Explain consciousness to the layman.

[punshhh]

It's important to realise that there are no "virtual realms". Computer programs run on computers in this world. They aren't isolated from interaction with the rest of the universe. A system can be considered in isolation, but that's just a useful fiction. There are no isolated pocket universes, and if there were, we couldn't interact with them, by definition.

Yes I see the distinction your making. By virtual realm I am accepting for the purposes of discussion at this point that a digitally generated realm may be possible in some way. However I am not attempting to define the mechanism involved, or suggest that it can necessarily be accomplished by computers.

You see when far more advanced technology than we have at present is considered. I change sides in this debate. This technology is a long way off though.

For example this has been hinted at in the film AI when the robot boy is dug out from the ice at the end of the film by a highly evolved synthetic life form.

 

[IanS]

The mechanics are simple: Just simulate every single particle in their world, using rules identical to the rules of particle interaction in our own world.

I broadly agree with what you said above about the nature of our universe boiling down to a set of particle-field interactions (hence the descriptions I have given before of "Universe/Big-Bang from Nothing", however, I think there is a problem with the quote above -

- how will you create particles in any model/simulated world, without transferring information from the particles that presently make up our own universe?

If you have to lose information from particles in our universe every time you create or simulate a particle in some other world, then the process is self-defeating and physically impossible, because it cannot be done without changing the particles of our present world/universe.

The only way you could make a simulated world like that, would be if there was absolutely no connection between the simulated world and our universe. But in that case, by definition, there would be no longer be any way to produce the simulation, because there would be no possibility of any transfer between the two unconnected worlds.

 

[!Kaggen]

I broadly agree with what you said above about the nature of our universe boiling down to a set of particle-field interactions (hence the descriptions I have given before of "Universe/Big-Bang from Nothing", however, I think there is a problem with the quote above -

- how will you create particles in any model/simulated world, without transferring information from the particles that presently make up our own universe?

If you have to lose information from particles in our universe every time you create or simulate a particle in some other world, then the process is self-defeating and physically impossible, because it cannot be done without changing the particles of our present world/universe.

The only way you could make a simulated world like that, would be if there was absolutely no connection between the simulated world and our universe. But in that case, by definition, there would be no longer be any way to produce the simulation, because there would be no possibility of any transfer between the two unconnected worlds.

I think that is his whole point, a simulation has nothing to do with the physical constraints. Its the principle that counts.

 

[Belz...]

Hearts certainly do

Huh ?

 

[Belz...]

If you can produce a definition of "computer" that includes brains and electronics, but excludes hearts and oceans and stars, then please, go for it. I'd love to see one. (No, saying that it includes electronic computers and brains but nothing else isn't sufficient).

Then please answer my question: how do hearts and oceans perform algorithms and calculations ?

 

[Belz...]

Which gives you an opportunity to correct me.

When you say that the human brain "is a computer" and you don't mean that it is equivalent to your laptop, then what do you mean?

I mean that it computers. It is a computer. That's as simple as it gets.

Like I said, it depends on what you mean.

As Wolfram uses the word, they do.

He uses "compute" but he never mentions calculations. Hoes does a heart calculate ? It responds to a single stimuli and never wavers from the single action it can accomplish. How do oceans perform algorithms ? They don't put out data.

 

[Piggy]

Yes, they do matter. You don't just get to invent a fictional world, interpret any machine any way you like, and call it a (non-trivial) multiplier. Sure, there are a lot of ways that you can build something and call it a multiplier, and there are machines that require different interpretations--perhaps even arbitrarily bizarre.

But a multiplier must have entities that map to numbers, and transformations that result in entities that map to those numbers' products. If it does not, it is not multiplying.

So what? How does this contradict my point about the objective physicality of a machine running a simulation, and the symbolic character of the simulation itself (which must somehow be "read")?

 

[Piggy]

Flip a coin a few times. I'd be willing to bet you did not just simulate the development of a visual percept in a mouse brain.

This is because you need more than imagination figments to represent this process.

You and I are not talking about the same thing.

 

[yy2bggggs]

So what? How does this contradict my point about the objective physicality of a machine running a simulation, and the symbolic character of the simulation itself (which must somehow be "read")?

I repeated and highlighted the things it contradicts. The simulation itself is coherent. The "world of simulation" does not exist only in the mind of the perceiver of output. And it is not imaginary.

You and I are not talking about the same thing.

You're trying to say that a simulated tornado doesn't exist because it cannot blow down your house. That's wrong. It exists simply because you're really simulating it. It is true that it cannot blow down your house, but I would hope that if the real tornado could, then your simulation would really blow down your simulated house.

It's also true that if you add a simulation of your simulation of a tornado to your simulation of a tornado, then the simulation of your simulation of a tornado cannot blow down your simulation of a house; if this weren't the case, you wouldn't be simulating your simulation. So the way you're making your point doesn't entail what you think it does either.

Finally, a tornado really will blow down your house, most likely. But this tornado we're talking about is a hypothetical tornado, and your house is probably still standing while we're talking about it. The hypothetical tornado itself is a type of simulation. This waters down your point. Furthermore, any voluntary action you perform entails an intent, and a prediction--specifically, you're predicting that the thing you do will result in particular "controlled" body movements which will accomplish your intent; your sense of control in a voluntary act is derived from the correlation between the observed results and this prediction (in particular, you tend to note immediately that "something is wrong" on a conscious level if these things diverge significantly, especially if your body doesn't react the way you predict it should). And this sort of prediction is not only a form of simulation as well, but it's the main point of having concepts of reality in the first place. Your notions of reality are simulations. So you're not even properly contrasting simulations of the brain with the brain.

 

[PixyMisa]

Or, to make the point a different way, what exactly is the difference between a simulated story and a real story?

 

[Piggy]

You seem to have a very specific idea about how computers behave. I'd like you to tell us what that is, because as far as I can see, your assertion makes no sense.

My assertion was simply that a computer running a simulation of X behaves essentially the same as it does when running a simulation of y ("like a computer") and that the behavior of the actual systems x and y are irrelevant to the behavior of the computer, because the simulation is symbolic and must be "read" in some manner in order for a reader to make the association with the behavior of the computer -- e.g. the display of patterns of ink or light, the vibration of a speaker cone, etc. -- and the behavior of a system like x or y.

We can state that more broadly:

The media with which a representation of X is constructed retain their own physical characteristics and real-world behavior throughout the representation, and are not altered by the characteristics and behavior of an actual X because the representation's relationship with X is symbolic and must be interpreted by an observer, and is therefore imaginary rather than objectively real.

Which means that the behavior of whatever you're using to portray the representation is necessarily distinct from the behavior of the system being represented. Whatever they have in common, and however they differ, this does not change by dint of the representation being created.

If a machine is conscious, then it will be conscious when running a simulation of anything (a bridge, a war, a brain... ) or when not running any simulation at all. If a machine is not conscious, then it will not be conscious when running a simulation of anything, or when not running a simulation.

This description is consistent with respect to our 2 known frames of reference: physical reality and our own imaginations. And it does not depend on the particular features and behaviors of any specific system (being portrayed) or any medium of represenation.

And btw, this is precisely the view of the scientists who are in fact building a neuron-level simulation of the human brain.

So once we begin to speak of the hypothetical "perspective" of anything "in the simulation", we must realize that our frame of reference is entirely our imagination.

That's because the "world of the simulation" is what is interpreted from the symbolic output of the simulator by the reader, and has no impact on (and therefore no presence in) the media of the simulation, which is what exists in physical reality.

Such speculation may be useful, but to transfer the frame anywhere outside the imagination is clearly an error.

That is the assertion.

 

[Piggy]

That is a stupid statement.

It should clear to anyone with even a cursory education in "com-pew-turs" that computers behave in very different ways in order to do ... well, what computers do.

If you honestly think that just because you can't see gears and clockwork moving inside the box nothing is going on, then I don't think anyone here can hope to have a productive discussion with you.

That is about as stupid as a cave man cutting open someone's head and proclaiming that the brain must not be doing anything important because none of the neurons are moving.

Depends on your level of granularity.

Of course a computer simulating a tornado is doing something different from a computer running a simulation of a farm, or operating a spray painter, or playing a music CD, or monitoring my truck's emission system.

But that's all computery stuff. It's all of a type. A computer doesn't suddenly begin behaving like a chainsaw, or a tomato plant, or a river.

And clearly, in context, that's all that statement meant.

 

[Piggy]

I guess all those people playing video games are pretty dumb, then, to think that Mario jumps because they press a button.

( what is it with all the stupid statements in this thread ?)

Where does the "other world separate from us" come in between the kid pressing the button and the image on the screen changing in ways that make the kid imagine a person jumping?

 

[Piggy]

No, you have not "explained" it. You just keep asserting it, then saying anything else is ridiculous.

I am the only one doing explaining, which is ( as usual ) being utterly ignored.

This is simply false. I've done a lot of explaining, and I've been responding to you.

And this discussion of the "reality" (or not) of subatomic particles is irrelevant to the issue we're supposed to be discussing, which corresponds to our human level of magnification.

If you want to bring it back around to something relevant, great.

 

[Piggy]

I mean that it computers. It is a computer. That's as simple as it gets.

He uses "compute" but he never mentions calculations. Hoes does a heart calculate ? It responds to a single stimuli and never wavers from the single action it can accomplish. How do oceans perform algorithms ? They don't put out data.

No, hearts have more than one potential pattern of impulses -- normal beat, tachycardia, fibrillation... these are all workable solutions to the problem of how to get from A to B.

The heart is a switch, and switching to the wrong setting will kill you.

Now, if a calculation is the application of a rule to an input in order to produce an output, then of course the oceans are literally seas of chemical calculations running according to the rules of physics.

 

[Piggy]

I mean that it computers. It is a computer. That's as simple as it gets.

So when you say "your brain is a computer", you mean they both "compute".

Ok, well, doesn't a Whammo Super Spy Decoder Ring also "compute"?

If so, the observation tells us precious little about the specific relationship between brains and the machines we call computers.

If not, then what do you mean by "compute"?

And unless you're using Wolfram's definition (which it doesn't seem you are) then I'd like to know what you mean by the word in any case.

 

[Piggy]

I repeated and highlighted the things it contradicts. The simulation itself is coherent. The "world of simulation" does not exist only in the mind of the perceiver of output. And it is not imaginary.
You're trying to say that a simulated tornado doesn't exist because it cannot blow down your house. That's wrong. It exists simply because you're really simulating it. It is true that it cannot blow down your house, but I would hope that if the real tornado could, then your simulation would really blow down your simulated house.

Coherence doesn't contradict my point at all.

And yes, the fact that the simulated tornado cannot blow anything down does in fact mean that there's no real tornado.

 

[Piggy]

Or, to make the point a different way, what exactly is the difference between a simulated story and a real story?

Are you going to explain the point of that question, or do you just enjoy being mysterious?

 

[yy2bggggs]

And yes, the fact that the simulated tornado cannot blow anything down does in fact mean that there's no real tornado.

Only in the sense that "real tornado" idiomatically refers to a particular weather pattern. It is not true that "simulated tornado" is not a real thing, and is also not true that "simulated tornado" does not have particular kinds of effects.

 

[tsig]

The phrase "whatever the brain does" clearly does not mean "a specific function performed by the brain". If it was intended to mean that, then it's a horribly poor choice of words.

If you want someone to bring you a Pepsi, do you ask them to bring you "whatever they've got to drink"?

Then what does it mean? I don't see what my choice of soft drink has do with this discussion.