Has consciousness been fully explained?

[Piggy]

This thread isn't just about the brain if you haven't noticed, bud.

Well, it should have been.

But for some reason, these threads always get hijacked by people wanting to discuss the possibility of conscious machines.

And sadly, we get sucked in.

When I have time to keep up with it, I'd like to start a thread dedicated solely to the biology of the brain and what is known, and not known, about how it produces consciousness -- and folks wanting to discuss computers and philosophy can take it elsewhere.

 

[Piggy]

No one has to be there to define what the computer does as addition for it to be addition.

Of course they do.

Without a human interpreter, it's just electrons moving around, lights on a screen, ink on paper.

Without a human interpreter, no addition has taken place.

Ditto for the abacus.

Have your computer add 1,234 and 4,321. Now, go and look for a quantity of 5,555 of anything in your machine.

But if I pick up two rocks in my hand, then pick up two more, I have physically added two and two to get four.

Your machine only "adds" because you can interpret the symbol system it's been built to conform to, same as the abacus.

 

[Piggy]

Forums tend to have many people only interested in "winning the internets".

I can assure you that cornsail is not one of those people.

In fact, such folks are refreshingly rare on this forum.

 

[Piggy]

I'll give you the hypothetical that no one seems to want to deal with.

You have a machine that simulates the world, all the people on it, the solar system, etc. There's a simulated you, doing anything you'd do in that simulated world. As far as any simulation in the simulated world can tell, everything is real (since it is all simulated).

On what basis is the simulated person not conscious? Further, since you could be such a simulation, how can you say the simulated you in this scenario is not conscious, but you are?

In fact, this has already been dealt with on this thread.

I cannot "be" a simulation, since a simulation is an abstraction which requires an interpreter.

If this universe is a functional/scale model of another universe, well, I suppose we all could be part of that.

But we cannot be a simulation.

A computer running a sim of a human being (regardless of the level of detail) does not somehow start doing consciousness for the same reason that the same computer running a sim of a fish does not somehow start swimming.

 

[Drachasor]

In fact, this has already been dealt with on this thread.

I cannot "be" a simulation, since a simulation is an abstraction which requires an interpreter.

If this universe is a functional/scale model of another universe, well, I suppose we all could be part of that.

But we cannot be a simulation.

A computer running a sim of a human being (regardless of the level of detail) does not somehow start doing consciousness for the same reason that the same computer running a sim of a fish does not somehow start swimming.

The sim fish swims in sim water. It can't tell the difference. Sim you thinks sim thoughts. It can't tell the difference.

Again, how do you know you aren't a sim?

 

[Piggy]

The sim fish swims in sim water. It can't tell the difference. Sim you thinks sim thoughts. It can't tell the difference.

Again, how do you know you aren't a sim?

No, a sim fish does not swim in sim water, because there is no fish and no water. There is nothing to "tell the difference" or not "tell the difference".

It's like saying that a drawing of Winnie the Pooh can't tell the difference between being a drawing and being a real talking teddy bear.

Sim me thinks no thoughts because without someone to interpret the sim, it's just a bunch of components which bear no resemblance to a person, going through physical actions which bear no resemblance to anything a human body does.

I know I'm not a sim because I'm sitting here typing at my computer.

Digital simulations of real physical entities require interpretations in order for the interpreter to understand what they're supposed to be.

If a sim could actually sit and type, then a computer could power itself by running a simulation of an electrical grid.

 

[Drachasor]

No, a sim fish does not swim in sim water, because there is no fish and no water. There is nothing to "tell the difference" or not "tell the difference".

It's like saying that a drawing of Winnie the Pooh can't tell the difference between being a drawing and being a real talking teddy bear.

A drawing isn't a simulation. A fish simulated to the last detail can easily be placed in a simulated ocean. Add more fish. Add similarly simulated people. You can have a simulated world.

Sim me thinks no thoughts because without someone to interpret the sim, it's just a bunch of components which bear no resemblance to a person, going through physical actions which bear no resemblance to anything a human body does.

Not true. There would be massive resemblance. How the various simulated parts of a human interacted with each other in the simulation would be the same as an equivalent version in reality. This resemblance is WHY it is useful to simulate things on a computer to begin with.

I know I'm not a sim because I'm sitting here typing at my computer.

Again, if you were a simulated person and that was a simulated computer, you could not tell the difference. Your simulated brain would have all the simulated parts of a "real" brain, interacting with each other in the precise way a real brain's parts interact with each other only simulated, of course. The mathematical relationships in all respects and at all levels would be preserved.

Digital simulations of real physical entities require interpretations in order for the interpreter to understand what they're supposed to be.

A simulation of a fish in simulated water doesn't require an interpreter for the simulated water and fish to duplicate the relationship between a real fish and real water.

If a sim could actually sit and type, then a computer could power itself by running a simulation of an electrical grid.

In this simulation, the simulated computer would of course have to be powered by a simulated power grid. Otherwise it couldn't run. The simulated person would have to eat, sleep, etc, because all relationships between objects in the simulated world would be preserved compared to "real" counterparts.

Everything that composes a real person can be measured. The cells, organs, atoms, etc, etc. They all interact according to physical law. All of these relationships and formula can be simulated on a computer. To a person simulated in this manner, thinking simulated thoughts as their brain simulation ran, they could measure and experience the simulated world just as you or I can the real world -- assuming this world is real. Name a relationship or interaction between particles or other objects in the real world that can't be duplicated if you disagree.

 

[Meed]

Well, it should have been.

But for some reason, these threads always get hijacked by people wanting to discuss the possibility of conscious machines.

And sadly, we get sucked in.

When I have time to keep up with it, I'd like to start a thread dedicated solely to the biology of the brain and what is known, and not known, about how it produces consciousness -- and folks wanting to discuss computers and philosophy can take it elsewhere.

Good idea.

 

[Meed]

I can assure you that cornsail is not one of those people.

In fact, such folks are refreshingly rare on this forum.

Appreciated. I try not to be.

 

[PixyMisa]

No, a sim fish does not swim in sim water, because there is no fish and no water. There is nothing to "tell the difference" or not "tell the difference".

It's like saying that a drawing of Winnie the Pooh can't tell the difference between being a drawing and being a real talking teddy bear.

Sim me thinks no thoughts because without someone to interpret the sim, it's just a bunch of components which bear no resemblance to a person, going through physical actions which bear no resemblance to anything a human body does.

I know I'm not a sim because I'm sitting here typing at my computer.

Digital simulations of real physical entities require interpretations in order for the interpreter to understand what they're supposed to be.

If a sim could actually sit and type, then a computer could power itself by running a simulation of an electrical grid.

Category error.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

So the definition is "this, not that" where "this" and "that" do not refer to "things"?



Are there things that don't have meaning?



So information is:

-"This, not that"
-Something that has meaning
-Something that is not a "thing"
-Something that interacts with a system that creates/encodes it

(?)

Sorry if this seems very unclear to me. Are you no longer saying everything is information (consider everything to mean "all interactions" if you like)?

A definition of information is something that should allow us to distinguish between information and non-information. So I'm trying to think how I could use your definition to do so and I'm having a hard time. I think the problem is that it contains too many hard to define terms. It must have "meaning", must be "created" or "encoded" by what it interacts with, etc.



If we define sound, in part, as a brain activity, then it doesn't make a sound. But the waves still interact with their environment.

Are you saying information only exists in interactions with "conscious/intelligent" systems? A problem with that is we can't define intelligence and consciousness in terms of "information processing" while at the same time defining information as "interactions with conscious/intelligent systems". There is a risk of going in circles here.

Let me see if I can clear the confusion a bit. I fully admit that much of the problem arises from my poor use of language.

Nothing has meaning to a rock. A rock is not structured to 'see' information or meaning anywhere.

I think it might be more useful to express the idea as 'everything has information', but it is not information until it interacts with a structured system capable of 'seeing information' -- but that makes it sound like everything is information in one way of looking at it. Everything is informative?

No, I am most certainly not saying that information only exists with conscious/intelligent systems. I think it only exists with systems that have a particular structure that can make 'sense' of such interactions. So, for instance, (and I use this simple example again), a touch receptor will react to a certain type of stimulus and 'encode' particular aspects of the interaction -- modality, duration, intensity, location. There is nothing conscious about in a touch receptor. This is very basic information, but it can be built into much more complex structures; we happen to extract what is informative in objects using many different modalities.

While everything is potentially informative, not everything that we interact with provides us with new information. The third carbon atom to the left in an orange gives us no more information than that oranges are made of lots of carbon atoms (at least for most people).

Touch is informative at its onset. If it continues forever unabating and unchanging it is not information; receptors simply cease firing in that situation.

I just don't think it makes sense to speak of a rock as information in a world of rocks. Information, at least for me, is functional.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Of course they do.

Without a human interpreter, it's just electrons moving around, lights on a screen, ink on paper.

Without a human interpreter, no addition has taken place.

Ditto for the abacus.

Have your computer add 1,234 and 4,321. Now, go and look for a quantity of 5,555 of anything in your machine.

But if I pick up two rocks in my hand, then pick up two more, I have physically added two and two to get four.

Your machine only "adds" because you can interpret the symbol system it's been built to conform to, same as the abacus.

You are coming into a conversation already started, so let me try to explain again.

With two rocks that you pick up you must be there to see the action as addition. That is an action that is observer depedent. No question.

With a computer, we must design the system to create or have meaning. Because of the way we construct the machine, with its constraints, the act of adding two numbers together can occur without us being present. It still performs that function. It doesn't matter if I look at the numbers or not -- the action still occurs, and it is already defined.


Just as you say that a computer is just electrons whizzing around, I could say, you don't add either -- it's just a bunch of ion channels opening and closing. The reason why it isn't just a bunch of ion channels opening and closing is because we have defined what addition is in a particular type of neuronal action. We have defined the same sort of thing ahead of time with a computer. Whether or not I look at the screen, there is still a number there that is the sum of the numbers the computer added together. The act has no funcitonal significance for a human in the radical absence of a human, but the act still occurred, and it did not happen randomly like an abacus dropping where someone had to interpret it to see what it means. It would happen the same way every time following a set of prescribed rules. That is the difference between all these random actions that are so often repeated that must have order imposed on them for meaning to emerge and what I am taking about where the order is already in place.

ETA:

Or, another way of saying it is, there already was a human interpreter at the origin of the machine who defined what addition is for the machine. So the machine can continue to add in the radical absence of any other intepreters.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

And yet this physical action does not correlate to what we imagine the simulation to be simulating.

It all comes back to this: Simulating an aquarium doesn't make the computer wet, and doesn't make the computer swim.

Changing the simulation to a sim of a brain doesn't make the computer conscious.

What? It has to correlate. The simulation is not some random process -- it's expression directly correlates to the actions of the computer. Of course those actions don't have physical presence (aside from the physical aspects of electrons and movement) and no one argues that they do. But the action patterns are there. Consciousness is another type of action pattern created in the movements of ions across channels and symaptic transmission. Comparing an action pattern to a physical presence is simply wrong.

When we simulate a neuron, no one says that there is a bit of protoplasm with channels in the computer; simulations are not 'things'. But when we create the same action pattern in a computer (with whizzing electrons) as a group of neurons that 'make' consciousness, I am at a loss to understand how the same action pattern in one medium is somehow different when it is in another. Of course, for us to see it we have to translate the action pattern in a computer into understandable output -- so it must be linked in some way to a peripheral device or devices.

 

[rocketdodger]

That rocketdodger's post was incorrect, obviously.

If I said anything incorrect, I would know about it by now.

so no, I wasn't incorrect.

 

[rocketdodger]

And how does that differ from info in computers? And no I don't think 'another computer' or even 'another machine of some sort' interprets it will be an actual answer.

What are you talking about?

This is a very simple physical definition that applies to all information of all conceivable types.

System A changes it's behavior, for some reason, when the behavior of system C changes.

But A's only access to the state of C is via the intermediary B.

Hence, B is information regarding the state of C, from the perspective of A.

It couldn't be more simple.

 

[rocketdodger]

Keep in mind I'm looking for a generalized definition of information. Does the definition change depending on the system?

I provided one. See the previous post.

 

[rocketdodger]

I stopped following the thread in detail a couple pages ago. Just been skimming. I do know that RocketDodger and I have never seen eye to eye on anything, and neither of us has put the other on ignore.

I don't put anyone on ignore, I don't see the point.

Never stop learning.

 

[rocketdodger]

Whoa, hoss.

Now you're getting sloppy again and conflating models and simulations.

Your statement here makes no sense.

You can't replace neurons with simulated neurons, only physical equivalents.

It's like saying "What if I replaced your thyroid with a digital simulation of a thyroid?" It's bunk.

I can only replace your thyroid with a functional model of a thyroid.

Your distinction between a model and a simulation is arbitrary.

Mathematically, there is no difference.

I can have an artificial neuron, the internal state of which is controlled with a computer simulation of the internals of a neuron, that includes an interface so the internal simulation is able to interact with the external environment. So the neuron is part simulation and part real neuron.

What do you call such a thing piggy? A model? Why? It is still part simulation, is it not?

Are you saying that anything that has a physical effect is a model and not a simulation?

Then wouldn't any simulated brain be a model brain, because you could talk to it -- physically -- regardless of what frame the simulation was in?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

What are you talking about?

This is a very simple physical definition that applies to all information of all conceivable types.

System A changes it's behavior, for some reason, when the behavior of system C changes.

But A's only access to the state of C is via the intermediary B.

Hence, B is information regarding the state of C, from the perspective of A.

It couldn't be more simple.

Ah, that's good. That's basically what I'm saying but much more coherent than my clumsy attempt.

 

[rocketdodger]

If you build any physical device which accomplishes the same physical tasks as an organic brain, then you have a model brain.

So if I create a "conscious" program that is limited to the software of a computer and has access to sensors and output devices, and is able to interact with you like an intelligent human, we can assume it is a model consciousness instead of a simulated one?

I don't see how this isn't an arbitrary distinction, given that if you simply replace the digital signals coming from the sensors with "simulated" ones under your semantics the consciousness is now simulated rather than modeled.

I'm getting really tired of repeating this same obvious fact over and over again.

I am getting tired of seeing you try to justify it logically. It is painful.