Has consciousness been fully explained?

[rocketdodger]

No. That is not my "self".

That was just a generalization. What I mean is that to human consciousness "self" is not the individual particles that make up the body the brain resides in. It is a collection of ideas that generally reference higher level aggregates, like what you see in the mirror.

You have no concept of "that is my neuron #4342525" like you do "that is my left foot."

 

[my_wan]

Hypothesized by some; facts not in evidence.

Is life something different and beyond SRIP?

If you define the variables of a simulation as something that doesn't exist outside that simulation, where did it come from, magic?

 

[Meed]

non sequitor - see JREF, consciousness threads.

Do you mean me or RD?

 

[Meed]

Well I am arguing the converse -- I say that if there isn't enough gray area then a distinction should be justified.

Just because westprog can produce a number of gray area examples doesn't mean that the "switching" distinction between a transistor and a bowl of soup isn't justified.

It could potentially be justified, but you haven't provided such a justification, as far as I can tell.

 

[Meed]

Hmmm, that will take some time. I am pretty sure I can come up with something ...


Are you actually disputing that it is impossible, or do you just want to see a proof?

I thought you were saying it is a mathematical fact that "life and consciousness can exist within a simulation". I was challenging this claim.

I don't dispute that life and consciousness can exist within a simulation, granted that "simulation" is a very broad term. If by simulation you mean a computer program then I would dispute the idea. I think it's possible that a computer could be conscious (not the algorithm input into it), although I definitely wouldn't say it's a mathematical fact.

 

[rocketdodger]

I thought you were saying it is a mathematical fact that "life and consciousness can exist within a simulation". I was challenging this claim.

I don't dispute that life and consciousness can exist within a simulation, granted that "simulation" is a very broad term. If by simulation you mean a computer program then I would dispute the idea. I think it's possible that a computer could be conscious (not the algorithm input into it), although I definitely wouldn't say it's a mathematical fact.

Err, I thought you were talking about the claim that it is impossible to prove we are not in a simulation.

Supposing that *is* a mathematical fact, the rest follows quite easily as fact:

1) It is impossible to be certain that we are not in a simulation.
2) I am both alive and conscious.
3) If both life and consciousness are not possible in a simulation, then because of 2) I can be sure I am not in simulation.
4) But this conflicts with 1). Thus both life and consciousness must be possible in a simulation.

So it all depends on whether the claim that it is impossible to determine if one is in a simulation holds water. I think it does, but the proof is probably quite complex.

 

[rocketdodger]

It could potentially be justified, but you haven't provided such a justification, as far as I can tell.

Well, a bowl of soup cannot function as a switch. Do you really need a formal definition of "switch" in order to agree with that sentiment?

 

[Jeff Corey]

So? He's wrong. Church-Turing thesis. It proves mathematically that he's wrong. It is a mathematical fact that anything the brain can do, an artificial neural network can do, and anything an artificial neural network can do, a stored-program computer can do. Or a Turing machine, or lambda calculus, or recursion, or a whole list of other computational methods. All mathematically identical.

Oh, really. I'm jest a simple old country Skinnerian behaviorist, but I can tell that you have no evidence for that.

 

[Meed]

Err, I thought you were talking about the claim that it is impossible to prove we are not in a simulation.

Well, what you said was something like "It's impossible to prove we are not in a simulation, therefore life and consciousness can exist within a simulation. That is a mathematical fact." I took the conclusion to be what you meant was a mathematical fact, but I don't see how either are. I'm not sure it matters though, because I don't think the conclusion follows from the premise.

Supposing that *is* a mathematical fact, the rest follows quite easily as fact:

1) It is impossible to be certain that we are not in a simulation.
2) I am both alive and conscious.
3) If both life and consciousness are not possible in a simulation, then because of 2) I can be sure I am not in simulation.
4) But this conflicts with 1). Thus both life and consciousness must be possible in a simulation.

Being unable to prove something is impossible does not make it necessarily possible. So the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise.

So it all depends on whether the claim that it is impossible to determine if one is in a simulation holds water. I think it does, but the proof is probably quite complex.

If it's a "mathematical fact" then there should be something you can cite.

 

[my_wan]

I still say it boils down to this: Unless you can define magic variable, all variables used to define a simulation are real variables in real space.

Come the think of it, that's what Christians claim the physical world is. A supernatural creation separate and independent of the supposed reality that created it.

 

[rocketdodger]

Being unable to prove something is impossible does not make it necessarily possible. So the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise.

But it doesn't need to be necessarily possible for that logic to work (and anyway I am unconvinced of what you say here -- how can it not be necessarily possible if you can't prove it to be impossible? )

All that matters is that if life and consciousness could not exist in a simulation, we would be able to determine with 100% certainty that we are not in a simulation. If that conclusion is something mathematics says cannot be made, then the premise that life and consciousness can't exist in a simulation is obviously wrong.

If it's a "mathematical fact" then there should be something you can cite.

Well I can always toss in the old incompleteness theorems. I am sure they have something to do with it.

 

[AlBell]

I still say it boils down to this: Unless you can define magic variable, all variables used to define a simulation are real variables in real space.

Come the think of it, that's what Christians claim the physical world is. A supernatural creation separate and independent of the supposed reality that created it.

When a simulation contains all real space variables it's no longer a simulation, so simulations never contain all real space variables.

Paraphrasing a wise writer: The difference between magic and incompletely understand interactions between real world variables is undectectable.

 

[bluskool]

I still say it boils down to this: Unless you can define magic variable, all variables used to define a simulation are real variables in real space.

But the variables in simulated space aren't the same as the variables in physical space. If they were, simulated fire would melt the computer.

 

[bluskool]

But it doesn't need to be necessarily possible for that logic to work (and anyway I am unconvinced of what you say here -- how can it not be necessarily possible if you can't prove it to be impossible? )

If we had complete knowledge and couldn't prove it impossible, then it would necessarily be possible. Since we have incomplete knowledge, we can only say that we don't know if it is possible.

The problem with your argument, though, is that if the "if statement" in 3) is true, 1) is false.

1) is a consequence of our limited knowledge, not a necessary truth.

 

[rocketdodger]

If we had complete knowledge and couldn't prove it impossible, then it would necessarily be possible. Since we have incomplete knowledge, we can only say that we don't know if it is possible.

But it is impossible to have complete knowledge .... isn't that a tenant of modern mathematics? Incompleteness?

 

[bluskool]

But it is impossible to have complete knowledge .... isn't that a tenant of modern mathematics? Incompleteness?

Right, so we don't know if 1) is true.

 

[Meed]

But it doesn't need to be necessarily possible for that logic to work (and anyway I am unconvinced of what you say here -- how can it not be necessarily possible if you can't prove it to be impossible? )

It does need to be necessarily possible, because that was your whole conclusion.

How can it not be necessarily possible if you can't prove it to be impossible? Well, you could use that logic to say that as far as we know it's possible. But that doesn't mean it's actually possible. You seemed to be using the word in the latter sense (i.e. when you conclude "therefore it's possible for life and consciousness to exist within a simulation" - paraphrase). I don't think you meant "possible" as in we don't know whether it could happen or not due to incomplete knowledge. But if that is what you meant then I'll take back saying that your logic is unsound.

If not, I'll try putting it another way.

Assume A is actually impossible.
Assume B cannot prove whether or not A is occurring.

Consistent? Or do you think everything that's impossible can be proven impossible?

All that matters is that if life and consciousness could not exist in a simulation, we would be able to determine with 100% certainty that we are not in a simulation.

Why?

 

[Meed]

Well I can always toss in the old incompleteness theorems. I am sure they have something to do with it.

You seem a lot less sure than when you proclaimed it a mathematical fact.

 

[rocketdodger]

Right, so we don't know if 1) is true.

But even without complete knowledge we can know some things are impossible. In particular, mathematical statements that are untrue can never, ever, ever describe reality.

That was why I brought up incompleteness -- we know we have imperfect knowledge, but we also know many things are impossible.

Thus all I need to do is find a way to describe simulations and the act of determining if one is in a simulation, mathematically. Then if "determining one is not in a simulation" ends up being a provably false mathematical statement we know with 100% certainty, even without "complete knowledge," that it is impossible in reality.

 

[bluskool]

All that matters is that if life and consciousness could not exist in a simulation, we would be able to determine with 100% certainty that we are not in a simulation.

Why?

Sorry to step on RD's toes, but that is pretty simple deduction.
1) Life and consciousness cannot exist in a simulation
2) We are alive and conscious.
3) Therefore, we are not in a simulation.

If 1) and 2) are true, 3) is necessarily true.