vs. consciousness via evolutionary standards)

Meanwhile your fly example makes me even more flipped out when I have to think about the idea of human beings. If a fly is less conscious than I then surely I am less conscious than some other human being. X.X Well... that is to say surely my highest lvl of consciousness so far is rested somewhere below another human beings highest level of consciousness.

Mm, I'm actually reading about computability right now, in a book called The Emperor's New Mind by physicist Roger Penrose, and it's pretty much exactly about this issue. I haven't finished that chapter yet but... ya, basically the book is arguing that the brain is uncomputational.

The thing is that physics is computatable, really. As far as I can see, if the brain is just a collection of molecules moving about in a classical, deterministic fashion, then it can be computed, allowing enough power. I think where Penrose is going then must be about quantum physics, but actually there's a big problem there because quantum theory doesn't have an impact on the scale of neurons as we understand them...

The whole polyworld thing sounds fascinating, I'll look it up after dinner. Are you actually employed in that field or is this personal research, by the way?

And yeh... so, I'm slightly lost here, you're saying that Turing machines can't make consciousness, but you're also a functionalist (AKA the process is what's vital)..? Those two views seem a little mutually exclusive?

Originally Posted by Sandform

Zoto I know you already stated that you believe there are different levels of consciousness (flies vs. humans and the like) but could there be different kinds of consciousness? (In relevance to consciousness made via computer programming vs. consciousness via evolutionary standards)

Meanwhile your fly example makes me even more flipped out when I have to think about the idea of human beings. If a fly is less conscious than I then surely I am less conscious than some other human being. X.X Well... that is to say surely my highest lvl of consciousness so far is rested somewhere below another human beings highest level of consciousness.

Ah, different kinds of consciousness? Well I don't know. I feel it is hard enough to define my own consciousness, nevermind trying to think up a completely different kind, but yes, that is an interesting point!

Mm, I'm actually reading about computability right now, in a book called The Emperor's New Mind by physicist Roger Penrose, and it's pretty much exactly about this issue. I haven't finished that chapter yet but... ya, basically the book is arguing that the brain is uncomputational.

The thing is that physics is computatable, really. As far as I can see, if the brain is just a collection of molecules moving about in a classical, deterministic fashion, then it can be computed, allowing enough power. I think where Penrose is going then must be about quantum physics, but actually there's a big problem there because quantum theory doesn't have an impact on the scale of neurons as we understand them...

The whole polyworld thing sounds fascinating, I'll look it up after dinner. Are you actually employed in that field or is this personal research, by the way?

And yeh... so, I'm slightly lost here, you're saying that Turing machines can't make consciousness, but you're also a functionalist (AKA the process is what's vital)..? Those two views seem a little mutually exclusive?

Hmm, the whole quantum mechanics thing doesn't really take me in. We can be pretty sure for the most part that we all act deterministically, and since the brain is not a quantum machine (it is sufficiently macro- to just ignore QM altogether), I doubt it does have much impact. Furthermore, I don't think the weird behaviours of sub-atomic particles really have any effect on consciousness as a whole.

I'm not actually working in this field really, but I find it pretty fascinating. It's very fun to research and try to get to grips with, well, the very thing that is able to do understanding for me - my conscience, haha.

Your last point is a little mixed up. I do believe it's the process that matters. And by that I mean, I think it's a sort of specific type of process - not just any old process. The only reason I am forced to consider Turing machines is because of the fundamental process that lies behind them. After all, at the processors level, it is taking in inputs, processing and formatting these inputs, and then spitting them back out as something else. Not just any something else, but something else relevant. Not only that, but the process itself is 'complex' in the formal sense, so really, I can't say that it doesn't do exactly the same thing as the brain, but, perhaps just slightly differently.

Concentrate harder. Debate faster. It's just not working like it use to.

You have pretty much the same opinions as me I think...

I'm still trying to get to grips tho; do you think that a Turing machine could be conscious?

As far as I can tell, as long as it simulates the brain process, it'll be conscious, because the process is still there, it's just 'made' of turing machine instead.

It's like the Chinese room argument; Searle argues that the man in the room has no understanding of the symbols. I'd say that's true. In the same way that a neuron has no understanding of words; the argument is actually attacking the wrong thing and ultimately accomplishes nothing. However, the system, of which the man is component, does understand the symbols. It's weird thinking of a disembodied 'system' perhaps, but no weirder than the brain. I always thought John Searle was a very unimaginative person and his arguments make no sense.

Originally Posted by sandform

Ladies and gentlemen I give you schizo of the year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia

You're Schizophrenic. You're Schizophrenic.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia <-----Wikipedia ses, You're Schizophrenic.

Originally Posted by wikipedia

No laboratory test for schizophrenia currently exists.

Originally Posted by Xei

You have pretty much the same opinions as me I think...

I'm still trying to get to grips tho; do you think that a Turing machine could be conscious?

As far as I can tell, as long as it simulates the brain process, it'll be conscious, because the process is still there, it's just 'made' of turing machine instead.

It's like the Chinese room argument; Searle argues that the man in the room has no understanding of the symbols. I'd say that's true. In the same way that a neuron has no understanding of words; the argument is actually attacking the wrong thing and ultimately accomplishes nothing. However, the system, of which the man is component, does understand the symbols. It's weird thinking of a disembodied 'system' perhaps, but no weirder than the brain. I always thought John Searle was a very unimaginative person and his arguments make no sense.

I have come to the conclusion that a Turing machine can possibly be conscious. Put more precisely I think it's the process behind it that's conscious, but obviously not in the same way as us.... I think

As for the disembodied system - I've thought about it, and for now, it still drives me crazy thinking about it Is the Milky Way conscious? This is where my brain melts, lol.

I have seen crazy stuff in the sky that I KNOW was not anything conventional that regular folks use or know about. I am positive of that much. However, two of the things I have come across were in the sky over Pensacola Beach, right by where there just happens to be a major U.S. Navy base. Pensacola Beach is a big time UFO sighting spot. What's even bigger is Gulf Breeze, which is possibly the number one UFO sighting spot in the world. Where is Gulf Breeze? It is an island between the city of Pensacola and Pensacola Beach. What is the other major UFO spotting area of the U.S. and of the world? The wilderness desert land near Area 51. The crazy things people keep seeing in the sky are high tech, secret military crafts.

I have seen crazy stuff in the sky that I KNOW was not anything conventional that regular folks use or know about.

That's a little unscientific isn't it? It's all fair enough saying it's a UFO, but UFO doesn't necessarly link to aliens. A very strange paper aeroplane can count as a UFO - you know, unidentified flying object.

Originally Posted by Zotoaster

That's a little unscientific isn't it? It's all fair enough saying it's a UFO, but UFO doesn't necessarly link to aliens. A very strange paper aeroplane can count as a UFO - you know, unidentified flying object.

Did you read the rest of what I wrote?

The crazy things people keep seeing in the sky are high tech, secret military crafts.

Oh good that's ok then we can go back to the poker machines.


UM he doesn't read anything properly.

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

Oh good that's ok then we can go back to the poker machines.

No you can't.

Ofcourse I can't. I was talking about the sleep walkers.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Did you read the rest of what I wrote?

Yeah I did but I didn't think there was any real relevant reply to it. But now that you mention it, here's a fun fact: If I got 100,000 people in a conspiracy to say that in a particular region somewhere they all individually witnessed weird flashes of light, and they tried to popularise this place, then people will go there, and guess what, they will see weird flashes of light I can't remember the name of the phenomenon, but it happens.

I'm not saying Pensacola Beach or Area 51 is a conspiracy, but if these places get hyped up enough then sure enough people will be prone to seeing things they want to see.


Also, just ignore Minervas Phoenix.

As for the disembodied system - I've thought about it, and for now, it still drives me crazy thinking about it Is the Milky Way conscious? This is where my brain melts, lol.

Actually that's one of the one things about consciousness which I think I've come to understand.

The fact is that consciousness has no location. In fact, it is meaningless to assign it any location at all. What is often said by neuroscientists is that consciousness has no specific location in the brain; the truth of the matter is that consciousness isn't even in your brain. Consciousness is basically a mathematical system. I could ask, 'where is maths?'. It's essentially the same question, and the answer is the same; maths is really nowhere and everywhere at the same time. It is real, but has no location as an entity.

It's much easier to come to terms with this when you realise: the only reason you think that your consciousness is somewhere in your brain is because our brain is behind our eyes, and recieves inputs from sensors which are connected to the body. If you close your eyes and cut off all sensation (like in a sensory deprivation tank thing), you could be anywhere.

What's striking to me is how this seems to tie in with meditation, which is basically a form of sensory deprivation, and enlightenment. In fact the connection is pretty startling and exciting to me.

Originally Posted by Zotoaster

Yeah I did but I didn't think there was any real relevant reply to it. But now that you mention it, here's a fun fact: If I got 100,000 people in a conspiracy to say that in a particular region somewhere they all individually witnessed weird flashes of light, and they tried to popularise this place, then people will go there, and guess what, they will see weird flashes of light I can't remember the name of the phenomenon, but it happens.

I'm not saying Pensacola Beach or Area 51 is a conspiracy, but if these places get hyped up enough then sure enough people will be prone to seeing things they want to see.


Also, just ignore Minervas Phoenix.

What do you think about the idea that the strange objects people keep seeing in the sky are secret military crafts? I am convinced of it, at least for tons of UFO cases.

Originally Posted by Xei

Actually that's one of the one things about consciousness which I think I've come to understand.

The fact is that consciousness has no location. In fact, it is meaningless to assign it any location at all. What is often said by neuroscientists is that consciousness has no specific location in the brain; the truth of the matter is that consciousness isn't even in your brain. Consciousness is basically a mathematical system. I could ask, 'where is maths?'. It's essentially the same question, and the answer is the same; maths is really nowhere and everywhere at the same time. It is real, but has no location as an entity.

It's much easier to come to terms with this when you realise: the only reason you think that your consciousness is somewhere in your brain is because our brain is behind our eyes, and recieves inputs from sensors which are connected to the body. If you close your eyes and cut off all sensation (like in a sensory deprivation tank thing), you could be anywhere.

What's striking to me is how this seems to tie in with meditation, which is basically a form of sensory deprivation, and enlightenment. In fact the connection is pretty startling and exciting to me.

You gave me a eureka moment with your maths analogy.


[edit]

Universal,

I can't really say anything on the matter since I've never seen any of it myself. I don't know if the Loch Ness Monster exists even though so many have claimed to see it - I still doubt its existance though since I know we are all prone to seeing things when we really want to.

Originally Posted by Minervas Phoenix

Ofcourse I can't. I was talking about the sleep walkers.

Have you seen any unidentified flying trolls?

You gave me a eureka moment with your maths analogy.

Yeah, gave myself one when I first thought of it.

I'm glad there's someone else out there who gets what I'm on about...

As a matter of interest; are you currently in education or what? 'Cos I'm in 6th form and I wanna do this kind of thing as my career (computational neuroscience etc.) but working out what to do at Uni is a real puzzler.