Robot consciousness

[shuttlt]

Also, we should note that our conscious awareness has a locatable physical instantiation, although not necessarily a precise one. Our feet seem to be below the area where conscious awareness is taking place. For that matter, so does the jaw.

The forward boundary is somewhere around the eyes.

The upper boundary is somewhere around the top of the skull. When we put a hand on top of the head, the boundary seems to retreat somewhat, giving the impression that it's below the hand.

This in itself is an indication that it's likely that we're looking at a biophysical activity of the physical organ of the brain.

Did anyone else get the sense that Piggy can actually feel the conscious boundary of his body?

If consciousness is an abstract field that surounds the organ responsible for generating the field, how are we ever going to reduce this to pure calculation?

I don't want keep this thread alive too much longer, but it just occurred to me to ask, in the context of these statements of Piggy, whether Helen Keller and others with similar conditions also locate their consciousness in the upper part of the head?

 

[Dan O.]

I don't want keep this thread alive too much longer, but it just occurred to me to ask, in the context of these statements of Piggy, whether Helen Keller and others with similar conditions also locate their consciousness in the upper part of the head?

Actually, locating the mind within the brain is a quite recent scientific development so any "feeling" of the locality of consciousness is an illusion created from such knowledge.

Jeffrey Mishlove's The Roots of Consciousness is interesting for its historical compilation on this subject.


PS: This thread is too young to be sent to thread heaven.

 

[shuttlt]

Actually, locating the mind within the brain is a quite recent scientific development so any "feeling" of the locality of consciousness is an illusion created from such knowledge.

I had taken Piggy to be referring to the subjective sense of where consciousness is located. To me that is clearly in the location he describes.

PS: This thread is too young to be sent to thread heaven.

Thread purgatory then?

 

[Philosaur]

I had taken Piggy to be referring to the subjective sense of where consciousness is located. To me that is clearly in the location he describes.

Could this just be an accident of the brain being located centrally to most of our senses? If we had eyes in our big toes, might this "pull" the feeling of the center of consciousness down toward the abdomen?

 

[shuttlt]

Could this just be an accident of the brain being located centrally to most of our senses? If we had eyes in our big toes, might this "pull" the feeling of the center of consciousness down toward the abdomen?

That's certainly my view. Piggy seemed to know a thing or three about brain research, so I wondered if there was more to it than that.

 

[Norm Breyfogle]

Computability

I'm new here (this is in fact my first post on these threads), and I spent way too much time yesterday reading most of this very interesting thread. I'm not a scientist - I'm an illustrator/writer with an interest in science and science fiction - so please forgive any erroneous use of terminology on my part.

Seems to me that the most interesting discussion revolved around contrasting opinions about the computability of the brain and especially consciousness (in particular, human-like consciousness). The "pencil brain" thought experiment especially caught my imagination, since one possible conclusion drawn from that is so counterintuitive, i.e., that such an encoding would indeed constitute actual consciousness, however slow-paced (unless time dilation or multiple universes were included in the thought experiment).

What I'd like to contribute is this: Duality was decried several times as scientifically incoherent or undesirable. However, when we look around at the Universe, it appears that something very much like duality is of the very essence of existence, i.e., polarity (opposite forces, polarized wholes, etc.) ... you know, yin/yang. Perhaps duality is, ultimately, inescapable, and the attempt to transcend it or perfectly control it may in fact be a sort of death wish disguised as a desire to master all of reality...? Everything may be computable in principle, yes, but not necessarily in actual practice, not in practical reality (the absurdities in the "pencil brain" thought experiment illustrate this, e.g., there wouldn't be enough time or paper in all the universe to achieve the encoding).

However, even though perfect predictability is literally impossible, chaos mathematics and fractals do imply that consciousness could possibly be modeled successfully. Apparently, perfectly exhaustive computability or perfectly exhaustive predictability is not necessary to model something even as complex as a human brain (and, therefore, presumably, human consciousness), and such a goal (exhaustive control or predictability) would in fact be highly (even infinitely) counter-productive. Open-endedness is a prime feature of consciousness.

 

[shuttlt]

What I'd like to contribute is this: Duality was decried several times as scientifically incoherent or undesirable. However, when we look around at the Universe, it appears that something very much like duality is of the very essence of existence, i.e., polarity (opposite forces, polarized wholes, etc.) ... you know, yin/yang.

I take it you're not intending to use yin and yang as scientific concepts? I think people are against duality because it introduces an entity that doesn't appear to do any work.

Perhaps duality is, ultimately, inescapable, and the attempt to transcend it or perfectly control it may in fact be a sort of death wish disguised as a desire to master all of reality...? Everything may be computable in principle, yes, but not necessarily in actual practice, not in practical reality (the absurdities in the "pencil brain" thought experiment illustrate this, e.g., there wouldn't be enough time or paper in all the universe to achieve the encoding).

If it's computable in principle, then it's not dualistic surely?

However, even though perfect predictability is literally impossible, chaos mathematics and fractals do imply that consciousness could possibly be modeled successfully. Apparently, perfectly exhaustive computability or perfectly exhaustive predictability is not necessary to model something even as complex as a human brain (and, therefore, presumably, human consciousness), and such a goal (exhaustive control or predictability) would in fact be highly (even infinitely) counter-productive. Open-endedness is a prime feature of consciousness.

You seem to be talking about computability here, not dualism.

 

[Norm Breyfogle]

Well, shuttlt, some of what was considered in this thread was more philosophical than strictly scientific, so I didn't think yin/yang (a philosophical concept) would be terribly out of place. I mentioned it because it seems an appropriate symbol for all dualities.

Be that as it may; doesn't computability necessarily imply and utilize duality (especially true with computable fractals, where boundaries of infinite complexity are caused by a duality: iterations that run away toward infinity vs. iterations that remain finite)?

Everything is computable in principle but not in practical reality. Isn't "in principle" vs. "in practical reality" another form of duality?

 

[steenkh]

Duality is a human concept that does not appear to exist in nature. You can always construct a 'duality' out of just about anything you like, just like you just did when you claimed that there is a duality between finite iterations and infinite iterations. Much of what we see as duality is a continuous spectrum in nature, such as light/darkness, motion, non-motion, where the one concept is just a single point on an infinite axis.

In biology too, we see that much of what we see as the result of duality like if a leaf is formed on a plant or not, is governed by a gradient, and not by a switch.

 

[Norm Breyfogle]

Whether or not duality has a strict scientific definition (does it?), philosophers have been using the term for a while and in that sense it's a lot like polarity and it exists everywhere in nature. A sharp contrast and a gradual change can differ only in resolution.

Even "a single point on an infinite axis" can be considered to assert a duality or polarity (one of pure definition): that of a single point vs. an infinite axis or line.

 

[steenkh]

Even "a single point on an infinite axis" can be considered to assert a duality or polarity (one of pure definition): that of a single point vs. an infinite axis or line.

Yes, that was what I was saying: people can find dualities anywhere they like. It is not a terribly useful term.

 

[shuttlt]

I believes Catholicism favors triality rather than duality. Is there any reason for us to give preference to duality?

 

[Dan O.]

Duality presented in this thread is not the mathematical or physical concept but the philosophical concept of dualism of the mind.

 

[steenkh]

Duality presented in this thread is not the mathematical or physical concept but the philosophical concept of dualism of the mind.

Which, if true, makes the mind a non-TM, and therefore not possible to emulate on a computer.

It is also impossible to prove, and involves stuff for which the JREF is offering a million dollar to anybody who can demonstrate it.

 

[Norm Breyfogle]

I understand, and I immediately regretted my referring to a point vs. a line as a duality (I wrote that last post of mine far too late at night, I think). Obviously, such is not a true duality; a point and a line aren't opposites of one another. What would be the true opposite of a point, anyway? I think it's a nonsensical question.

However, aren't infinity and finiteness true opposites? One might argue that infinity doesn't exist in nature, but that's also unprovable (and yes, it's unfalsifiable). And yet, it's a fact that infinity does exist mathematically. If the mathematical universe hypothesis is correct, then infinities must then exist in nature, too.

But then, the mathematical universe hypothesis isn't falsifiable, either, and therefore it also isn't scientific. But does that make it necessarily "untrue"? Can something conceivably be true but be unfalsifiable? True but unscientific?

The presently unfalsifiable may become the falsifiable of tomorrow;
how do we know if a hypothesis is permanantly unfalsifiable? By definition?

"God" IS in the gaps. Not an anthropomorphic God of some superstition religion, but "God" meaning the true unknown and the true unknowable. Many or some scientists and computationalists seem to overreach and take their methods as more than methods; they take them as the basis for their own unfalsifiable beliefs. But, science isn't a belief system; it's a method for reducing unpredictability.

I guess what I'm really asking everyone here, is for your opinions on this question: Is infinity real? If you answer with a definite "no," aren't you saying that infinity is falsifiable, when in fact it clearly isn't?

In the same manner, isn't the assumption that everything is computable also an unfalsifiable assumption? Everything may be computable to 99.n%, but never to 100% (which is why we've discovered or invented chaos mathematics).

 

[shuttlt]

I guess what I'm really asking everyone here, is for your opinions on this question: Is infinity real? If you answer with a definite "no," aren't you saying that infinity is falsifiable, when in fact it clearly isn't?

Most times when people say "no" here, they really mean "with respect to everything Science has discovered about the Universe, the answer is NO". Anyway, what sort of infinity are we talking about?

In the same manner, isn't the assumption that everything is computable also an unfalsifiable assumption? Everything may be computable to 99.n%, but never to 100% (which is why we've discovered or invented chaos mathematics).

My understanding was that chaos theory was invented because it is impratical to accurately model certain types of systems. This is not the same as saying that in principle they could not be modeled given a large enough computer and sufficient information about the initial conditions (though quantum mechanics might have a little to say about this). The issue is that tiny errors in your information, or tiny approximations in your model have a huge impact on your outcome. At a certain point in order to accurately model a pool game you need to know the gravitational influence of what the players had for lunch, and the position of Venus.

I think this is beside the point though. Nobody was talking about creating an exact replica of a specific conscious entity. The question was more like - under what circumstances would an artificially constructed entity be conscious? Modeling things with infinite precision doesn't obviously seem to be required. The only question seems to be, is consciousness just a question of information processing, or is it something more. The 'more' answer seems to lead to dualism, the 'information processing' answer seems to lead to pen and paper consciousnesses. So far nobody has come up with a third option, though Piggy appeared to be trying.

Can I ask what your thoughts are on consciousness? Is it just a case of the right atoms, in the right place, doing the right thing, or more than that?

 

[Norm Breyfogle]

What is consciousness? Consciousness is as consciousness does.

lol

If referring to human consciousness, then most would take it as axiomatic that such consciousness requires a living human brain; if referring to dog consciousness, such would require a living canine brain, and ant consciousness requires ant "brains", etc. ... even a paramecium might be said to exhibit paramecium "consciousness."

But, consciousness in general? Well, we'd have to define that, right? (which is partly what this thread is about). If both a human and a paramecium can be said to exhibit consciousness (though of very different types), then what's common between them that allows us to refer to both as exhibiting "consciousness"? Simple reactivity to the environment? But that's always a matter of degree; even rocks "react" (they resist forces but crumble under a great enough force, their atoms vibrate faster when heated, slower when cooled, ect.). Do rocks, therefore, exhibit rock consciousness? Is everything everywhere, then, part of a consciousness field?

One poster earlier on this thread asserted that defining consciousness in general is merely a semantic game, another asserted or implied that consciousness is inseparable from existence itself. I agree with both assertions because, unless we're referring to a specific organism or brain, I think any definition of "consciousness in general" will inevitably expand to the point of attaining identity with all of existence, and, in so doing, it loses any real scientific or positivist meaning at all and retains only an all-inclusive, mystical, poetic, or metaphorical meaning. It then becomes a definitonal truth, not a scientific one (still true, though! lol)

The problem with defining consciousness in general is due to the inevitable solipsism involved, for we aren't conscious of that of which we aren't conscious. To assert that consciousness is absolutely separate from any matter it can be aware of is to assert a duality, is it not? So, is the entire universe your consciousness? Can you point to anything or think of anything that ISN'T a part of your consciousness?

Are rocks placed on an endless plane in a manner which encodes human consciousness equivalent and/or identical to human consciousness? Is the "pencil brain" encoding of human consciousness actual human consciousness? Well, if a paramecium or a rock or an atom or a quantum particle can be said to be part of a universal consciousness field (which would actually be your own mind, a solipsist would say), then my answer is "yes," no matter how counterintuitive it may seem.

Back to dualism for a moment. If not for actually-existent-in-nature-dualism (or gradients, which as I pointed out can be seen as dualisms at a different resolution), wouldn't there be nothingness, i.e., total homogeneity? We require more than one pole to form a magnet; more than one point to make a universe of dimension. We require the dualities of existence/nonexistence, positive/negative, etc., in order for anything to exist. Won't the search for a final, all-inclusive GUT or a TOE forever be frustrated by this existential fact? Yin/yang philosophy addresses the inevitability of dualism while acknowledging unity at the same time (yin is always flowing into yang, and vice-versa).

Of course, as I indicated in my first post above, none of this reasoning denies that human consciousness can someday be modeled by sufficiently complex computation, embodied in some substrate other than the biological. But would it be IDENTICAL to a human consciousness? A map can be highly useful/functional without actually becoming the territory it represents. A robot that appears indistinguishable from a conscious human being may indeed be conscious, but is it human? Does it truly possess human consciousness? Might it not instead be considered a form of consciousness that's very, very similar in many ways to a human, but still not really, really "human"?

Semantic fluidity dogs us. Words aren't mathematics.

 

[rocketdodger]

What is consciousness? Consciousness is as consciousness does.

lol

If referring to human consciousness, then most would take it as axiomatic that such consciousness requires a living human brain; if referring to dog consciousness, such would require a living canine brain, and ant consciousness requires ant "brains", etc. ... even a paramecium might be said to exhibit paramecium "consciousness."

But, consciousness in general? Well, we'd have to define that, right? (which is partly what this thread is about). If both a human and a paramecium can be said to exhibit consciousness (though of very different types), then what's common between them that allows us to refer to both as exhibiting "consciousness"? Simple reactivity to the environment? But that's always a matter of degree; even rocks "react" (they resist forces but crumble under a great enough force, their atoms vibrate faster when heated, slower when cooled, ect.). Do rocks, therefore, exhibit rock consciousness? Is everything everywhere, then, part of a consciousness field?

One poster earlier on this thread asserted that defining consciousness in general is merely a semantic game, another asserted or implied that consciousness is inseparable from existence itself. I agree with both assertions because, unless we're referring to a specific organism or brain, I think any definition of "consciousness in general" will inevitably expand to the point of attaining identity with all of existence, and, in so doing, it loses any real scientific or positivist meaning at all and retains only an all-inclusive, mystical, poetic, or metaphorical meaning. It then becomes a definitonal truth, not a scientific one (still true, though! lol)

The problem with defining consciousness in general is due to the inevitable solipsism involved, for we aren't conscious of that of which we aren't conscious. To assert that consciousness is absolutely separate from any matter it can be aware of is to assert a duality, is it not? So, is the entire universe your consciousness? Can you point to anything or think of anything that ISN'T a part of your consciousness?

Are rocks placed on an endless plane in a manner which encodes human consciousness equivalent and/or identical to human consciousness? Is the "pencil brain" encoding of human consciousness actual human consciousness? Well, if a paramecium or a rock or an atom or a quantum particle can be said to be part of a universal consciousness field (which would actually be your own mind, a solipsist would say), then my answer is "yes," no matter how counterintuitive it may seem.

Back to dualism for a moment. If not for actually-existent-in-nature-dualism (or gradients, which as I pointed out can be seen as dualisms at a different resolution), wouldn't there be nothingness, i.e., total homogeneity? We require more than one pole to form a magnet; more than one point to make a universe of dimension. We require the dualities of existence/nonexistence, positive/negative, etc., in order for anything to exist. Won't the search for a final, all-inclusive GUT or a TOE forever be frustrated by this existential fact? Yin/yang philosophy addresses the inevitability of dualism while acknowledging unity at the same time (yin is always flowing into yang, and vice-versa).

Of course, as I indicated in my first post above, none of this reasoning denies that human consciousness can someday be modeled by sufficiently complex computation, embodied in some substrate other than the biological. But would it be IDENTICAL to a human consciousness? A map can be highly useful/functional without actually becoming the territory it represents. A robot that appears indistinguishable from a conscious human being may indeed be conscious, but is it human? Does it truly possess human consciousness? Might it not instead be considered a form of consciousness that's very, very similar in many ways to a human, but still not really, really "human"?

Semantic fluidity dogs us. Words aren't mathematics.

*scratches head in a confused manner*

 

[Norm Breyfogle]

Sorry. That last paragraph of mine, especially, was superfluous.

 

[steenkh]

However, aren't infinity and finiteness true opposites?

I am not a mathematician, but my immediate reaction would be to say "no". I do not think that the concept of "opposites" even exists in mathematics. Natural numbers are not the opposite of real numbers.

One might argue that infinity doesn't exist in nature, but that's also unprovable (and yes, it's unfalsifiable).

What does it mean for infinity to "exist" in nature? Infinity is a concept, not something that "exists" in nature. It is trivial to show that if you follow a ring (which exists in nature) you will never get to the end. In other words, the distance ahead of you is infinitely long.

If the universe never contracts, time may be infinite, too.

But then, the mathematical universe hypothesis isn't falsifiable, either, and therefore it also isn't scientific.

I think you are talking about mathematically derived cosmological hypotheses, and you are quite right that some may not be falsifiable, and in fact, they have been criticized for this. On the other hand, some variants of multiverse string theory can be falsified if we can ever build gravity telescopes of a sufficient resolution, so these models are theoretically falsifiable, even if in reality they are probably not so.

But does that make it necessarily "untrue"? Can something conceivably be true but be unfalsifiable? True but unscientific?

Yes, of course. There may actually be an invisible ghost living in my basement, but if we can never find out, why bother? If the ghost has any influence on our world (such as if it makes me uneasy), then it is also measurable and in principle falsifiable.

The presently unfalsifiable may become the falsifiable of tomorrow;
how do we know if a hypothesis is permanantly unfalsifiable? By definition?

Some hypothesis are permanently unfalsifiable by definition, yes. The God of the Gaps is one such entity. If this god could ever be falsified, she would not be inhabiting a gap.

"God" IS in the gaps. Not an anthropomorphic God of some superstition religion, but "God" meaning the true unknown and the true unknowable.

Why would you call it "God"?

In the same manner, isn't the assumption that everything is computable also an unfalsifiable assumption? Everything may be computable to 99.n%, but never to 100% (which is why we've discovered or invented chaos mathematics).

So far we know that everything is not computable, because we cannot compute the exact moment a radioactive atom decays. However, outside quantum mechanics, we have never found something that is definitely not computable. Consciousness is probably the only concept that may theoretically be non-computable, but that would involve new or fancy physics, which is why the reigning hypothesis is that consciousness is computable.