Explain consciousness to the layman.

[!Kaggen]

What about all the neurons in the billion brains interacting with the billion computers? Surely the web is conscious with all that activity.

Yes the web without humans is nonsense.

 

[Leumas]

So, basically, the brain has 100,000,000,000 neurons.

The internet has (conservatively) 10,000,000,000,000,000,000 transistors.

Line the two numbers up:

100,000,000,000 neurons
10,000,000,000,000,000,000 transistors

Shifting the goal posts is yet ANOTHER theistic deceit tactic.


You are comparing apples to oranges......

The components in a transistor are Four layers of doped material.

The number of components that constitute a neuron are NUMEROUS.

So do not underhandedly shift the goal posts.

Compare COMPONENTS of the neuron to components of the transistor so as to be comparing apples to apples not oranges.

You can see just how vast and complex the internet is when considered as a system. Even though transistors are much simpler than neurons, there are just so many more of them that the numbers swamp everything else.

Not if you do the CORRECT comparison...... if you keep shifting the goal posts then you are CHEATING.


But......I am going to grant you that the internet is more complex than the human brain..... it is not....but I will grant your assertion in order to formulate my next and more important question.......

why with all that amazing complexity did the internet not develop consciousness yet? Or has it?​

 

[PixyMisa]

Shifting the goal posts is yet ANOTHER theistic deceit tactic.

Do clean yourself off when you're done wallowing in the logical fallacies, there's a good chap.

why with all that amazing complexity did the internet not develop consciousness yet? Or has it?

I'm happy to answer that question, if you'll tell me what you think it means, and why you think the two parts of the question are connected.

 

[PixyMisa]

Yes all the DNA in every cell is identical.
All the atoms in adenine are identical.
All the electrons in every atom are identical.
Etc Etc

You have a point?

I was asking if you did, because if so, you failed to make it.

 

[PixyMisa]

As its a busy thread I'll focus on a couple of points.

"A simulation is a model", is this model in the form of data?

Close. Computation, rather than static data.

Second point, you are including some kind of subjective content in computation. Going back to my mention of Carl Sagan's Blue dot.

The subjective experience of watching the Blue dot is a rather complex and subtle phenomena. Do you envisage computation representing this in any form?

Yes, of course, because that's what it is.

Oh and one more thing, not a question, rather an observation. Everything you have been describing in both brains and computers makes sense and can happen entirely without consciousness, why not just dispense with consciousness entirely, it is "illusory" after all.

You misunderstand. When I say that consciousness is illusory, I don't mean that there's nothing happening - I mean that there's something happening, but it's not what it looks like. Consciousness produces (or to a strict behaviourist, is) a real, distinct set of behaviours. Conscious systems exhibit novel and complex patterns of behaviour that distinguish them from non-conscious systems.

What I'm saying is that consciousness is not unique to life, but to a certain class of information processing system. Until the last century, the only working examples of such systems were indeed living brains, but that's no longer the case.

All those behaviours by which we distinguish consciousness are now replicated in computers. Still for the most part in a more basic way than in humans, but the difference is quantitative and not qualitative.

 

[!Kaggen]

I was asking if you did, because if so, you failed to make it.

whoooosh

 

[!Kaggen]

What I'm saying is that consciousness is not unique to life, but to a certain class of information processing system. Until the last century, the only working examples of such systems were indeed living brains, but that's no longer the case.

All those behaviours by which we distinguish consciousness are now replicated in computers. Still for the most part in a more basic way than in humans, but the difference is quantitative and not qualitative.

So what would a qualitative difference be?

 

[PixyMisa]

What about all the neurons in the billion brains interacting with the billion computers? Surely the web is conscious with all that activity.

That's slightly off-topic, but an interesting question. There is no reason in the computational model why a network of individually conscious components can't generate a separate and distinct consciousness belonging to the network itself.

The human users of the internet are conscious; at least some of the applications typically found on a modern computer are conscious.

Whether the internet as an ecosystem is conscious is a complex question. One answer would be that it has multiple overlapping consciousnesses. There's no unifying mind, but there are conscious behaviours when you look at specific parts of the system.

 

[Leumas]

Do clean yourself off when you're done wallowing in the logical fallacies, there's a good chap.

You are absolutely right.... thanks for the suggestion…..I feel like I need a week in a spa to scrub off all the fallacies you have been flinging. I am beginning to reek from all the stinking fallacies you keep hurling.

I'm happy to answer that question, if you'll tell me what you think it means, and why you think the two parts of the question are connected.

Oh....good.....so here we go.....


For the sake of argument we will grant your assertion that the internet is more complex than the human brain.

You brought up the comparison in this post which was in response to a response about your following question

Anyway, why is a finely-engineered machine of wire and silicon less likely to be conscious than two pounds of warm meat?

I presume that you did so to make the point that since the internet is more complex than the human brain then the human brain is nothing special.

Also you maintain that the brain is merely a computational device and by your reckoning no more than a computer let alone an internet of computers.

And since the discussion at hand is consciousness then I am assuming that you are arguing that all it would take to achieve consciousness is a complex enough network of computers.....judging by your query

Anyway, why is a finely-engineered machine of wire and silicon less likely to be conscious than two pounds of warm meat?

I might be making too many assumptions about your stance. So please correct me if I am wrong but by actually stating your correct stance not just obfuscating and evading and by just saying “wrong” or such.

But now that you have been granted for the sake of the argument that

The internet, considered as a system, is vastly more complex than the human brain at this point.

Are you claiming that the internet is conscious?

If not then why with all that COMPUTATIONAL complexity you claim it has is it not conscious?


Do you then concede that "a finely-engineered machine of wire and silicon" is in fact "less likely to be conscious than two pounds of warm meat"?


Why if the internet is not conscious do you think it is not able to achieve what "two pounds of warm meat" have achieved and are achieving in even "lesser" animals than the internet of "finely-engineered machines" which is "vastly more complex than the human brain at this point"


What is lacking do you think? More complexity? More engineering?

OR

Could it be that it is not the correct type of system altogether?

Or

Could it be you actually do think the internet IS conscious? If so, what is your evidence?

 

[PixyMisa]

You are absolutely right.... thanks for the suggestion…..I feel like I need a week in a spa to scrub off all the fallacies you have been flinging. I am beginning to reek from all the stinking fallacious you keep hurling.

You seem confused. I have committed no logical fallacies; you have done little else throughout this thread.

For the sake of argument we will grant your assertion that the internet is more complex than the human brain.

Okay.

I presume that you did so to make the point that since the internet is more complex than the human brain then the human brain is nothing special.

No.

Also you maintain that the brain is merely a computational device and by your reckoning no more than a computer let alone an internet of computers.

That's a pretty poor representation of what I've said.

And since the discussion at hand is consciousness then I am assuming that you are arguing that all it would take to achieve consciousness is a complex enough network of computers.

And that is in fact the opposite of what I've been saying.

 

[Leumas]

What I'm saying is that consciousness is not unique to life, but to a certain class of information processing system. Until the last century, the only working examples of such systems were indeed living brains, but that's no longer the case.

All those behaviours by which we distinguish consciousness are now replicated in computers. Still for the most part in a more basic way than in humans, but the difference is quantitative and not qualitative.

The human users of the internet are conscious; at least some of the applications typically found on a modern computer are conscious.

Goodness gracious me..... so you do in fact believe that consciousness has already been achieved by computer programs.



Who is the one with the Pixy Dust and magic beans now?

 

[PixyMisa]

Goodness gracious me..... so you do in fact believe that consciousness has already been achieved by computer programs.

Yes, absolutely. I've written such programs myself. It's a common programming technique.

Who is the one with the Pixy Dust and magic beans now?

That would be you, apparently.

 

[Leumas]

The human users of the internet are conscious; at least some of the applications typically found on a modern computer are conscious.

Whether the internet as an ecosystem is conscious is a complex question. One answer would be that it has multiple overlapping consciousnesses. There's no unifying mind, but there are conscious behaviours when you look at specific parts of the system.

You are shifting the goal posts AGAIN.

You cannot now claim that the internet is conscious as an ecosystem because the human brain is USING the computers on the internet.

Your claim was

Anyway, why is a finely-engineered machine of wire and silicon less likely to be conscious than two pounds of warm meat?

You did not say anywhere that the “finely-engineered machine of wire and silicon” had to also be combined with the not so special consciousness of the “two pounds of warm meat” to be considered conscious.




But all this is a moot point already since you have said

The human users of the internet are conscious; at least some of the applications typically found on a modern computer are conscious.

All I can say now is

 

[punshhh]

You are absolutely right.... thanks for the suggestion…..I feel like I need a week in a spa to scrub off all the fallacies you have been flinging. I am beginning to reek from all the stinking fallacious you keep hurling.

You cant reach him Leumas, he's entwined in a marvelous chrysalis. Any approach glances off the crystalline circular surface.

Like the lady of Shallot, from his ivory tower he doesn't realise that inside he's just a bug like the rest of us (or should I say grub).


Bug in a rug.

Conscious bug in a rug.

 

[PixyMisa]

You cant reach him Leumas, he's entwined in a marvelous chrysalis. Any approach glances off the crystalline circular surface.

Unless you were to, you know, say something that made some sense.

See our exchanges above. If you make sense, you'll get a sensible response. If you post complete nonsense, all I can do is point that out.

 

[PixyMisa]

You are shifting the goal posts AGAIN.

Not one iota. You're just not paying attention.

You cannot now claim that the internet is conscious as an ecosystem because the human brain is USING the computers in the internet.

First, I didn't say that. Second, my response was to a completely different question that specifically included the users in the system.

You did not say anywhere that the “finely-engineered machine of wire and silicon” had to also be combined with the not so special consciousness of the “two pounds of warm meat” to be considered conscious.

Because it doesn't.

But all this is a moot point already since you have said

Yes, I have already said.

All I can say now is

Well, that's hardly my problem.

 

[Belz...]

Why are you asking me .... I am not the one who made that assertion.... it was PixyMisa…. Or at least he seems to imply it by mistakenly claiming that the internet is more complex than the human brain…..in fact I have no idea what he is claiming by his unsubstantiated assertion….. so address the question to him.

I personally have already stated my OPINIONS on the matter in various posts....go read them.

I'm simply asking you what you think. I don't know why you're on the defense like this.

 

[punshhh]

That's slightly off-topic, but an interesting question. There is no reason in the computational model why a network of individually conscious components can't generate a separate and distinct consciousness belonging to the network itself.

The human users of the internet are conscious; at least some of the applications typically found on a modern computer are conscious.

Whether the internet as an ecosystem is conscious is a complex question. One answer would be that it has multiple overlapping consciousnesses. There's no unifying mind, but there are conscious behaviours when you look at specific parts of the system.

Interesting.

(Aside; I regard ecosystems as entities, entities behaving rather like primitive life forms, but I consider other approaches from material monism in this opinion)

Going back to primitive life forms.

The first bug that decided to swallow something and in doing so increased its evolutionary advantage, showed more gumption than any computer from where I'm standing. From there its merely a quantitive step to fully sentient humanity.

 

[Belz...]

Yeah sure attack the messenger.
Lets translate the picture for you then.
You see all the different structures making up a neuron cell?
Let us start with the DNA in the cell nucleus which holds sufficient information to participate rather dominantly in building a human body with 100 trillion cells.

You get the picture?

I don't think the complexity of the neuron is important. What matters, IMO, is its function.

 

[Leumas]

Yes, absolutely. I've written such programs myself. It's a common programming technique.

That would be you, apparently.

I have been writing computer programs for a living since before you were a hope in your parents’ psyche and I have earned a tremendous living doing it.

I have written self-modifying and adaptive systems that are not mere programs but in fact are actual physical control systems that interact with and control real processes.

And I know one thing….. they are NOT conscious by any WARPING of the meaning.

You obviously have been spending too little time with CONSCIOUS ENTITIES and have lost the ability to differentiate between your X-Box and REALITY.

I suggest you get a dog and establish a relationship with him/her.

I would suggest you get a lover but unfortunately from my experience that will eventually drive you back to the warm embraces of the X-Box even more pathologically assuming you have not lost that in the court "settlement".

However a dog is a true friend indeed and in need and will never bite your hand and will only give you endless love and companionship…… something no X-Box or Virtual Reality can achieve.

Another conscious entity that is second place to a dog is a daughter and in third place a son. I have not tried grandchildren yet….but I suspect they will be distant runners behind my children let alone my dog.

If you have ever raised a child and watched her grow I doubt you would be arguing about human consciousness the way you are. And if you have then you must have missed a lot.

So Please PixiMisa…. Before it is too late and you do in fact lose all hold on reality..... get a dog and establish a relationship with him/her and see if you can perhaps start distinguishing real consciousness from Virtual Reality.