• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Consciousness and the Paranormal — Part 4

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

Status
Not open for further replies.
. . . and the inadequacy of the model(s), e.g. in the Shanahan book. These are the types of models that become myths as per Wiesing and Shusterman.
 
Soupie said:
The movie Ex Machina, which is about strong AI and is in theaters now, is getting good reviews. I posted the trailer awhile back in the substrate independent minds thread.

Apparently the author slipped an Easter egg into the movie which seems to reveal a book which influenced his approach to consciousness.

Seems like a good book. In the same vein as Mind in Life. If so bodes well for how the movie handles consciousness and AI.

Secret code in Ex Machina : movies
Click to expand...

Is anyone aware of a movie or short story in which an AI is born with abnormal or damaged intelligence? There are many plot possibilities, but the creator would have to make choices around care taking, protecting his creation ... but also deal the creator would have to deal with empathy because the AI would be very machine-like ... not warm or cuddly or human like, and its intelligence could be alien ... so very hard to find empathy with?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Constance said:
. . . and the inadequacy of the model(s), e.g. in the Shanahan book. These are the types of models that become myths as per Wiesing and Shusterman.
Click to expand...
Currently there are no adequate models re the hard problem, right? (Although Chalmers seems to think IIT has potential.)

In the meantime, I find the "easy" problems just as fascinating. How is the mind related to the body/brain and environment? That is, how does my mind emerge from my body and the environment?

Re ex Machina. I haven't seen it yet but that's not how I imagine the plot goes but I'll probably be disappointed. My thought was that the man brought in to do the Turing test is actually an AI himself (although he doesn't realize it).

For what it's worth, I'm still entertaining the idea that consciousness is intentional information. No, there are no explanations as to why some intentional information is conscious and most is subconscious at any given moment. (Very well said above by the author of the book review shared by Smcder.)

Even if IIT turns out to be accurate - that consciousness is only correlated to integrated neurons in a state - it is not an explanation.

Whether an explanation could ever be given remains to be seen. It's like asking whether there will ever be an explanation for quantum entanglement, mass, or the speed of light.
 
Last edited:
Soupie said:
Currently there are no adequate models re the hard problem, right? (Although Chalmers seems to think IIT has potential.)

In the meantime, I find the "easy" problems just as fascinating. How is the mind related to the body/brain and environment? That is, how does my mind emerge from my body and the environment?

Re ex Machina. I haven't seen it yet but that's not how I imagine the plot goes but I'll probably be disappointed. My thought was that the man brought in to do the Turing test is actually an AI himself (although he doesn't realize it).

For what it's worth, I'm still entertaining the idea that consciousness is intentional information. No, there are no explanations as to why some intentional information is conscious and most is subconscious at any given moment. (Very well said above by the author of the book review shared by Smcder.)

Even if IIT turns out to be accurate - that consciousness is only correlated to integrated neurons in a state - it is not an explanation.

Whether an explanation could ever be given remains to be seen. It's like asking whether there will ever be an explanation for quantum entanglement, mass, or the speed of light.
Click to expand...

I went ahead and looked at the plot of Ex Machina and I seem to be mostly right ... for more interesting plots, like the ones you mention, look to other film eras, countries and independent films ... mainstream movies are going to be very conservative and predictable plot wise.

One you might enjoy is "Impostor" based on Phillip K Dick writing.
 
Soupie said:
Currently there are no adequate models re the hard problem, right? (Although Chalmers seems to think IIT has potential.)

In the meantime, I find the "easy" problems just as fascinating. How is the mind related to the body/brain and environment? That is, how does my mind emerge from my body and the environment?

Re ex Machina. I haven't seen it yet but that's not how I imagine the plot goes but I'll probably be disappointed. My thought was that the man brought in to do the Turing test is actually an AI himself (although he doesn't realize it).

For what it's worth, I'm still entertaining the idea that consciousness is intentional information. No, there are no explanations as to why some intentional information is conscious and most is subconscious at any given moment. (Very well said above by the author of the book review shared by Smcder.)

Even if IIT turns out to be accurate - that consciousness is only correlated to integrated neurons in a state - it is not an explanation.

Whether an explanation could ever be given remains to be seen. It's like asking whether there will ever be an explanation for quantum entanglement, mass, or the speed of light.
Click to expand...

Whether an explanation could ever be given remains to be seen. It's like asking whether there will ever be an explanation for quantum entanglement, mass, or the speed of light.

If consciousness is fundamental, if the universe is made up of mass, time, space and consciousness, that's one explanation ... but right now, what's hard about the hard problem is to say:

the universe is made up of mass, time, space and whatever and consciousness comes out of those fundamentals, so for an explanation to be satisfactory we have to have the same kind of thing we have for Hydrogen and two Oxygens becoming water ... we have a model and rules that show how oxygen and hydrogen bond and how water, another substance comes out of that interaction and we're happy enough with that even though there's still many questions about matter and chemical reactions.

But we don't have anything at all like that for consciousness right now.
 
smcder said:
Whether an explanation could ever be given remains to be seen. It's like asking whether there will ever be an explanation for quantum entanglement, mass, or the speed of light.

If consciousness is fundamental, if the universe is made up of mass, time, space and consciousness, that's one explanation ... but right now, what's hard about the hard problem is to say:

the universe is made up of mass, time, space and whatever and consciousness comes out of those fundamentals, so for an explanation to be satisfactory we have to have the same kind of thing we have for Hydrogen and two Oxygens becoming water ... we have a model and rules that show how oxygen and hydrogen bond and how water, another substance comes out of that interaction and we're happy enough with that even though there's still many questions about matter and chemical reactions.

But we don't have anything at all like that for consciousness right now.
Click to expand...
And as far as consciousness [feeling] being fundamental, if something like IIT were to be the case, I think it would be unprecedented for something "fundamental" to correlate with a macro process/structure such as integrated neurons in a state, right? That is, if feeling/consciousness is fundamental, why would it correlate with only a macro structure like an integrated cluster of neurons?

In that case, I'd think that feeling/consciousness was not correlated to integrated clusters of neurons per se, but rather it were self-aware consciousness. That is, the brain doesn't generate consciousness/feeling - which is fundamental - but rather the brain shapes consciousness/feeling in such a way that it becomes self-aware and thus able to self-report.
 
Last edited:
Recently I had a stomach bug and had severe "indigestion," ehem, for several hours. As a result I became very dehydrated.

I just happen to out to eat later that evening. Typically I get a water with my meal but when the waitress was taking drink orders an image of a tall glass of root beer soda and a craving for it entered my consciousness. I drink soda only occasionally. I might have a ginger ale if I have an upset stomach or something.

In any case, I thought, wow, that's odd. I considered it for a moment and then thought, hm, a sprite or 7 up would be good for my upset stomach. I thought nothing more of it.

Also I do not snack very often, and if I do it's a granola bar, yogurt, or cheese or something. We do have lots of gummy type candies around the house and I had a strong craving for some, so I ended up eating a handful of juju candies.

Later yet as I was reclining in the living room I was thinking how unusual it was for me to have craved root beer and relatedly the candy. The. Of course it occurred to me that it was likely related to the "indigestion" and apparent dehydration.

Sure enough, sugar craving has been noted with dehydration:

6 Unusual Signs of Dehydration | Everyday Health

"When you’re dehydrated, it can be difficult for some nutrients and organs like the liver which use water to release some glycogens and other components of your energy stores, so you can actually get cravings for food,” Higgins says. While you can crave anything from chocolate to a salty snack, cravings for sweets are more common because your body may be experiencing difficulty with glycogen production, he says."

Obviously I'm not revealing any major insight here. However, I remain amazed at how my body/subconscious was able to guide my apparently clueless conscious self in two instance of food choice. How did my body/subconscious know that root beer would give it what it needed? Obviously my body remember that root beer contained chemicals that it needed and was able to communicate this to my executive system, even though I had the option of choosing water anyhow, which I almost did. Same with the gummy candy. My body/subconscious mind knew they were in the house and knew how to get it in my belly.

It was a very cool experience.
 
Soupie said:
And as far as consciousness [feeling] being fundamental, if something like IIT were to be the case, I think it would be unprecedented for something "fundamental" to correlate with a macro process/structure such as integrated neurons in a state, right? That is, if feeling/consciousness is fundamental, why would it correlate with only a macro structure like a integrated cluster of neurons?

In that case, I'd think that feeling/consciousness was not correlated to integrated clusters of neurons per se, but rather self-aware consciousness. That is, the brain doesn't generate consciousness/feeling - which is fundamental - but rather the brain shapes consciousness/feeling in such a way that it becomes self-aware and thus able to self-report.
Click to expand...

the combination problem
 
Soupie said:
And as far as consciousness [feeling] being fundamental, if something like IIT were to be the case, I think it would be unprecedented for something "fundamental" to correlate with a macro process/structure such as integrated neurons in a state, right? That is, if feeling/consciousness is fundamental, why would it correlate with only a macro structure like an integrated cluster of neurons?

In that case, I'd think that feeling/consciousness was not correlated to integrated clusters of neurons per se, but rather it were self-aware consciousness. That is, the brain doesn't generate consciousness/feeling - which is fundamental - but rather the brain shapes consciousness/feeling in such a way that it becomes self-aware and thus able to self-report.
Click to expand...

And as far as consciousness [feeling] being fundamental, if something like IIT were to be the case, I think it would be unprecedented for something "fundamental" to correlate with a macro process/structure such as integrated neurons in a state, right? That is, if feeling/consciousness is fundamental, why would it correlate with only a macro structure like an integrated cluster of neurons?

I think there is an assumption here ... can you see it too?
 
Second post of this blog and relevant to our discussion of consciousness, history and critique of science and rationalism.

The Well of Galabes: The Clenched Fist of Reason

One thing about both of JMG's blogs (this one and "The Archdruid Report") are that the comments are really useful, they are moderated for profanity for one thing and I imagine for relevance as well ... the way I read them is to search for Jean Micheal Greer's responses to the comments, instead of reading each one and then backing up to those he has an interesting response to.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Steve, when I skimmed the thread this morning there was a post from you to Soupie concerning the subconscious, but it seems to be gone. What was it you were asking?
 
Soupie said:
Recently I had a stomach bug and had severe "indigestion," ehem, for several hours. As a result I became very dehydrated.

I just happen to out to eat later that evening. Typically I get a water with my meal but when the waitress was taking drink orders an image of a tall glass of root beer soda and a craving for it entered my consciousness. I drink soda only occasionally. I might have a ginger ale if I have an upset stomach or something.

In any case, I thought, wow, that's odd. I considered it for a moment and then thought, hm, a sprite or 7 up would be good for my upset stomach. I thought nothing more of it.

Also I do not snack very often, and if I do it's a granola bar, yogurt, or cheese or something. We do have lots of gummy type candies around the house and I had a strong craving for some, so I ended up eating a handful of juju candies.

Later yet as I was reclining in the living room I was thinking how unusual it was for me to have craved root beer and relatedly the candy. The. Of course it occurred to me that it was likely related to the "indigestion" and apparent dehydration.

Sure enough, sugar craving has been noted with dehydration:

6 Unusual Signs of Dehydration | Everyday Health

"When you’re dehydrated, it can be difficult for some nutrients and organs like the liver which use water to release some glycogens and other components of your energy stores, so you can actually get cravings for food,” Higgins says. While you can crave anything from chocolate to a salty snack, cravings for sweets are more common because your body may be experiencing difficulty with glycogen production, he says."

Obviously I'm not revealing any major insight here. However, I remain amazed at how my body/subconscious was able to guide my apparently clueless conscious self in two instance of food choice. How did my body/subconscious know that root beer would give it what it needed? Obviously my body remember that root beer contained chemicals that it needed and was able to communicate this to my executive system, even though I had the option of choosing water anyhow, which I almost did. Same with the gummy candy. My body/subconscious mind knew they were in the house and knew how to get it in my belly.

It was a very cool experience.
Click to expand...

Later yet as I was reclining in the living room I was thinking how unusual it was for me to have craved root beer and relatedly the candy. The. Of course it occurred to me that it was likely related to the "indigestion" and apparent dehydration.

If it occured to you (consciously) later, why are you surprised that it occured to you (unconsciously) earlier? You seem to draw a distinction between "you" and "your" "subconscious"?

Obviously I'm not revealing any major insight here. However, I remain amazed at how my body/subconscious was able to guide my apparently clueless conscious self in two instance of food choice. How did my body/subconscious know that root beer would give it what it needed? Obviously my body remember that root beer contained chemicals that it needed and was able to communicate this to my executive system, even though I had the option of choosing water anyhow, which I almost did. Same with the gummy candy. My body/subconscious mind knew they were in the house and knew how to get it in my belly.

The image I get is that you think of the subconscious as a kind of alien or other, maybe primitive thing "inside" of "you" - you seem to ask how could this unconscious "system" know something before "you" consciously figured it out ... ? Is that right?

Also ... wouldn't it be the case that there would be a lot of intelligence behind the process of eating? More than what "we" could "consciously" bring? There is at least sight, smell, taste, texture and chemical processing going on ... I suppose someone could sit down and think through all of the above and decide what I need is sugar and salt and etc ... but it seems more likely to me to occur exactly the way it did - that you, not thinking, got what you needed and then later realized that you got what you needed.

Honestly, I'd hate to leave bodily functions to the conscious mind ... I don't think "I" would survive for long.
 
Constance said:
Steve, when I skimmed the thread this morning there was a post from you to Soupie concerning the subconscious, but it seems to be gone. What was it you were asking?
Click to expand...

Just posted a little different version.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top