Has consciousness been fully explained?

[westprog]

Why not? If we were to precisely match all the information in a simulated body to a robot and had the simulated body run should we not expect the robot in the real world to run?

If a woman watches a Pilates DVD, and precisely matches the information, she will be doing Pilates. The DVD won't be doing Pilates. If we say "the woman on the screen is doing Pilates" then we don't really think that Pilates is taking place.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

If a woman watches a Pilates DVD, and precisely matches the information, she will be doing Pilates. The DVD won't be doing Pilates. If we say "the woman on the screen is doing Pilates" then we don't really think that Pilates is taking place.

Again, you are using 'simulation' in an entirely different way than RD and Pixy are using it.

And you did not answer my question. The issue is whether what occurs in a robust simulation, if linked to the mechanism to make a robot move, could make the robot move. Do you say that it could or that it could not?

I see no objection to the processing going on in simulated consciousness (where that world is built from the ground up including the behaviors of every quark in the 'real world') being able, if linked to a robot, carrying on a conversation that would be indistinguishable from two people talking. On what grounds could you say that it would not?

ETA:

No one, by the way, is arguing anything similar to "the DVD is doing pilates", so again I'm not sure exactly what your point in using that example might be.

 

[PixyMisa]

Thanks for stating your perspective clearly.

How is information being substrate-independent not dualistic?

What I mean when I say that information is substrate-independent is that it doesn't matter what the substrate is. Any piece of information can be encoded in any substrate. But there still has to be some sort of substrate.

Does that answer the question?

 

[PixyMisa]

Why would a simulated consciousness be conscious in our frame?

Because you can interact with it in exctly the same way and to exactly the same degree you can interact with a consciousness in our frame.

 

[Frank Newgent]

Thanks for stating your perspective clearly.

How is information being substrate-independent not dualistic?

What I mean when I say that information is substrate-independent is that it doesn't matter what the substrate is. Any piece of information can be encoded in any substrate. But there still has to be some sort of substrate.

Does that answer the question?

No. That information appears to be qualitatively different from whatever substrate it pops up in.

 

[PixyMisa]

Magic?

Whatever does (or does not ?) happen under Planck limits and/or in dimensions 5-10 or 5-11 that effects the reality we can observe.

The point of the Planck limit is that there's no such thing. There is nothing happening under the Planck limit that affects reality. That's what the limit is. There is nothing below that limit.

Now, as to hypothetical extra dimensions, whatever effect they might have is the same for everything in the Universe. As far as we've been able to measure it so far, that is zero. Which is why they're still hypothetical.

Because of this, we know for certain that they have no role in consciousness. It's hypothesised that gravity extends into the higher dimensions, but that those dimensions are too small for us to measure the effect with current experimental techniques. However, we know that easily measurable differences in gravity have no effect on consciousness. So the relevance of those dimensions, even if they exist, is zero.

So no. Those things either do not exist or have no effect on consciousness.

 

[westprog]

Explain please. If a simulation simulates in every detail every quark in the real world, every interaction in the real world, how are the actions in that simulation not like the actions in the real world? Of course they "exist" within a digital frame and so do not interact with the physical world, but the physical world also does not interact with the digital world (except where it can interfere with the manifestation of it through the physical processes that create that digital world).

It's simply not possible to create a simulation of even a single particle, since it interacts with all the other particles in the Universe. A particle in such a simulation would still only exist in the perception of the person interacting with the simulation. It would not be a particle in the sense of something with "real" existence.

Running on film is not a simulation in the sense being discussed, so I don't know why you bring it up.

Because a simulation is a simulation. It's just a matter of the number of behaviours being simulated. A painting of an orange is a simulation of an orange, just like a computer animation of an orange falling off a table. The orange in the computer has no more real existence than the orange in a mirror.

We don't ask "Is the orange the light from the sun that reflects off the skin? Is it the chemical reaction in the retina?". We are quite clear - the orange is not the process that allows itself to be perceived. It's the thing in the fruit bowl. A simulation of an orange is quite another thing. It's not necessarily anywhere. It's not a "thing" - it's a perception of a thing that isn't actually there.

Of course, sometimes there might be an actual object. A plasticine orange is an actual object. We have no problem with knowing that we can't eat it though.

This is important because if people are going to ascribe independent capacities to a simulation, we should be clear about what it is.

 

[PixyMisa]

No. That information appears to be qualitatively different from whatever substrate it pops up in.

If you look at the substrate rather than the information, sure. But if you do that, you are completely missing the point.

I can store a movie on a reel of film, on a laserdisc or DVD or Blu-Ray disc, on video tape, on a hard disk, or on an SD card.

It's the same movie. On the reel of film, I can actually see the pictures that make up the movie. I can't see that on any of the other substrates. It's still the same movie.

 

[PixyMisa]

Because information is not a "thing"; it exists in interactions of 'things'. The reason that we have dualistic categories and Descartes arrived at his form of dualism is because consciousness has the same 'property'. It is an action, and actions are substrate-independent -- they can be realized in multiple different systems.

We run into this problem because words like 'information' and 'consciousness' are nouns and that makes us think of them as 'things'. They really should be verbs because they are not 'things' but rather actions.

At some point Piggy and I were using the term "consciousing". Unfortunately it's a horrible word.

 

[AlBell]

The point of the Planck limit is that there's no such thing. There is nothing happening under the Planck limit that affects reality. That's what the limit is. There is nothing below that limit.

Unknown, and certainly nothing we can ever know.

Now, as to hypothetical extra dimensions, whatever effect they might have is the same for everything in the Universe. As far as we've been able to measure it so far, that is zero. Which is why they're still hypothetical.

Agreed, yet current theories all depend on their "reality".

Because of this, we know for certain that they have no role in consciousness. It's hypothesised that gravity extends into the higher dimensions, but that those dimensions are too small for us to measure the effect with current experimental techniques. However, we know that easily measurable differences in gravity have no effect on consciousness. So the relevance of those dimensions, even if they exist, is zero.

So no. Those things either do not exist or have no effect on consciousness.

A nice assertion, unsupported and unsupportable, apparently true at our current state of knowledge and understanding.

 

[!Kaggen]

Very well put.

I have a few questions.

What is the number of physical facts needed for creating an arbitrary accurate and precise simulation?

Many. But finite and well-defined. You'd have to define the system being simulated, then we could calculate the upper bound.

How does one define a system of which we do not know all the physical facts yet, such as consciousness.

Assuming we have chosen enough physical facts for creating an arbitrary accurate and precise simulation should we stop searching and/or adding physical facts to our simulation, even if they make no difference to the observed behavior of the simulation?

The whole idea of the Planck scale is that there is a point at which there is simply no more detail. Any finite physical system can be fully described by a finite amount of information.

Yes, certainly in theory, but in practice how do we know we have all the information and have come to a point where there is no more detail required?

For example we have found lots of DNA in cells that appear to serve no purpose (at least we have not found it yet), should we leave these physical facts out of a simulation of a cell?

Well, the DNA is actually, measurably there, and changing the DNA will have an actual, measurable effect, even if it still codes for all the necessary proteins. Depends on what you're trying to do with the simulation.

Not sure I understand you here.
I will try the question this way.
We have DNA which appears to serve no function. i.e. the organism's behavior, as far as we can tell, is not affected by it. If we want to simulate an organism can we leave out the information in the simulation related to its DNA that appears to serve no function?

This has interesting consequences for RD transporter dilemma.

Does it matter that our simulated world may have less physical facts than the world we are simulating, but the same behavior?

Possibly. It would tell us something. For example, if we build an accurate biological simulation but leave out the "junk" DNA, and we end up with the expected behaviours, then we know the "junk" DNA is really junk - to whatever extent the simulation runs. If we observe different behaviours, that would indicate that the "junk" DNA actually has a function.

So I think this answers the previous question, but not the question that I asked.
I will try again.
Is a simulation of an organism which excludes information of the physical organism being simulated but exhibits all the behavior of the organism an arbitrary accurate and precise simulation?

How long do we keep monitoring the behavior of our simulation to make sure we have an arbitrary accurate and precise simulation?

For a Planck scale simulation, you know exactly the scope of the information you need before you even start.

Yes but to practically get all this information and decide which is relevant (see Junk DNA example above), we will need to monitor behavior in our growing model to decide whether new information is necessary or tested information is not.

So I am not sure you have answered the question as to how long do we monitor behavior before deciding whether the information inputted is sufficient to simulate an arbitrary and precise simulation?

For a simulation at a higher level of abstraction or a larger granularity, you do need to check to see if your abstraction is correct. How long that took would depend on the simulation in question.

Lets take a simulation of consciousness as an example then for an answer to the previous question.

 

[PixyMisa]

Unknown, and certainly nothing we can ever know.

Wrong. Sorry, you don't just get to make up new physics.

Agreed, yet current theories all depend on their "reality".

Not true, and so what if it were true?

A nice assertion, unsupported and unsupportable, apparently true at our current state of knowledge and understanding.

So, you are invoking an unmeasurable hypothetical force that even if it exists is many orders of magnitude below known forces that have no effect on consciousness and arguing that it is the origin of consciousness?

Why don't you just say "magic"? It's no more wrong and a lot shorter.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

It's simply not possible to create a simulation of even a single particle, since it interacts with all the other particles in the Universe. A particle in such a simulation would still only exist in the perception of the person interacting with the simulation. It would not be a particle in the sense of something with "real" existence.

1. This is a theoretical enterprise. It is possible in principle even if it requires engineering beyond our current capabilities.
2. No one says that the simulation is the same in our world as something in our world. The issue is whether what occurs in the simulation has a similar type of relationship within that simulation to real things in the real world. If that is the case, then the actions within the simulation should be identical as actions to actions in the real world. Sure, real things are instantiated differently, but that is a minor point when it comes to the relations between parts.
3. The fact that a 'particle' in a simulation can be perceived as a 'particle' by someone looking at a simulation has no bearing on this argument. While interesting, it simply doesn't matter and is a red herring.

Because a simulation is a simulation. It's just a matter of the number of behaviours being simulated. A painting of an orange is a simulation of an orange, just like a computer animation of an orange falling off a table. The orange in the computer has no more real existence than the orange in a mirror.

We don't ask "Is the orange the light from the sun that reflects off the skin? Is it the chemical reaction in the retina?". We are quite clear - the orange is not the process that allows itself to be perceived. It's the thing in the fruit bowl. A simulation of an orange is quite another thing. It's not necessarily anywhere. It's not a "thing" - it's a perception of a thing that isn't actually there.

Of course, sometimes there might be an actual object. A plasticine orange is an actual object. We have no problem with knowing that we can't eat it though.

This is important because if people are going to ascribe independent capacities to a simulation, we should be clear about what it is.

You are still not following what the others are saying I am afraid. The 'particles' are being simulated, but the behaviors within the simulation follow the same rules as the 'real world', so the relations between the 'particles' should be the same. The behaviors are not being simulated in the sense that a PS3 provides a simulation of someone jumping from a building. That is not the kind of simulation being discussed.

 

[!Kaggen]

What I mean when I say that information is substrate-independent is that it doesn't matter what the substrate is. Any piece of information can be encoded in any substrate. But there still has to be some sort of substrate.

Does that answer the question?

The information of a movie on different media is easy enough to follow.
The information of the movie now in my memory is more difficult.

 

[PixyMisa]

How does one define a system of which we do not know all the physical facts yet, such as consciousness.

Doesn't matter. You just need to know how big it is.

Yes, certainly in theory, but in practice how do we know we have all the information and have come to a point where there is no more detail required?

See above. You just need to know how big the system is. How many particles are involved and how much space do they occupy. From those two facts we can calculate the upper bound on the information required to create a complete simulation.

Not sure I understand you here.
I will try the question this way.
We have DNA which appears to serve no function. i.e. the organism's behavior, as far as we can tell, is not affected by it.

That's not entirely true. The DNA, even if it doesn't code for proteins, has an effect on the organism simply by being present.

So I think this answers the previous question, but not the question that I asked.
I will try again.
Is a simulation of an organism which excludes information of the physical organism being simulated but exhibits all the behavior of the organism an arbitrary accurate and precise simulation?

Arbitrary means arbitrary. Depends on what you are trying to do.

Yes but to practically get all this information and decide which is relevant (see Junk DNA example above), we will need to monitor behavior in our growing model to decide whether new information is necessary or tested information is not.

Ultimately, no, this is not true. There is only a finite amount of information that exists for any finite physical system. If you have all that information, there is nothing more that can be necessary.

So I am not sure you have answered the question as to how long do we monitor behavior before deciding whether the information inputted is sufficient to simulate an arbitrary and precise simulation?

That depends.

Lets take a simulation of consciousness as an example then for an answer to the previous question.

Again, that depends on the details of the simulation. There's no single answer.

 

[PixyMisa]

The information of a movie on different media is easy enough to follow.
The information of the movie now in my memory is more difficult.

What your brain does to the movie is more like a review in a newspaper than a VHS recording.

 

[PixyMisa]

It's simply not possible to create a simulation of even a single particle, since it interacts with all the other particles in the Universe.

Nope. Quantum mechanics fail.

 

[rocketdodger]

The only way that running in a simulation is a similar thing to running in the real world is in the consciousness of the person observing the simulation, which perceives the existence of similar relationships which objectively do not exist.

A film of a person running will look, to an observer, much like an actual person running. Objectively, it's nothing like that at all - just patterns of light on a wall. To expect the simulation to exhibit all the behaviours of running would be the same category error as viewers in the first cinema who fled the approaching train in panic.

You are wrong, once again, and we have already shown you why, once again.

The film of a person running and the actual act of the person running are mathematically isomorphic. That is a pretty big deal, and it means actually yes, there are more ways they are similiar than just the "observer."

Furthermore -- and this has also been brought up already, and you have also ignored it -- you fail to account for the fact that a real orange is nothing but a collection of particle behaviors and it is only an "orange" in the mind of a human observer. Why do you arbitrarily label a real orange as somehow less "observer dependent" than a simulated one?

Both oranges are nothing but a collection of particles behaving in a certain way. Nothing more. For you to claim one is somehow more real than the other is absurd. How would that distinction be made, if humans weren't around to do it? Would monkeys do it? Ok, what if there were no intelligent entities in the universe. How would a real orange be different than a simulated one (assuming the computer it was simulated on was a relic from another universe ) ?

 

[rocketdodger]

Why would a simulated consciousness be conscious in our frame?

Probably because we could do stuff with it that we can do with any consciousness in our frame.

Namely, talk to it, kind of like we are talking to each other.

 

[AlBell]

Wrong. Sorry, you don't just get to make up new physics.


Not true, and so what if it were true?


So, you are invoking an unmeasurable hypothetical force that even if it exists is many orders of magnitude below known forces that have no effect on consciousness and arguing that it is the origin of consciousness?

Your idea of 'wrong' is humorous. From your wiki;

The nature of reality at the Planck scale is the subject of much debate in the world of physics, as it relates to a surprisingly broad range of topics. It may, in fact, be a fundamental aspect of the universe. In terms of size, the Planck scale is unimaginably small (many orders of magnitude smaller than a proton). In terms of energy, it is unimaginably 'hot' and energetic. The wavelength of a photon (and therefore its size) decreases as its frequency or energy increases. The fundamental limit for a photon's energy is the Planck energy, for the reasons cited above. This makes the Planck scale a fascinating realm for speculation by theoretical physicists from various schools of thought. Is the Planck scale domain a seething mass of virtual black holes? Is it a fabric of unimaginably fine loops or a spin foam network? Is it interpenetrated by innumerable Calabi-Yau manifolds,[1] which connect our 3-dimensional universe with a higher dimensional space? Perhaps our 3-D universe is 'sitting' on a 'brane'[2] which separates it from a 2, 5, or 10-dimensional universe and this accounts for the apparent 'weakness' of gravity in ours. These approaches, among several others, are being considered to gain insight into Planck scale dynamics. This would allow physicists to create a unified description of all the fundamental forces.

Why don't you just say "magic"? It's no more wrong and a lot shorter.

Look again. I did, just giving you a place to stuff it.

You know no more about what this may or may not imply for reality than anyone else does.