Yes that is the question. If Red is something that exists in Physical Space then it has to be made out of Matter or Energy or some aspect of Space itself. But Red probably does not exist in Physical Space. We might say it exists in Mind Space or Conscious Space. But Red has a Property of Redness. Redness doesn't exist in Physical Space but only in Conscious Space. How do we explain that?What is the Red experience? What does it consist of? Apple pies consist of their ingredients. What are the ingredients of a Red experience? — creativesoul
What is the Red experience? What does it consist of? Apple pies consist of their ingredients. What are the ingredients of a Red experience?
— creativesoul
Yes that is the question. — SteveKlinko
Here's what you have said:It is worth noting that you've yet to have answered it. Odd. You talk about something as if it is a problem for my framework. I ask you what you're talking about, and you confirm the importance of the question and yet neglect to answer. — creativesoul
Consciousness is a chimera, residue stemming from a gross misunderstanding of what it is to be human - as opposed to just being an animal. It is not an opposite situation. It is a comparitive one. The only difference is complexity of thought and belief.
Get thought and belief right, and the 'problem' between conscious experience and physiological sensory perception(brain) is solved(dissolved) as an unintended consequence. — creativesoul
I thought the discussion was about the Hard Problem being solved by your framework. The question is the Hard Problem. You think it's solved. I say nobody knows the answer yet. Of course I don't have an answer to the Hard Problem. You have to recognize that there at least is a Hard Problem.What is the Red experience? What does it consist of? Apple pies consist of their ingredients. What are the ingredients of a Red experience? — creativesoul
I thought the discussion was about the Hard Problem being solved by your framework. The question is the Hard Problem. You think it's solved. I say nobody knows the answer yet. Of course I don't have an answer to the Hard Problem. You have to recognize that there at least is a Hard Problem. — SteveKlinko
"I thought" he had drifted from the topic.I thought is standard practice to deny the thing you can't explain, at least amon a sizeable minority of philosophers? — tom
I thought the discussion was about the Hard Problem being solved by your framework. The question is the Hard Problem. You think it's solved. I say nobody knows the answer yet. Of course I don't have an answer to the Hard Problem. You have to recognize that there at least is a Hard Problem. — SteveKlinko
This Principle does not explain how or show that Consciousness is a Software feature. It just says it is so, and assumes it for the rest of the analysis. The original intention of the Thesis was just to say that Physical Systems can be simulated by software. The Principle included some Speculation that presupposed that Consciousness was just a Physical Process. No Explanation just Speculation. Could be true but any kind of proof is missing. — SteveKlinko
Science talks about Dark Energy and Dark Matter like that, You do not get closer to understanding these things if you just use different language. Dark Energy, Dark Matter, and Consciousness are true unsolved mysteries of Science.The problem is the way it's been talked about...
Folk are saying "consciousness" but have no clue what it is. What other words do we use like that? The problem is dissolved by better language use. — creativesoul
The Principle does not "just say it is so". The CTD Principle does not mention consciousness at all. — tom
Ok. So if the Principle itself doesn't say anything about Consciousness how can it tell us that Consciousness is a Software feature? I guess I am missing your point. — SteveKlinko
The Church-Turing-Deutsch Principle tells us (proves based on known physics) that all computationally universal devices are equivalent. — tom
Science talks about Dark Energy and Dark Matter like that, You do not get closer to understanding these things if you just use different language. Dark Energy, Dark Matter, and Consciousness are true unsolved mysteries of Science. — SteveKlinko
Do you think Turing machines are subjects of experience? — Wayfarer
Equivalent in what way, they are all computational universal devices? — Metaphysician Undercover
Ignoring the fact that Turing machines don't exist - they are a mathematical abstraction - and assuming by "subjects of experience" you mean something like ""possess qualia", then the answer, as I explained above, is No. The same argument also applies to real brains. — tom
The Church-Turing-Deutsch Principle tells us (proves based on known physics) that all computationally universal devices are equivalent.
Now, there is no proof that the human brain is computationally universal, but there are extremely strong arguments to support this. The human brain not only instantiates a mind, but is capable of language, knowledge creation etc. Just visit a university library, then formulate an argument that the brain is not universal, that it is restricted somehow. i.e. that it is less than a laptop computer.
Since the brain, and computers are universal, then what one can do, the others also can. This is entirely independent of the particular physics that underlies the design or evolution of the device.
The clear implication of this, is that any abstraction instantiated on a universal computer cannot be a consequence of the particular physics. By extension, features of such abstractions, such as self-awareness, cannot be properties of the physics, they must be properties of the abstraction.
Thus the "Hard Problem" is solved. We now only need to solve the "Hard Problem 2.0". — tom
Science talks about Dark Energy and Dark Matter like that, You do not get closer to understanding these things if you just use different language. Dark Energy, Dark Matter, and Consciousness are true unsolved mysteries of Science. — SteveKlinko
I don't think you understand. Have fun. — creativesoul
The fact that the Human Mind created the Laptop would indicate that the Human Mind is greater than the Laptop. — SteveKlinko
First of all a Brain is nothing like a Computer. A Brain has Trillions of simultaneous Neural Firings at any instant of time. — SteveKlinko
What do you mean by Hard Problem 2.0? — SteveKlinko
I don't get your point here. Microsoft Word didn't create a Laptop.The fact that the Human Mind created the Laptop would indicate that the Human Mind is greater than the Laptop. — SteveKlinko
That's like saying Microsoft Word is greater than your laptop. Comparisons don't work unless you are comparing things of the same type. — tom
Good video. Gave me new insight into Universal Computing. I thought it was about Computers, but I see a Brain and a piece of writing paper could serve the same purpose but slower. How does any of this solve the Hard Problem and leave a Hard Problem 2.0 to be solved? Now can you tell me what the Hard Problem 2.0 is?First of all a Brain is nothing like a Computer. A Brain has Trillions of simultaneous Neural Firings at any instant of time. — SteveKlinko
It is proved, that under currently known laws of physics, there is no such thing as a physical system that can undergo any dynamics that cannot be exactly emulated on a universal computer. This means that nothing can exist in nature which can out-compute a universal computer in any fundamental way.
So, either the brain is a universal computer, or it is less than one.
This link takes me to David Deutsch's talk which begins at ~2:50:00 into the Dirac Medal Ceremony. Very interesting talk about the discovery of his principle.
What do you mean by Hard Problem 2.0? — tom
Good video. Gave me new insight into Universal Computing. I thought it was about Computers, but I see a Brain and a piece of writing paper could serve the same purpose but slower. How does any of this solve the Hard Problem and leave a Hard Problem 2.0 to be solved? Now can you tell me what the Hard Problem 2.0 is? — SteveKlinko
There is no such thing as a universal computer that can do something that other universal computers cannot.
There is no such thing as a physical system that can undergo any dynamics that cannot be exactly simulated on a universal computer. — tom
So a "universal computer" is a fictional thing, defined as a computational device which can simulate the dynamics of any possible physical system? Since it's fictional, how do we even know that such a devise is possible? And if we do not know whether such a device is even possible, of what use is the assumption of such a thing? — Metaphysician Undercover
If you are saying that Consciousness is something outside of known Scientific knowledge, then I agree.Universal Computing is about physics, the way reality is structured, how information flows, and also about computers.
If we accept for the sake of argument, that the brain is a computationally universal physical structure, like Babbage's Analytic Engine, or a PC, then anything the brain can do, so can these other objects. The implication of this is that consciousness cannot be a material property, or be associated with any particular physics. — tom
Seems like there is a relationship between Neural Activity in certain Brain structures that is Correlated with Qualia. So could you say a little more about what you mean by this?The Hard Problem of Consciousness refers to the problem of explaining how conscious phenomena, qualia, relate to physical phenomena. Well, the implication from computational universality is that qualia cannot relate to any particular physical structure, and thus the Hard Problem is dismissed. — tom
This just sounds like the original Hard Problem. When you say it's a Software feature I am lost. What Software are you talking about?The Other Hard Problem (Hard Problem 2.0) is how do abstract entities obtain qualia. Qualia are a software feature rather than a hardware emergence. — tom
Universal computers are real. I am typing on one. — tom
If we accept for the sake of argument, that the brain is a computationally universal physical structure, like Babbage's Analytic Engine, or a PC, then anything the brain can do, so can these other objects. The implication of this is that consciousness cannot be a material property, or be associated with any particular physics. — tom
I thought you said that a universal computer could emulate any possible physical system, and that it's impossible that one universal computer could do something that another could not. Are you claiming that you're using a computer that can emulate any physical system? — Metaphysician Undercover
The problem is the way it's been talked about...
Folk are saying "consciousness" but have no clue what it is. What other words do we use like that? The problem is dissolved by better language use.
— creativesoul
Science talks about Dark Energy and Dark Matter like that, You do not get closer to understanding these things if you just use different language. Dark Energy, Dark Matter, and Consciousness are true unsolved mysteries of Science. — SteveKlinko
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.