A Speculative Theory on Consciousness

[bascule]

Any quantum physicist will agree, that we need to trace the unified theory back to the beginningof time, where quantum rules run the game. This isn't speculation, but maintream acceptance.

 

No it's not. For one thing, nobody knows if there really is a "beginning of time"

 

Also, when you speak to Dr. Kaku, ask him about our wave functions, don't ask him about the tree. Ask him if ''our bodies'' have a wave function that spreads out into space. That is more accurate.

 

Our bodies are far, far too large to have a single wavefunction. Instead the innumerable elementary particles which comprise our bodies each undergo wavefunction collapse repeatedly at infinitesimal intervals.

 

Also, i am not avoiding your question: proove consciousness exists. I have a lot of paper work to look through to find the acceptance it does indeed exist. Please be patient.

 

I can't. If you want to take the route of reductive eliminativism, then none of my arguments have meaning. But I have to wonder if you truly believe your own consciousness doesn't exist...

[zule]

Graviphoton:about the things you have been writing, I agree to part, I disagree to a larger part, and there are subjects I simply don’t know about.

 

But what I haven’t quite caught is what you want to say on this thread in a whole:

 

You start the thread saying that consciousness can be fully explained through quantum mechanist. From that I understand that it can be scientifically explained. However, you say it’s impossible to create an artificial intelligence because part of the consciousness is metaphysic.

 

I think that consciousness could be explained on a whole through the biochemistry, but we humans are not intelligent enough to explain our own mind, only a much more intelligent species could. Because our mind could be scientifically understood, it could be copied (by beings with a much more superior brain than ours) to create an artificial intelligence.

 

I agree with you about the fact that the mind could be explained from different points of view. But if it can be explained scientifically, it’s a scientific subject, can or can’t be explained in other ways. So, you can’t say than an artificial consciousness is impossible to design because of the ability of explain the mind metaphisycally.

[Graviphoton]

No, i state artificial intelligence is not achievable through electrons in a wire. I think you will find.

 

I state there is a big difference to biological machines, to that of cold hardwire.

 

...

 

I agree, biochemistry is resulting the phenomena of cosnciousness. This is why artificial life cannot exist in the form of computers. Biocomputers, maybe.

[insane_alien]

we can simulate the functions of neurons in a computer. we can simulate the way the react. if we had the resources(vastly beyond todays capabilities but acheivable) we could simulate an entire human brain in realtime. would this have conciousness if fed stimuli that mimics sight, hearing, touch etc.

 

i would say yes, it would be behaviourally human. the only difference is that it wouldn't be organic.

[bascule]

we can simulate the functions of neurons in a computer. we can simulate the way the react. if we had the resources(vastly beyond todays capabilities but acheivable) we could simulate an entire human brain in realtime. would this have conciousness if fed stimuli that mimics sight, hearing, touch etc.

 

i would say yes, it would be behaviourally human. the only difference is that it wouldn't be organic.

 

That's the basic argument behind functionalism: consciousness is a symbolic system and it doesn't matter how the symbols and functions operating on them are actually manifested.

[Graviphoton]

There's a diffrence tho, between simulate, and actuality.

 

I find the theory that

 

''consciousness is a symbolic system and it doesn't matter how the symbols and functions operating on them are actually manifested''

 

somewhat laughable. Afterall, does not the configuration of atoms and molecules inside my head mean something to the state of mind, and ultimately consciosuness? If it isn't, jump off a building head first, and i assure you, you will find they are much important.

 

Now this configuration is what allows consciousness. Electrically-fried, carbon materials. Not electrically-induced wires and hardware.

[ydoaPs]

You know your brain is just a grey mushy chemical computer, right?

[Graviphoton]

Grey and white actually And it is a ''biological computer..'' I propose, as many have, that this biological contruct is unique with consciousness.

 

People like to use the term ''computer'' for the brain, but they often mix the concept up with the normal hardware of a computer sytem in an office. There is actually a difference between the two... loads in fact.

[insane_alien]

biology is an emergent property of chemistry. conciousness is an emergent property of neural networks.

 

and tell me, how is something that mimics a neuron in every way functionally diffeerent from an actual neuron?

 

for instance, i can simulate a transistor or any other electrical component in a few lines of code. if i link these up in the right way, i could fully emulate a pentium pro or a core 2 duo or what ever.

 

if i can emulate the basic subunit of the brain(neuron) then it would be only a matter of cloning the structure to acheive an emulated brain. neurons are not all that complex to emulate either. we do it in neural networks all the time. its just that there are so damn many of them.

[mooeypoo]

Grey and white actually And it is a ''biological computer..'' I propose, as many have, that this biological contruct is unique with consciousness.

 

People like to use the term ''computer'' for the brain, but they often mix the concept up with the normal hardware of a computer sytem in an office. There is actually a difference between the two... loads in fact.

 

The problem is not what you propose, the problem is that this specific proposition - which is unproven, and as you can clearly see, controversial (hence, it's in *need* of proof and explanation) is what you use as a *premise* for your theory.

 

So you can't just propose, that's not enough. You need to prove this premise before you can go on to the rest of the theory.

 

And to continue on the OTHER theories you have on the forums about consciousness and mind and quantum physics and time dimensions, etc etc etc.

 

The first primary problem is your initial premise in each of those theories. You have yet to have proven it.

 

 

~moo

[Graviphoton]

''The problem is not what you propose, the problem is that this specific proposition - which is unproven''

 

Passing the buck i think.

 

If someone back in the early 1900's claims that AI was possible, The burden of proof would be upon them. Funnily enough, even with the development of technology today, you will find the burdan is still upon the maidens shoulders... so...

 

... is it more excitable, a theory of mechanical consciousness, or one that states there is a difference? The rational question, is the latter. Therefore, the proof is upon you, mooey, to proove to me there is any evidence at all, and as far as i can see, apart from abstract relationships, there is no proof to suggest it can be actually probable.

[mooeypoo]

''The problem is not what you propose, the problem is that this specific proposition - which is unproven''

 

Passing the buck i think.

 

If someone back in the early 1900's claims that AI was possible, The burden of proof would be upon them. Funnily enough, even with the development of technology today, you will find the burdan is still upon the maidens shoulders... so...

 

... is it more excitable, a theory of mechanical consciousness, or one that states there is a difference? The rational question, is the latter. Therefore, the proof is upon you, mooey, to proove to me there is any evidence at all, and as far as i can see, apart from abstract relationships, there is no proof to suggest it can be actually probable.

 

No, no, no.

 

You are the one stating a theory, you are the one with the burden of proof.

 

I stated nothing, I didn't even state, yet, what I believe about consciousness.

 

~moo

[Edtharan]

is it more excitable, a theory of mechanical consciousness, or one that states there is a difference?

Whether a theory is "excitable", "cool", "elegent" or "sexy" does not determine if it is true. Only evidence does that.

 

What you have been asked for is that evidence and you are not providing it.

 

If I came up with a theory that relied on some statement X being true, but X had not been shown to be true, then my theory is just as uncertain as the statement X. Once I could show that X is true, then that lends support to my theory. It makes it possible that my theory could be true.

 

It is a bit like building a house. If you don't get the foundations built solidly, then it can fall over.

 

What you have done, by not providing evidence to support the propositions you have based your theory on, is to build a house without any foundations. Without those foundations your theory, no matter how rigourious and exact your logic is, can still fall over and be shown to be false if those foundations (what you based your theory on) are wrong.

 

We shouldn't have to prove your theory plauseable. You a the one that has to do that. We have to show where you have gone wrong (and if we can't then that lends support for your theory).

 

You can never really prove a theory correct, but you can prove what you based it on is.

[Graviphoton]

No. Don't avoid logic, which my assertion basically admits, either A is is true, or B is truer over its counterpart theory... Thererfore, the words, cool and elegent, are most appropriate, to the theory which is most plausible.

[mooeypoo]

No. Don't avoid logic, which my assertion basically admits, either A is is true, or B is truer over its counterpart theory... Thererfore, the words, cool and elegent, are most appropriate, to the theory which is most plausible.

 

You need to prove plausibility, Graviphoton. You haven't done that, hence B is NOT NECESSARILY truer than A, and cannot be used as a premise for a theory without that theory being bunked out for lack of proper basis.

 

It's not what you WANT to believe, it's what you can explain, prove and predict. We work by the scientific method, not wishful thinking.

 

~moo

[iNow]

This thread serves as a high quality example of "wishful thinking" and the down falls which accompany it.

[Graviphoton]

No.. i dont think you understand friend...

 

..

 

The most plausible theory, outweighs that of the least...]

 

 

... a small adaptation of spock

 

So really, the burden of proof lies upon those who make the most speculative

 

Now, be honest... which really is more suspect?

[iNow]

Prove the assumptions on which your conclusions are based and your idea will be taken much more seriously. Right now, you are waving hands, but not engaging in sign language.

[Graviphoton]

The same can be said to counter your arguement, EQUALLY PROOVE SOMETHING MORE THAN 51% OF the analysis made today by me. If you cannot, then leave such arbitrary arguements, until both of us can give an acceptable and infallible and impervious theory which cannot be labelled by any other consideration, than mere personal scinetific pathology.

[mooeypoo]

The same can be said to counter your arguement, EQUALLY PROOVE SOMETHING MORE THAN 51% OF the analysis made today by me. If you cannot, then leave such arbitrary arguements, until both of us can give an acceptable and infallible and impervious theory which cannot be labelled by any other consideration, than mere personal scinetific pathology.

 

You are the one making the claims!

 

Let's make this very simple:

 

(1) Proving a theory wrong does not make another right. The world is not made up of only two options.

(2) Whoever is making a claim is the one who has the obligation to prove his statements. You are the one making the statements, plus theory, hence you are in need of proving.

(3) Changing subjects, stating theories are lovely, cool or plausible just because you think they are do not make your theory valid.

(4) Shifting the blame (saying "but you don't do this either!") is, as I said in (1) and (2) not the right path towards proving or posting a new theory. It detracts from the actual process of scientific analysis, and to be perfectly honest, it annoys the heck out of people.

 

So. Stop dancing around (again) and start putting substance into your claims.

 

Alternatively, you can just stop making claims.

 

~moo

[Graviphoton]

No... i am not the only one making claims... There are individuals here that are proposing even more suspect theories than i am, so it really is a matter of passing the buck i would say.

[mooeypoo]

No... i am not the only one making claims... There are individuals here that are proposing even more suspect theories than i am, so it really is a matter of passing the buck i would say.

 

Who started the thread? Who proposed that consciousness is with X and/or Y properties?

 

Those are claims. Your point is to convince us of a theory - one which I find fascinating, but lacking evidence -- all the while expecting us to prove ourselves right before we can treat yours? That makes no sense.

 

You are speaking of consciousness in about 3 different threads, and in *none of them* have you spoke, explained or proven what consciousness IS.

 

Stop dancing around the subject, Graviphoton, I know you're better than that.

 

~moo

[Graviphoton]

I may have started the thread, but i am by no way the only one speculating. Even if i went to another thread, said something wuite spectacular, i would be asked to account for what i said with proof, despite whether i created the thread or not.

 

Now honor me the smae respect please, or i will terminate response to this pareticular thread entirely.

 

And i respect you mooey, a lot. But please, evidence can be from both sides, and should never be singled out. As more time progresses, i will gather more points to the arguement.

 

I take science very seriously, as you will know. Let me show you how serious, but give me time please.

[Bignose]

I'm going to suggest a sort of reboot here:

 

Graviphoton, please list in one post in this thread every speculation that your think someone else is putting forth and needs evidence to support it. That person can either then provide the evidence and/or show you where what they have written is not a speculation.

 

In the exact same way, graviphoton, I think everyone should list what they think you are speculating on and what you need to provide evidence for.

 

In this way, everyone can clear the air, and start on that solid foundation that was talked about.

 

To begin, graviphoton, you probably should address this direct questions aimed at you from mooeypoo "You are speaking of consciousness in about 3 different threads, and in none of them have you spoke, explained or proven what consciousness IS." So, graviphoton, to clear the air, please provide a definition of consciousness, backed up the requisite sources.

 

If you need/want extra time to answer this question, please just state that, and estimate about how long you think it will take until you have an answer.

 

Now, lastly, I just want to say that this clearing the air is a double-edged sword. If you continue you to ignore these direct questions, you are going to lose a lot of credibility. If you really "take science very seriously" then these are direct questions that deserve answers. And that is how science works, gravi, you get asked direct questions, and to earn any kind of credibility, you have to answer every direct question.

[Graviphoton]

Very diplomatic. Very wise.

I will.

 

Can i create a last thread on consciousness that addresses his incongruity?