From: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: The rise of consciousness
Keywords: brain,evolution,consciousness
Date: 2 Sep 92 16:06:30 GMT
Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
In-reply-to: emc@doe.carleton.ca (Eli Chiprout)

In article <emc.715377015@keiko>, emc@doe (Eli Chiprout) writes:
>>He is only arguing in circles if you force *your* assumptions about what
>>consciousness is into the argument.

>I do not write off any possibility.

So?  That's a different issue from importing the possibility you are con-
sidering into charges of someone else's circularity.

>In my original post (I'll say it again) I made it clear that I
>started with the position that consciousness was different than an
>automatic algorithm.  If you (or someone else) disagrees with the
>assumption, then by all means state your case.

Fine.  Mike never contradicted your position.  You still don't seem to
understand the difference between "all" and "some"--the typical AI claim
(which you misunderstood Mike as assuming)--is that "some" programs lead
to consciousness.

>>>Then why talk about consciousness?  What differentiates consciousness
>>>from a computer program.  [...]  If what you are saying is right,
>>>then the term "consciousness" is superfluous and we might as well
>>>drop the subject.

>>You demonstrate a rather naive view of language.  We use language the
>>way do for a variety of reasons--quite rarely for the sake of logical
>>hygiene of the sort you're invoking.  Moreover, you fail to distinguish
>>some from all.  Only the most rabid AIers make the claim that every last
>>program is conscious.

>The strength of your argument comes into question here.  It is not my
>naive or otherwise view of language that is in question or "logical
>hygiene" (please define),

You argued that a certain semantic identity is grounds for dropping a
term from a debate, since logic tells us that is superfluous.  For a
situation where that identity is questionable, such a drop is improper.
And of course, even if the terms are synonymous, what difference does it
make which term is used?  Why complain?

>			   it is the explanatory power of the assumption
>that consciousness is not a computer algorithm a la Turing and that
>therefor it is really a phenomenon not to be equated with an algorithm.

The AI debate is not relevant to what I was saying.  I was addressing
the improper logic of your complaint.

>If that is a wrong assumption, then it would be difficult to explain
>the calulator problem that I mentioned and which you have not
>adressed.

I ignored it since your calculator problem is just a stupendously silly
strawman.  Few (if any) AI-ers actually claim that _all_ algorithms lead
to consciousness, just _some_.

>All algorithms (parallel or otherwise) can be made just as well on a
>calculator (or an abacus).  Why is there no sense of pain or pleasure
>with these items while there is with brains?  Why can we "look
>outside" an algorithm" to determine that it will never end?

I repeat: only the most rabid AIers claim that every algorithm leads
to consciousness.

>>>The Chinese room argument of computation would seem to be a strong
>>>refutation of that position.

>>The Chinese room is a nothing.  *ANYTHING* blown up a million fold and
>>scrutinized looks totally ridiculous compared to the original.  So what?

>Again I find the argument incoherent.  I also find it a surprising statement
>coming from a biologist who must analyze biochemistry and DNA in order
>to understand much larger effects.

Analyzing the pieces to understand the whole is not the same as saying
the million fold blowup looks ridiculous compared to the original.

>Calling an argument "nothing" is not my idea of a counter argument.

Since *anything* (OK, anything except a fractal) blown up a million fold
and scrutinized looks totally ridiculous compared to the original, Searle's
doing so in one particular case tells us exactly nothing.  It's not a
contradiction to arrive at the expected conclusion.

>Apart from our disagreement about these points, if you allow for the
>possibility that consciousness is non-algorithmic, given that assumption
>why would you think it is a useful survival tool?  I would be interested
>in your insight from a biological point of view.

What difference does it make from a biological point of view whether our
consciousness is algorithmic or not?  I can think of a few.  According
to Deutsch, quantum parallelism allows certain remarkable speedups.  If
predator/prey interactions are indeed game theoretic, then probabilistic
choices would be evolutionary favored.  Pumped phonon condensates seem
like an excellent way to rapidly equalize external energy fluctuations.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Newsgroups: talk.origins