Has consciousness been fully explained?

[dlorde]

...
In other words, machines are artifacts of intention.

I see what you did there, but it doesn't follow that any one of several meanings of the root a word derives from is necessarily applicable to the derived word.

 

[Piggy]

We can't say that something is possible as a matter of absolute certainty when we don't fully understand the processes involved.

But that doesn't answer my question, necessarily.

"Conscious machines are possible in theory" is a pretty broad statement.

I can see why a sensible person would want to stop short of claiming that humans will eventually build a conscious machine.

But it's very difficult to understand why there should be any objection to the notion that consciousness should be a behavior somehow prohibited to any configuration of matter (whether it turns out humans can manufacture it or not) that is not a human or its relative.

 

[AkuManiMani]

I see what you did there, but it doesn't follow that any one of several meanings of the root a word derives from is necessarily applicable to the derived word.

True. But even in the modern sense of the word, "machine" implies invention. If one then applies the term "machine" to organisms you end up with a kind of chicken-egg relationship between consciousness and machines. The only difference is that while we've got the "machine" part down pretty well, we're still up in the air about the whole consciousness part of the equation.

Anywho, I suppose it's still possible to come up with a functional description of the feedback loop between the two, even if we don't yet know the nuts-&-bolts of consciousness IAOI yet.

 

[westprog]

But that doesn't answer my question, necessarily.

"Conscious machines are possible in theory" is a pretty broad statement.

I can see why a sensible person would want to stop short of claiming that humans will eventually build a conscious machine.

But it's very difficult to understand why there should be any objection to the notion that consciousness should be a behavior somehow prohibited to any configuration of matter (whether it turns out humans can manufacture it or not) that is not a human or its relative.

When something is only observed in one configuration of matter, and we don't know how it arises, I feel unable to insist that it is possible under other configurations of matter. When we know how consciousness arises, then we can state with confidence that reproducing the necessary causes is sufficient. As it is, we don't know what can be left out.

Incidentally, by "possible" I mean here "not conflicting with the laws of nature". I don't mean "we can't prove it to be impossible" or "we could do it if we really tried". As the Wasp has said, "possible" is a potential weasel word, and it's better to explain what we really mean rather than insist that the words are unambiguous when they aren't.

 

[dlorde]

True. But even in the modern sense of the word, "machine" implies invention.

It often does, I agree - but it is also used to describe systems with elements that interact to do work, that have a coordinated effect, e.g. "the machinery of the cell". One can anthropomorphise purpose, invention, intent, or design into such systems, but it is actually redundant. Complex interacting systems can arise without explicit purpose, invention, intent, or design.

If one then applies the term "machine" to organisms you end up with a kind of chicken-egg relationship between consciousness and machines. The only difference is that while we've got the "machine" part down pretty well, we're still up in the air about the whole consciousness part of the equation.

If you get hung up on the exact semantics of a word like 'machine', you will get confused, sure. I really don't see why a chicken-egg relationship is a problem. Consciousness is the product of the brain, and the brain can be considered to be a biological machine. One question in this thread is whether a non-biological machine can produce consciousness.

Perhaps it would cause less confusion if we called them 'complex mechanisms'... ?

 

[AkuManiMani]

True. But even in the modern sense of the word, "machine" implies invention.

It often does, I agree - but it is also used to describe systems with elements that interact to do work, that have a coordinated effect, e.g. "the machinery of the cell". One can anthropomorphise purpose, invention, intent, or design into such systems, but it is actually redundant. Complex interacting systems can arise without explicit purpose, invention, intent, or design.

The connotations aren't necessarily anthropomorphic. I don't think that attributes like purpose and intent are specific to humans; too some degree or another, they're inherent to any conscious system. While I agree that complex systems can and do arise without any purpose or design behind them I think there are still significant differences between such systems and those that are designed or directed by intent.

If one then applies the term "machine" to organisms you end up with a kind of chicken-egg relationship between consciousness and machines. The only difference is that while we've got the "machine" part down pretty well, we're still up in the air about the whole consciousness part of the equation.

If you get hung up on the exact semantics of a word like 'machine', you will get confused, sure. I really don't see why a chicken-egg relationship is a problem. Consciousness is the product of the brain, and the brain can be considered to be a biological machine. One question in this thread is whether a non-biological machine can produce consciousness.

Perhaps it would cause less confusion if we called them 'complex mechanisms'... ?

Hmm...I suppose the label of 'complex mechanisms' might be a more apt term. However, I think that atleast one feature the distinguishes biological and technological entities from other complex systems is purpose. Biological systems are intrinsically purposeful and artifacts of biological systems (like bee hives, beaver damns, birds nests, human tools, etc) are extrinsically purposeful. The same cannot be said of other complex systems which are neither goal directed or intentional.

This suggest that there is some subjective dimension to operation of biological systems. Unfortunately we don't know enough yet to definitively say if this property can be instantiated into inorganic substrates.

 

[rocketdodger]

True.
I'm not convinced of this. The behavior of a huge collection of particles is NOT simply the net result of the combined behavior of the individual particles. The pattern of relationships of each particle to each other particle makes a huge difference.

That isn't what I am saying.

I am saying that if you take a set of n particles, and add another one, to make it n + 1, nobody who knows anything about physics is going to say that all of a sudden the behavior of the set will change in some drastic way that can't be accounted for by the addition of the n + 1th particle.

n + 1 particles behaves like n + 1 particles, including their interactions with each other. There might be some drastic nonlinear change in behavior when you add the n + 1th, but it is because of the extra particle and the way it interacts with the rest, it is because the set is now different than it was before. It isn't because of some magic in the void.

See above. As you add more and more particles, the number of possible relationships between them increases exponentially and the ability to predict the expected behavior of those particles decreases. Given that fact, I don't get how you can be so certain of your conclusion. I'm certainly not.

Who care's if you can't predict the behavior?

The whole point of my post was that I am comfortable with the implications of mathematical induction -- if adding a particle to a small set gives results that my mind doesn't interpret as "magic," then adding more and more and more -- until I have a very large set, like a person -- shouldn't ever be interpreted as "magic" either.

There is no room for magic in the void when the collection of particles is small. There is no room for magic in the void when you add a single particle. So why is there room for magic in the void when the collection of particles is large? That is completely inconsistent with notion of mathematical induction.

Let me frame the issue another way -- would you say you are certain that the behavior of a set of n particles is entirely due to the behavior of a set of n particles?

 

[Beth]

That isn't what I am saying.

I am saying that if you take a set of n particles, and add another one, to make it n + 1, nobody who knows anything about physics is going to say that all of a sudden the behavior of the set will change in some drastic way that can't be accounted for by the addition of the n + 1th particle.

n + 1 particles behaves like n + 1 particles, including their interactions with each other. There might be some drastic nonlinear change in behavior when you add the n + 1th, but it is because of the extra particle and the way it interacts with the rest, it is because the set is now different than it was before. It isn't because of some magic in the void.

No one is claiming it's because of some magic in the void. Why do you keep making this assumption about others?

Who care's if you can't predict the behavior?

I do. If you can't make accurate predictions, then your understanding is not sufficient to support the claims you have been making.

The whole point of my post was that I am comfortable with the implications of mathematical induction -- if adding a particle to a small set gives results that my mind doesn't interpret as "magic," then adding more and more and more -- until I have a very large set, like a person -- shouldn't ever be interpreted as "magic" either. There is no room for magic in the void when the collection of particles is small. There is no room for magic in the void when you add a single particle. So why is there room for magic in the void when the collection of particles is large? That is completely inconsistent with notion of mathematical induction.

Again, no one is claiming 'magic' is happening. This claim of 'magic' is nothing more than a convenient way to dismiss the opinions of those who disagree with you.

Let me frame the issue another way -- would you say you are certain that the behavior of a set of n particles is entirely due to the behavior of a set of n particles?

How does this reframe the issue? I believe that the behavior of a set of n particles is entirely due to the properties of those particles AND to the pattern of relationships of the particles. If the pattern of the relationships is changed, the behavior may change despite the set still being composed of the same n particles as before.

 

[rocketdodger]

Btw, why do you always refer to "conscious robots"? A conscious machine need not be a robot.

Because focusing on a robot sidesteps all the irrelevant complaints made by people.

Everyone who doesn't subscribe to some supernatural notion agrees robots can be conscious. Plain and simple.

We start to disagree after that. So in an effort to root out the ulterior motives of many posters I wanted to stick to something we all agree on.

 

[rocketdodger]

I do. If you can't make accurate predictions, then your understanding is not sufficient to support the claims you have been making.

What!?

I can make a very accurate prediction that there is nothing in your brain besides particles.

My claim is that your consciousness is due to the behavior of a set of particles.

How is my understanding insufficient?

 

[rocketdodger]

How does this reframe the issue? I believe that the behavior of a set of n particles is entirely due to the properties of those particles AND to the pattern of relationships of the particles. If the pattern of the relationships is changed, the behavior may change despite the set still being composed of the same n particles as before.

It reframes the issue because it doesn't allow for anything other than the particles.

It sounds like you don't think there is any magic in there.

But don't you dispute the claim that we can be certain our consciousness comes from the behavior of the particles in our brain?

 

[rocketdodger]

Do you think there's a difference between the use of reason to decide how to act vs the use of reason to decide what to believe?

Absolutely not.

What is a belief if not an idea that guides action? What is an action if not a behavior that expresses belief?

How is the decision "I am going to eat less chocolate in the future" not also something like "I believe chocolate is bad for me in the quantities I usually eat it?"

I challenge you to come up with a single decision "how to act" that can't be framed as a decision "what to believe."

 

[rocketdodger]

When something is only observed in one configuration of matter, and we don't know how it arises, I feel unable to insist that it is possible under other configurations of matter. When we know how consciousness arises, then we can state with confidence that reproducing the necessary causes is sufficient. As it is, we don't know what can be left out.

Incidentally, by "possible" I mean here "not conflicting with the laws of nature". I don't mean "we can't prove it to be impossible" or "we could do it if we really tried". As the Wasp has said, "possible" is a potential weasel word, and it's better to explain what we really mean rather than insist that the words are unambiguous when they aren't.

What on Earth do you mean "one configuration of matter?"

You don't think humans with injured brains, or who have parts of their brain missing, or whose brains are abnormal, can be conscious?

You don't think non-humans can be conscious? Apes? Dolphins? Dogs?

You think your brain has the same "configuration" as mine? I doubt that very much. Do native English speakers have the same "configuration" as native Chinese speakers?

 

[PixyMisa]

Indeed. Consciousness survives across a huge range of ever-changing configurations and conditions. It is clearly robust and generaliseable.

 

[Beth]

What!?

I can make a very accurate prediction that there is nothing in your brain besides particles.

My claim is that your consciousness is due to the behavior of a set of particles.

How is my understanding insufficient?

You cannot explain how consciousness results from the set of particles in your brain. Given a set of particles, you cannot determine whether it is conscious or not.

It reframes the issue because it doesn't allow for anything other than the particles.

It sounds like you don't think there is any magic in there.

But don't you dispute the claim that we can be certain our consciousness comes from the behavior of the particles in our brain?

I dispute the claim that we can be certain that it is possible to create conscious devices. That isn't quite the same claim. Even if someone accepts that consciousness arises from the behavior of the particles in our brain that doesn't imply that it's possible for us to discover the pattern of activity that constitutes consciousness and reproduce it in some other substrate.

 

[rocketdodger]

You cannot explain how consciousness results from the set of particles in your brain. Given a set of particles, you cannot determine whether it is conscious or not.

But that is not the claim we are talking about.

The claim we are talking about is whether or not consciousness comes from just particles, or particles plus something else.

I don't need to know how to explain consciousness to verify that claim.

For example, I can look at things we know to be conscious -- people -- and look at what their brains are made of -- particles.

Are there any counterexamples? Nope. Claim verified. Consciousness comes from particles as far as we know.

Do you dispute this?

I dispute the claim that we can be certain that it is possible to create conscious devices. That isn't quite the same claim. Even if someone accepts that consciousness arises from the behavior of the particles in our brain that doesn't imply that it's possible for us to discover the pattern of activity that constitutes consciousness and reproduce it in some other substrate.

You are just taking a very conservative view -- there is nothing inherently dualist about that.

But I ask you this -- if we constructed a computer that was not conscious but just very meticulous, and the computer in turn constructed a person out of raw materials such that the person was indistinguishable from a natural born human -- it followed an existing "blueprint" down to the molecular level -- would that person be conscious?

In other words, forget about the issue of substrate -- it would be the same as you and me -- and forget about the issue of understanding -- we don't need to understand anything since the computer just basically copied some existing blueprint -- and focus on the "soul" thing.

Are you certain such a person would be conscious? Or do you still hold some uncertainty that the computer would "miss" something when it was constructing the person?

If you still hold uncertainty, then I have to ask what you think the computer could possibly miss when it constructed the person. What is there to miss, besides some kind of immaterial soul?

EDIT: Note that westprog's refusal to directly answer this simple question is what convinced me that he has a religious view of this whole consciousness issue. Do you, as well?

 

[Beth]

But that is not the claim we are talking about.

The claim we are talking about is whether or not consciousness comes from just particles, or particles plus something else.

I think it is particles plus a pattern of relationships between the particles that will allow consciousness to occur. That's something more than 'just particles' IMO.

A human body is essentially the same set of particles immediately after death as it was just before death, but one is conscious and the other is not. To me, that implies that consciousness is more than 'just particles'.

You are just taking a very conservative view -- there is nothing inherently dualist about that.

Yes.

But I ask you this -- if we constructed a computer that was not conscious but just very meticulous, and the computer in turn constructed a person out of raw materials such that the person was indistinguishable from a natural born human -- it followed an existing "blueprint" down to the molecular level -- would that person be conscious?

In other words, forget about the issue of substrate -- it would be the same as you and me -- and forget about the issue of understanding -- we don't need to understand anything since the computer just basically copied some existing blueprint -- and focus on the "soul" thing.

Are you certain such a person would be conscious? Or do you still hold some uncertainty that the computer would "miss" something when it was constructing the person?

If you still hold uncertainty, then I have to ask what you think the computer could possibly miss when it constructed the person. What is there to miss, besides some kind of immaterial soul?

Are you talking about a star trek transporter type construction creating an adult that walks and talks and has a complete memory of his/her existance before being transported - that person is clearly conscious.

OTOH, if you are talking about a computer that builds a unique new 'person' from a blueprint (unlike what the transporter does), then I'm not certain because I do not feel this is a reasonable thought experiment. What stage of development is the uniquely built creature at? A zygote (not conscious), a newborn baby (conscious), or an adult body lacking any memories or experiences (I don't know whether such a creature could be considered conscious or not.)

EDIT: Note that westprog's refusal to directly answer this simple question is what convinced me that he has a religious view of this whole consciousness issue. Do you, as well?

No, I don't hold a religious view of consciousness.

 

[rocketdodger]

I think it is particles plus a pattern of relationships between the particles that will allow consciousness to occur. That's something more than 'just particles' IMO.

A human body is essentially the same set of particles immediately after death as it was just before death, but one is conscious and the other is not. To me, that implies that consciousness is more than 'just particles'.

I mean "no fundamental building blocks besides particles." So all interactions between particles, and the patterns of the interactions, and the interactions of the patterns, and so on and so forth, is included.

Agree?

Are you talking about a star trek transporter type construction creating an adult that walks and talks and has a complete memory of his/her existance before being transported - that person is clearly conscious.

Not exactly, but close. A transporter is supposed to somehow "move" a person, not recreate a person.

I mean more like what was in the 5th Element:

DISCLAIMER TO READERS -- this link contains brief side-view topless nudity of a regenerated human body in a sci-fi context, whatever grow up and be an adult if you can't handle it you shouldn't be using a computer in the first place, yada yada.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlqoLi_3_Fk#t=1m25s

The important concept is that we are recreating the body's particle configuration. If there was some supernatural soul, it clearly isn't retained. Just the flesh and blood and all the organic stuff in between.

 

[AlBell]

Indeed. Consciousness survives across a huge range of ever-changing configurations and conditions. It is clearly robust and generaliseable.

Within biological lifeforms anyway; for higher levels of consciousness, correctly structured neuron networks are needed.

Other structures and conditions remain theoretical.

 

[Beth]

I mean "no fundamental building blocks besides particles." So all interactions between particles, and the patterns of the interactions, and the interactions of the patterns, and so on and so forth, is included.

Agree?

If you are willing to include any use of quantum effects (such as moving information backward through time), extra dimensions (such as those speculated in string theory), or particles we don't currently know how to detect, then sure. But at that point you have included stuff that is considered "supernatural" now.

I mean more like what was in the 5th Element:

Fun movie even if not particularly realistic. Sure, if you could do that, you would have created a conscious being. I'm not convinced that is a possible achievement. On the other hand, I can't say it's impossible either. As I said, I just don't consider it to be a certainty that it is possible.

The important concept is that we are recreating the body's particle configuration. If there was some supernatural soul, it clearly isn't retained. Just the flesh and blood and all the organic stuff in between.

I think that the body's particle configuration IS the best contender for what would be considered someone's soul. I think if you were successful, you wouldn't be leaving out the soul, you'd be reproducing/creating it.