Explain consciousness to the layman.

[yy2bggggs]

Not if you limit scope and collapse categories.

Of course, which is why it isn't an isomorphism.

You're missing the point.

There is a claim about an isomorphism, and I just told you what was isomorphic.

The antecedent to the highlighted pronoun is a straw man.

 

[Mr. Scott]

And if there was a Santa Claus in the simulation, the conscious entity would get simualated presents in his simulated stocking.

Sure, the simulation would dream of Christmas, just as we could. Your point?

 

[westprog]

Sure, the simulation would dream of Christmas, just as we could. Your point?

Talking about what a hypothetical conscious entity could do if he actually were conscious entirely begs the question. Yes, if a conscious entity could exist in a simulation, that would prove that conscious entities could exist in a simulation. Yes, if incontrovertible evidence was produced to contradict my opinion, I'd change my opinion.

 

[rocketdodger]

And even if it mimics the watershed in perfect detail, its relationship to the watershed is only one possible isomorphic relationship out of the many that could be described from that same entity.

And as Westprog pointed out, from an imaginary perspective "inside the machine" there's no way to privilege any one possible relationship over another.

This is absolutely untrue.

Name one other system whose behavior the behavior of the simulation of a watershed is isomorphic to.

I challenge you to name just one piggy.

 

[rocketdodger]

An interesting sidebar concerning the concept of "isomorphism". If there really is an isomorphism between the tornado and the simulation, then as well as there being a world inside the computer where the tornado is real, there's a world inside the tornado where the computer simulation is real.

Yes, the behavior of a tornado is isomorphic with the behavior of a simulation of a tornado. Congrats on noticing that tautology.

 

[rocketdodger]

The computer simulation of a tornado has been described as an isomorphism between the particles in the tornado and the particles in the computer. There is certainly some kind of functional connection between the simulation of the tornado and the tornado. Calling it an isomorphism is a stretch, but if the simulation didn't have any relationship with a tornado - well, obviously, we wouldn't recognise it as a tornado.

However, many objects and processes map to tornadoes. A picture of a tornado, a film of a tornado, a book about tornadoes. The word "tornado" - which has, in a sense, an isomorphism to the actual tornado. Pointing at a tornado and shouting "tornado" is a way to describe a tornado, every bit as much as the computer simulation.

For some reason, none of these representations count as a "world" where the tornado is just as real as on the computer. I suppose that a claim that Dorothy is really being carried to Oz in the world of the film doesn't sound quite a scientific and reasonable as a claim that tornadoes are real in the world of the computer, but each claim is precisely as justifiable. The relationship between the tornado in the film is just as close to a real tornado as is a string of number representations in the computer.

I find it extremely ironic that you have so many people on ignore that you are forced to preach to the spectators of this thread instead of just speaking to the people making the posts you disagree with.

Perhaps you shouldn't ignore, if you are so interested in what people have to say?

 

[rocketdodger]

If all that is true, then I agree with westprog and piggy. Calling a brain a type of computer is tautological, seeing as everything is a computer, and it doesn't tell us anything about consciousness.

Funny how a silly definition can turn things around like that.

Let me walk you though some stuff and hopefully you can pick up what westprog and piggy seem to miss.

Suppose we have a rock and a bird, sitting on the side of a hill in Hawaii, with a column of lava flowing towards them.

These two things can be categorized objectively as a collection of particles, I would call them each a "system" although mathematically the better term is a "subset of the set of all particles," but you get the point. Each of them is merely a bunch of particles.

Now, within each of them there are many subsets of particles that can behave as a switch, or in other words a way that we humans could call a "computation," which merely refers to the mapping from a larger input set to a smaller output set that I mentioned. I don't dispute that much of the rock could be doing these computations. It is a very encompassing definition, I agree.

But --

As the lava is approaching the bird, it senses the danger, and flies up out of the way to land in a tree, safe for the time being.

As the lava is approaching the rock, it just heats up. Eventually, it melts, or gets melted into the lava.

Now -- what happened? Lets analyze it fully.

Both the bird and the rock were a system of particles. After the lava, both the bird and the rock are still a system of particles. In both cases, the systems underwent a drastic change in some of their properties as the lava approached. By any metric, both systems "changed state."

However, notice the relationship to the configuration of the systems prior and post lava.

The rock melted, and is in a very different configuration than it was before. Now it is part of a lava flow, and can never undergo the same melting process it just underwent. Yes the lava can cool, and then melt again, but the rock is already part of the lava now, so it will never be a rock melting into lava again.

The bird flew into a tree, and is in a very similar configuration to what it was in before. Yes, the position of all the particles is significantly different, but the relative position of all those particles is somewhat similar -- similar enough for the system to behave in a similar fashion in the future. That "fashion" is behaving in a manner that increases the chances of a configuration that can repeat the behavior existing into the future.

Think about it -- the bird flew away, and the bird can now repeat that behavior. The rock melted, and will never be able to melt again. Statistically, a system that behaves in a way that preserves a configuration that leads to similar behavior in the future will tend to stay in that configuration as time goes on, all else being equal.

Why is the bird able to do this? Because all of the millions of computations going on in the bird are aligned in a manner that increases the chances of the bird existing into the future in a form that allows the computations to repeat. When the lava was coming, they all result in the net behavior of the bird flying out of harms way. The rock does NOT behave like this -- the computations in a rock are random.

So pointing out that anything can compute is irrelevant. It is the way computations lead to other computations that eventually make a difference in the behavior of a system.

And while it is true that the "meaning" or "value" of any state change in a system of particles is tied to our human perception, what is NOT tied to our perception is the simple facts of statistics. And it is a fact that if a series of computations lead to a behavior that allows a system to exist longer in a configuration where such a series of computations can be repeated, that system will stick around longer than it would otherwise.

What does this have to do with consciousness? Well it is arguable ( I would certainly make the claim ) that consciousness is just another step that a system can take to increase its chances of existing into the future. Certainly, the system of "humans" is doing a darn good job of existing, wouldn't you agree? Yes, lots of things can compute. So what? We are the only things that can compute that can also figure out how to blow up our enemies, grow our own food, fight other organisms that endanger us, and a whole slew of other behaviors that insure the computations going on in our heads can be repeated. Statistically, that is a significant advantage over any other system that computes.

Let me reiterate: It is the way computations lead to other computations that eventually make a difference in the behavior of a system.

 

[IanS]

And any sort of computer, yes.


Well, that happens too, but the two aren't directly connected.


Why would you say that?

Ha, ha (sympathetic smile) ... well I needed to look only at the very first line of your link to see that you are making a 100% error lol . Your link very clearly says what I just explained to you above ...

... you are not creating particle pairs from literally nothing.

You are in all cases creating particles (&/or other energy fields) from other existing particles and fields.

Clearly you did not understand what I explained in the posts above.

Anyway, I’m probably taking the thread of topic with this line (it's not really about the nature of what we call human consciousness) … it was simply that in responding to the mistaken idea that you could create a material object/particle merely from knowing a correct set of rules - as I explained (and as your link also explains!) you cannot actually do that - an interesting point of theoretical physics arises re. current theories of how the Big Bang probably occurs from a null initial energy density (ie from the so-called Vacuum Energy by random quantum/vacuum fluctuations … if you are interested you can read a brief account of that in Stephen Hawkings last book (re his Hartle-Hawking No Boundary Condition), and more specifically in some detail in Alex Vilenkins book Many Worlds in One, in which he describes in layman’s terms the implications of his earlier papers on this with Allan Guth, Andre Linde and others).

 

[rocketdodger]

OK, I don't know about any wider context of argument within this thread, because I have read very few of the posts. But just on that one specific point about of the possibility of "simulating" subatomic particles using a set of rules", I don't think that can actually be done, for the reasons I explained before.

I'm not quibbling about it. I'm just noting that there appears to be an interesting point here about the fundamental difference between making approximate copies of anything at a macroscopic level vs. the apparent impossibility of actually making an identical copy at the particle-field level, regardless of how accurate and correct the "set of scientific rules are" (the "rules" are of course only a convenient and consistent scientific picture of how we believe things should happen).

For example, at risk of seeming to go off at a different tangent - what I mean by an interesting side point, is that it seems to me the impossibility of simulating a particle in that way, is in fact related to current models of how our universe itself may have appeared from "Nothing" (see my previous posts on that), and the fact that literally “nothing” is actually impossible and cannot exist.

What I mean is - the reason you cannot simulate or copy a subatomic particle-field merely from a set of accurate scientific rules, is that you actually need to transfer material properties from an existing set of particles, thereby destroying the original particle that you were trying to copy. However, in theory you might have been able to make the simulation if the simulated particle was created in a different universe entirely separated from ours. But of course that can't work either, for the rather obvious reason that in that case there is by definition no possible mechanism to transfer any information between the two universes.

Fundamentally what I think appears to be happening in that scenario is that in the 2nd universe you would be attempting to re-create a particle literally from nothing (nothing more than your set of "precise and correct rules"). However, the implication that I am suggesting is that the reason that process is impossible (ie scientifically impossible, not merely philosophically incorrect in words) is because the process would actually be attempting to create matter from literally nothing ... and I'm suggesting that is impossible ...

... the reason why that is impossible is that no such thing as "literally nothing" actually exists. On the contrary, the entire reason that we can have an existing universe at all (inc. any/all particles. fields, macroscopic objects, and simulated robots etc.) is because the universe must always exist as "something" rather than literally "nothing" ...

... eg what happens in the current Big Bang models, inc models from string theory, is that prior to the Big Bang, the universe could only exist as a set of interacting energy fields which together cancel one-another exactly to zero (and there is in fact direct experimental support for that). So without going any more deeply into that - it means that there is no such thing as literally" nothing ... dictionary definitions saying that "nothing" is the complete absence of everything, are merely a mistaken remnant from a time when people believed there was such a thing as "empty space".

What has that to do with your quote about simulating particles from a set of perfectly correct rules? Well, the reason you can't ever actually make any such true simulation of a particle is that you cannot do it just from the rules (however accurate the rules are), precisely because you cannot actually create anything from literally "nothing" ... because there is indeed never any such thing as literally "nothing" in the first place ...

... instead you can only simulate the particle by doing exactly what happened in the initial phase of the Big Bang ... you can simulate it by conversion from existing particles-fields, but as I say that destroys the particle-field that you were trying to copy in the first place ... you would now have a "copy" of something that no longer existed ... it would not really be a copy ... all you have really done is moved the original particle from one location to another.

The same thing happens in the Big Bang - primordial short-lived subatomic particles are spontaneously created from the null Initial Energy Density ... they do not actually appear from literally "nothing", because again, there never was and never can be literally "nothing" ... as with the particle simulation - the particles and energetics of our universe can only appear in an Inflationary Big Bang by destroying the initial null Energy Density.

Thank you for posting this.

However I don't understand why the limitations you explain prevent us from simulating an already existing particle. It seems like the limitations you mention have to do primarily with the genesis of a particle. What if we want to start the simulation at some later time in the particles life?

Furthermore, suppose we are not interested in the initial state of a simulated particle, rather we are interested in the rules used to transition between states. Meaning, we don't need to actually determine the full state of any existing particle in order to proceed with the simulation. Wouldn't that bypass the limitations you mention?

 

[Piggy]

So you see, the entities produced by the simulation -- the patterns of activity in the simulator itself -- are real.

But as such, they are only that... patterns of activity in a simulator machine.

And you are also only a pattern of activity. You are attempting to force a distinction where none exists.

No, I'm not.

Of course I'm a pattern of activity.

Everything is a pattern of activity.

But a pattern of activity of what? Flesh? Paper? What?

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing that machine brains are impossible because ours are flesh. You can build houses out of many materials, as long as they end up being houses.

But you can't build houses out of liquid water, helium, and light.

When you run a sim, you create real entities, but they're patterns of behavior in the machine itself. That is all you are creating, period.

You can watch as it runs, and you'll see that these real entities aren't engaging in the behavior of the system you're attempting to simulate, unless of course you're running an infinitely recursive simulation of the simulator machine itself.

There, that's what you've done.

These patterns you've created are distinct from whatever it is you're trying to simulate. There's no need for me or anyone else to "force a distinction", you can see it with your own eyes.

If there is no distinction, then you're not running a sim, you've produced a replica.

 

[Piggy]

This is absolutely untrue.

Name one other system whose behavior the behavior of the simulation of a watershed is isomorphic to.

I challenge you to name just one piggy.

What do you mean "name" one? Why would such a thing have a name?

Are you telling me that the physical activity of the simulator machine cannot be correspond to any other hypothetical system at all? All the components must correspond and can only correspond to a watershed?

I know you believe some weird things, but surely you don't believe that.

 

[PixyMisa]

Ha, ha (sympathetic smile) ... well I needed to look only at the very first line of your link to see that you are making a 100% error lol . Your link very clearly says what I just explained to you above ...

... you are not creating particle pairs from literally nothing.

Oops, that's the wrong link. Try this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_fluctuations

You are in all cases creating particles (&/or other energy fields) from other existing particles and fields.

Nope, sorry. While I did give you the wrong link before, your statement is incorrect - which you seem to already know. So I don't understand why you are making your objection, which is neither accurate nor relevant.

 

[Piggy]

So pointing out that anything can compute is irrelevant. It is the way computations lead to other computations that eventually make a difference in the behavior of a system.

And while it is true that the "meaning" or "value" of any state change in a system of particles is tied to our human perception, what is NOT tied to our perception is the simple facts of statistics. And it is a fact that if a series of computations lead to a behavior that allows a system to exist longer in a configuration where such a series of computations can be repeated, that system will stick around longer than it would otherwise.

What does this have to do with consciousness? Well it is arguable ( I would certainly make the claim ) that consciousness is just another step that a system can take to increase its chances of existing into the future. Certainly, the system of "humans" is doing a darn good job of existing, wouldn't you agree? Yes, lots of things can compute. So what? We are the only things that can compute that can also figure out how to blow up our enemies, grow our own food, fight other organisms that endanger us, and a whole slew of other behaviors that insure the computations going on in our heads can be repeated. Statistically, that is a significant advantage over any other system that computes.

Let me reiterate: It is the way computations lead to other computations that eventually make a difference in the behavior of a system.

I don't see anything here that either I or Westprog would disagree with.

 

[PixyMisa]

Thank you for posting this.

However I don't understand why the limitations you explain prevent us from simulating an already existing particle. It seems like the limitations you mention have to do primarily with the genesis of a particle. What if we want to start the simulation at some later time in the particles life?

Furthermore, suppose we are not interested in the initial state of a simulated particle, rather we are interested in the rules used to transition between states. Meaning, we don't need to actually determine the full state of any existing particle in order to proceed with the simulation. Wouldn't that bypass the limitations you mention?

And of course you can't determine the full state of any particle. I'm not sure what IanS is thinking, but it has little to do with quantum mechanics.

 

[PixyMisa]

I don't see anything here that either I or Westprog would disagree with.

Then you would appear to disagree with your own position.

 

[Piggy]

Ha, ha (sympathetic smile) ... well I needed to look only at the very first line of your link to see that you are making a 100% error lol . Your link very clearly says what I just explained to you above ...

... you are not creating particle pairs from literally nothing.

You are in all cases creating particles (&/or other energy fields) from other existing particles and fields.

Clearly you did not understand what I explained in the posts above.

Anyway, I’m probably taking the thread of topic with this line (it's not really about the nature of what we call human consciousness) … it was simply that in responding to the mistaken idea that you could create a material object/particle merely from knowing a correct set of rules - as I explained (and as your link also explains!) you cannot actually do that - an interesting point of theoretical physics arises re. current theories of how the Big Bang probably occurs from a null initial energy density (ie from the so-called Vacuum Energy by random quantum/vacuum fluctuations … if you are interested you can read a brief account of that in Stephen Hawkings last book (re his Hartle-Hawking No Boundary Condition), and more specifically in some detail in Alex Vilenkins book Many Worlds in One, in which he describes in layman’s terms the implications of his earlier papers on this with Allan Guth, Andre Linde and others).

It would seem to be off-topic, but surprisingly -- and it took me a long time to figure this out -- the claims that these folks are making about the ability to merely "program consciousness" rather than build a brain which can be conscious, which are tied to their claims about sims becoming conscious and simulations creating new worlds, are anchored in beliefs about the subatomic realm which allow them to generate "real" particles (ignoring the laws of physics) not by smashing other particles together but simply by simulating them on a computer.

The woo is deep in these ones.

 

[Piggy]

Then you would appear to disagree with your own position.

How so?

 

[Piggy]

This is absolutely untrue.

Name one other system whose behavior the behavior of the simulation of a watershed is isomorphic to.

I challenge you to name just one piggy.

Btw, here's one reason why we know it must be this way.

Suppose you find a way to simulate system x perfectly. It's a complete simulation of x.

Then suppose you run it on a simulator machine which has been built to be conscious, and to be aware of everything that's going on in its simulator organ.

That machine would have no way of knowing, unless you told it, whether you were running a complete and perfect simulation of system x, or an incomplete and imperfect simulation of a larger system that's vastly different from x.

 

[yy2bggggs]

...which are tied to their claims about sims becoming conscious and simulations creating new worlds, are anchored in beliefs about the subatomic realm which allow them to generate "real" particles (ignoring the laws of physics) not by smashing other particles together but simply by simulating them on a computer.

But the simulated entities are real--either they aren't being simulated, or there are real patterns made of real particles that make them up. It was surprisingly easy to get you to agree to this before you insistingly fell back to your straw man.

If you do not keep in mind that they're talking about the entities being real in the exact sense that I told you that you agreed to, you're never going to understand what their point is.

and it took me a long time to figure this out

Silly piggy. You haven't figured out what they are talking about yet!

You're so close... but you're not quite there. You just need to connect a few more dots.

 

[PixyMisa]

It would seem to be off-topic, but surprisingly -- and it took me a long time to figure this out -- the claims that these folks are making about the ability to merely "program consciousness" rather than build a brain which can be conscious, which are tied to their claims about sims becoming conscious and simulations creating new worlds, are anchored in beliefs about the subatomic realm which allow them to generate "real" particles (ignoring the laws of physics) not by smashing other particles together but simply by simulating them on a computer.

You are even more confused now than you were before.