My take on why indeed the study of consciousness may not be as simple

westprog said:
And if we are in a simulation, then we cannot comment in any way on physical restrictions since we have no idea what the laws of physics are, or even if there are such laws.
Click to expand...

Maybe now you understand why the rest of us are not commenting on physical restrictions...
 
rocketdodger said:
Well, those are good questions, but that isn't what is important in this context.

What is important is whether or not -- if we are in a simulation -- whatever is responsible for our consciousness can be simulated another level down.

Now, I already asked Robin this question -- is there any mathematical reason why not?

I am not aware of one, so I will assume that yes, if we are in a simulation, then we could simulate everything in this simulation within a simulation of our own.

And since we have no way to determine whether or not we are in a simulation... any model should take into account both possibilities.

Guess what -- the computational model does. It works just fine regardless.

Do the others?
Click to expand...

So now we're left with the question of whether or not consciousness is a construct -of- the simulated universe or something beyond it's frame merely interfacing -with- the simulated universe. There are a whole bevy of potential implications to such a proposition that are beyond even the scope of the discussion so far. You've basically opened the the door to the question of whether or not consciousness transcends this universe :boggled:

ETA:

rocketdodger said:
Maybe now you understand why the rest of us are not commenting on physical restrictions...
Click to expand...

You do realize that you've conceptually opened the door to the possibility of the "supernatural" right..?
 
Last edited:
rocketdodger said:
Lol -- so you don't consider any other creatures conscious?
Click to expand...

So far I'm happy to accept that anyone who says he is conscious, is. Meanwhile, I don't know of any infallible test. The Turing test is at best highly informal. Not many scientific analyses consist of chatting.
 
westprog said:
No, that's a brilliant definition.

Crime is when people behave in a certain way.

Sex is when people behave in a certain way, but differently to crime except when it isn't.

Mathematics is when numbers behave in a certain way.
Click to expand...

And?
 
AkuManiMani said:
You do realize that you've conceptually opened the door to the possibility of the "supernatural" right..?
Click to expand...

No, because hard limits still exist.

So the "door" hasn't been opened any wider than it already is. I simply pointed out that we are clueless past a certain boundary in yet another dimension, in addition to time and space.
 
westprog said:
Saying that something behaves in a certain way is not a definition - it's almost meaningless. Saying what way things behave when they are doing something is a prerequisite.
Click to expand...

Huh?

If I say that a series of switches behaves in such a way as to implement a NAND logical gate, that is "meaningless?"
 
rocketdodger said:
Maybe now you understand why the rest of us are not commenting on physical restrictions...
Click to expand...

The "what if we're in a simulation" approach is generally pointless, because it leads nowhere. If physicists worked on that basis they wouldn't bother doing anything, because it would all be meaningless.
 
rocketdodger said:
No, because hard limits still exist.

So the "door" hasn't been opened any wider than it already is. I simply pointed out that we are clueless past a certain boundary in yet another dimension, in addition to time and space.
Click to expand...

Well I don't think your proposition throws logical limits out of the window but it does invoke the logical possibility of superseding known laws of physics. If this world is a simulation of some sort then that means than it can be "hacked". The "world as simulation" scenario allows for processes and events which are, for all intents and purposes, supernatural.
 
If this world is a simulation of some sort then that means than it can be "hacked".
Click to expand...

No it doesn't - no matter how hard a Java Applet of The Game of Life might try it is never going to produce a pattern that will break out of the Applet sandbox and take over the browser.
 
cyborg said:
No it doesn't - no matter how hard a Java Applet of The Game of Life might try it is never going to produce a pattern that will break out of the Applet sandbox and take over the browser.
Click to expand...

My point is that if this world we live in is a simulation then events and processes within it's frame can be manipulated from the outside. For inhabitants of the simulation the modifications would be "supernatural".
 
Last edited:
cyborg said:
No it doesn't - no matter how hard a Java Applet of The Game of Life might try it is never going to produce a pattern that will break out of the Applet sandbox and take over the browser.
Click to expand...

Well, actually, it does imply the possibility.

If we are in a simulation then it is possible that there is something analagous to a buffer overrun or other program "exploit" that we could trigger, and even control, from within the simulation.

A thought which I find very tantalizing, to say the least.
 
westprog said:
The "what if we're in a simulation" approach is generally pointless, because it leads nowhere. If physicists worked on that basis they wouldn't bother doing anything, because it would all be meaningless.
Click to expand...

I fail to see why elucidating the rules of the reality we inhabit is any more or less meaningful depending on whether or not we are in a simulation.

Either way, our existence depends on those rules, and learning to predict and in turn control our environment in order to have a better and easier life is dependent upon first learning the rules.

For you to arbitrarily label it "important" only if it is somehow "more real" smacks of the objective morality you keep claiming you don't buy into.
 
westprog said:
No, that would be an actual definition.
Click to expand...

Well I don't understand the difficulty you are having understanding this.

You have switches. They are physical. You can instantiate the algorithms of computer science using switches.

So if you want a physical basis for any algorithm, simply

1) Look up the algorithm.
2) Figure out how to do it with switches.
3) There is your physical definition -- a specific example of the more abstract functional definition.

What is the problem?
 
rocketdodger said:
No -- you haven't been paying attention.

The consciousness occurs when you program the devices, not when they execute their instructions.

In other words, the "recheck" doesn't mean anything, only the initial run. And everything else is simply a remapping of the initial run. The initial run is the consciousness.
Click to expand...
Well no, everybody agreed that the re-desk check would produce consciousness - I did not see when that got changed.

So what you are saying is that when a particular set of sums are done for the very first time, a real qualitative consciousness like the one you are experiencing right now emerges.

When you do precisely same set of sums again in precisely the same order, nothing happens at all?
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
As I said above, some people will deny to their graves that we have produced machine consciousness. No matter how much it appears that the machine is having phenomenal experiences, they will say that it is not. These people have a vested interest in keeping the definition of phenomenal experience vague so that the goalposts are on wheels. I am not saying that the definition is easy to come by, only that some folks want to keep it slippery.

~~ Paul
Click to expand...
But the computationalists are also keeping it vague and slippery.

For example we have "self-referential information processing", but our brains process information about ourselves when we are unconscious.

Your definition also could not distinguish between brain events when we are conscious and brain events when we are unconscious.

So if there is a non-slippery definition of consciousness I would be happy to hear it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom