that a conscious entity had to construct the calculator — TheVeryIdea

No.

someone had to read the result from the electronic calculator — TheVeryIdea

And interpret the marks as symbols with meaning, yes.

But am I not interpreting marks on the paper or in my brain when I do the calculation without using a machine? The whole of mathematics is an abstract construct, the reality is that I take some bricks and stack some more on top and see that the pile is now bigger. To represent how many bricks I had I could invent an abstract symbology such as numbers to allow me to describe the number of bricks without having to show you a pile of bricks. Is it not the case that at that point I am interpreting the marks as symbols with meaning whether or not I use an electronic calculator?

And when the maths becomes more complex it becomes increasingly necessary to write down the symbols and interpret them, 2+2 most people can do in their head, Fermat's last theorem needs writing down. At what point does it transition from observer independent to observer relative?

E.g. if I add 2 + 2 and get 4 then that is just a fact, a property of the universe — TheVeryIdea

You and your brain interpreting the symbols is the independent fact, not the maths itself. I think. From memory. Quote specifically if I'm wrong on this point, and Searle espouses mathematical Platonism.

But am I not interpreting marks on the paper or in my brain when I do the calculation without using a machine? — TheVeryIdea

Sure. With or without.

So no "transition".

You and your brain interpreting the symbols is the independent fact, not the maths itself. I think. Quote specifically if I'm wrong on this point. — bongo fury

I think you are correct on that point as far as Searle is concerned I'm not disagreeing with you, just struggling with Searle :smile:

It seems that Searle is saying then that consciousness creates the independent fact which I suppose ties in with the quantum mechanics observation effect

It seems that Searle is saying then that consciousness creates the independent fact — TheVeryIdea

Yep. Is that fact.

which I suppose ties in with the quantum mechanics observation effect — TheVeryIdea

I wouldn't know! But this is you not Searle?

On the face of it this seems a strange distinction to me, am I correct in assuming that Searle's argument is based on the notion that a conscious entity had to construct the calculator and someone had to read the result from the electronic calculator so the result does not exist without an observer? — TheVeryIdea

He is saying that computation is only ever interpreted. The computer doesn't have belief that 2 + 2 = 4. It hasn't proven it. It doesn't understand it. It only manipulates it based on how it operates. Syntax without semantics.

:up:

Searle's observer independent refers to an animate system (such as a person) which, when experiencing identical inputs, may result in alternate outputs because it has consciousness.

Searle's observer dependent refers to an inanimate system (such as a calculator) which, when experiencing identical inputs, must result in the same output because it doesn't have consciousness.

However, the assumption that an animate system with consciousness (such as a person) when experiencing identical inputs may result in alternate outputs is unproven and needs to be justified.

Excellent lecture, thanks!

He means that an abacus does not literally compute 2 + 2, or any other computation you use it for. Simply, if you code your 2+2 on the abacus the right way, and if you interpret the abacus' output the right way, you'll get 4. But the abacus itself doesn't interpret anything, or compute anything, it's just a piece of wood. Same for any computing machine.

:up:

He means that an abacus does not literally compute 2 + 2, or any other computation you use it for. Simply, if you code your 2+2 on the abacus the right way, and if you interpret the abacus' output the right way, you'll get 4. But the abacus itself doesn't interpret anything, or compute anything, it's just a piece of wood. — Olivier5

I get your point and I am stuck by the example of an abacus because at some level the abacus is the only computing machine that does actually physically represent 2+2

that does actually physically represent 2+2 — TheVeryIdea

Represented to whom? Something has to matter to something. That is where all this debate happens I guess.. And language games about it.. Is an effect something that matters to a subsequent cause that matters to an effect? What would that even mean? Some information people would say there is mattering in what happens to matter.

Some information people would say there is mattering in what happens to matter. — schopenhauer1

In fact, that may be the weak point in Searle's lecture, at 33 mn or so: he starts to speak about information for 30 seconds, cracks a joke, and then moves back to talking about computers. It seems to me that all living creatures are information-intensive. There may perhaps not be information stricto sensu in a molecule of water -- in the absence of a living creature sensing it and for whom water would matter, as you say, water is perhaps best conceived as only a form, not yet information -- but what is the genetic code and DNA if not an information management system? It has syntax AND semantics (the proteins can be seen as the meaning of the DNA code).

the example of an abacus — TheVeryIdea

I knew that @schopenhauer1 had already given the answer to the OP question but I like the abacus metaphor a lot, so I couldn't resist using it once more... :nerd:

:up:

The phrases "observer independent" and "observer dependent" should be treated as figures of speech rather than taken literally.

"Observer independent" refers to a conscious person having free will. "Observer dependent" refers to a non-conscious thing not having free will. Searle's inferred assumption is that free-will is a consequence of consciousness.

Consider two unobserved rocks on the moon. We have examples of i) information, in that there is a particular arrangement of things ii) numbers, in that 1 + 1 = 2 and iii) computation, as that of an abacus, in that 1 + 1 = 2.

In Searle's terms these are "observer dependent", in that there cannot be information, numbers or computation without a conscious observer, meaning that information, numbers and computation only exist in the mind, not in a mind-independent world.