There seems to be a human tendency to over-identify with the mysterious. One reason we do this is to hold on to the hope that we are not restricted by causality. As science uncovers larger and larger portions of the territory "reality", mystery seekers are forced deeper into the corners of the un-explained. Thus has consciousness become the calling card for the metaphysically inspired.

OK friends... have at it!

Everyone read Susan Blackmore's book "The Meme Machine"? Please do. It does for ideas, the mind, and society what Darwin did for genes, biology, and populations. A good counterpoint to the essentialists and the dualists. Evolution simplifies the most vexing problems.

Consciousness, as I have said before, seems to be a two-fold symptom of the ability to perceive an environment and the ability to derive meaning from those perceptions. The meaning attributed to our perceptions sets humanity apart and illuminates us. That sounds good. Just ask anyone! It seems that’s how most of us feel. It’s total subjectivity and sooo very convenient. But isn’t it bad enough that we had to evolve from the twitted state of the mentally constricted world of animals; but, are we going to have to share the presents of consciousness with them as well. After all, no one knows what really goes on in those little pea brains. If we look conceptually at what we do when we consider or become conscious about something aren’t the differences between the animal world and us a matter of degree? Given that animals aren’t as conceptually as complex as us and therefore have different survival mechanisms. But their decision-making ability seems to me very similar. In both, it’s a plethora of comparisons. Whatever comes to mind 1st compared to whatever comes to mind 2nd than 3rd than 4th etc. until a decision is made or an action is taken. What we decide about is considerably more complex than animals but does that mean they aren’t conscious? I don’t think so; they’re just not very bright that’s all. Within humanity there is a gradient of intellect down to the anencephalic. If animals don’t have consciousness than shouldn’t we draw a line within us as well? If or when we encounter creatures from wherever in the universe with immensely greater intelligence than us, would that make us instantly unconscious?

Well said. We tend to wear consciousness as tribal tattoo (the Whos of Who-ville). This desperate behavior is embarrassing and clouds observation. Burdened by the false weight of our own hubris, we will never climb out of our own self imposed ignorance. The whole Pandora's Box problem isn't that the contents of the box are so extraordinary and powerfully dangerous, but that our fearful need to think them sacred keeps us from looking at the issues and systems with which we most identify. Ego is a bitch. We want so badly to be special that we end up hijacking our own potential. The final frontier for humans is to do what all evolution must find a way to do, pass the baton of complexity to the next system. To the extent that we get caught up in our own superiority we will fail and the torch passed backwards to some other as yet sentient beings. What a waste of potential, and dare I say, specialness.

One of my issues with consciousness is that there is no clear way to define when something is conscious or not. It’s all very vague. I still haven't seen a good definition of consciousness that will let anyone easily figure out if something is conscious or not... Some say we are conscious when not sleeping, and unconscious when sleeping, however in dreams you feel conscious... People are also able to move between these stages with out much issue. [unless they've been drinking a lot the night before :) ] So the argument is, if it’s so easy to go from consciousness & unconsciousness what’s the big deal about consciousness??? Why are we focusing on it at all?

It’s kind of like trying to figure out where one color begins and where another ends. People can talk about why a certain yellow-green is actually yellow and other people will say that its actually green. As we know those types of discussions are totally subjective and, from a practical sense... mean nothing. If we look at how this color issue was handled by science, we find out that: scientifically/objectively there is no color at all, there are only waves, the definition of color is all in our non-tangible abstractions.

I would like to argue that consciousness vs non-consciousness is the same phenomena as color, its a subjective dichotomy of things that are actually not very different! There is a more fundamental phenomena (learning?) that is at the base of consciousness & non-consciousness!

I like Lex's focus: figure out how "to perceive an environment and the ability to derive meaning from those perceptions." Except I would change it a bit; to "perceive" and "derive meaning" are more or less analogous for me. (I understand perception as giving meaning to detection)

So the main goal is to create meaning out of "things" (tangible or abstract). This may seem like a weird goal. "Why would we want to create subjective models out of an objective reality? If you have objective data why would you want to layer subjective meaning on it that could lead you to bad decisions!?" Because reality is just too damn complex to hold in your head, and it’s much more practical to hold salient/important parts of reality that create a good cause & effect relationship. If a car is driving towards me I don't want reality's information that there are 3 people in that car, the driver has a suit on, the car is pink; I just care that its coming at me very fast and if I don't do anything... bad things will happen.

Notice that "bad things will happen" is a totally subjective *feeling*. I'd like to further argue that feelings are very important to intelligent agents. They are shortcuts for our mind, instead of *logically* trying to figure out every possible consequence as well as their relative utility and social utilitarian effects, and ...., and …. our mind just screams *move*. That’s pretty handy. I expect a position could be taken that super-smart AIs would be able to figure that stuff out, and I would agree with that, however I believe the Feelings domain can represent the Logical domain through use of habit. But Logic can represent Feelings through use of Statistical Models and Uncertainty Management. I just think that Feeling/Habit based models are much more easily modeled than Logical Models. But more on that later I guess...

I challenge anyone to show me how a conscious-free intelligent system would be less complex than one with consciousness.

I challenge anyone to show me how a conscious-free intelligent system would be less complex than one with consciousness.

:) I challenge you to show everyone how a conscious-free intelligent system would be just as / more complex than one with consciousness

Following Bob Blum, Sir Roger Penrose at Google March 10 - 10a.....

Issac Trotts - Buzz - Public - Muted
I'm hosting a tech talk this Wednesday at Google. Title: Conscious Understanding: What is its Physical Basis? Abstract: Powerful arguments can be given, to support the case that the quality of human understanding is not something that can be simulated in a trustworthy way, by any entirely computational system. If this case is accepted, it raises the question of what deep physical processes and...
I'm hosting a tech talk this Wednesday at Google.

Title: Conscious Understanding: What is its Physical Basis?

Abstract:
Powerful arguments can be given, to support the case that the quality of human understanding is not something that can be simulated in a trustworthy way, by any entirely computational system. If this case is accepted, it raises the question of what deep physical processes and what subtle brain structures might be involved in order that consciousness can come about. Some remarkable new observations concerning A-lattice microtubules will be briefly described, these having considerable relevance to this issue.

Speaker:
Sir Roger Penrose is an English mathematical physicist and Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the Mathematical Institute, University of Oxford and Emeritus Fellow of Wadham College. He has received a number of prizes and awards, including the 1988 Wolf Prize for physics which he shared with Stephen Hawking for their contribution to our understanding of the universe. He is renowned for his work in mathematical physics, in particular his contributions to general relativity and cosmology. He is also a recreational mathematician and philosopher.

Time and Place:
10-11am Wednesday, March 10
Paramaribo Tech Talk Room, Building 42
Google campus: 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View
Collapse this post

How did you know about the talk? Is there a newsletter or .... ?

How did you know about the talk? Is there a newsletter or .... ?

The talk will be posted http://www.youtube.co...