Explain consciousness to the layman.

[Belz...]

Also the interconnections between them are not 100 TRILLION is it?

Again I'm not sure that's relevant, because then you'd have to count the number of connexions between computers and between transistors.

 

[psionl0]

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

I suspect that it would take a lot more than self-modifying code for a computer to achieve consciousness.

I'm not sure what your position is Pixy (this thread grows too fast) but I presume that I am not saying anything new if I point out that component count (as in the internet for example) doesn't tell the whole story. It doesn't even tell part of the story. It is the way that the components interface with each other that determines if a mechanism has any independent intelligence (let alone consciousness).

 

[Belz...]

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

He's been consistently saying that for a good while, now. There's nothing surprising in that.

Maybe both you and Pixy need to compare your definitions of "consciousness" ?

 

[PixyMisa]

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.

How do you know that?

 

[PixyMisa]

I suspect that it would take a lot more than self-modifying code for a computer to achieve consciousness.

Self-modifying code in itself isn't the point; it's the reflection - the act of a process examining its own operation.

I'm not sure what your position is Pixy (this thread grows too fast) but I presume that I am not saying anything new if I point out that component count (as in the internet for example) doesn't tell the whole story. It doesn't even tell part of the story. It is the way that the components interface with each other that determines if a mechanism has any independent intelligence (let alone consciousness).

Absolutely. What I'm saying is that the key is self-reference. That requires a certain minimum complexity, of course, but a large complex information system that doesn't include self-reference is not conscious, and a smaller, simpler one that does - is.

 

[Leumas]

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

I am sorry..... maybe I am too cynically going by the adage "once bitten twice shy", and coming from your quarter it has been more than once.

 

[!Kaggen]

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

I see, so all the behaviors of all the chemical compounds that make the neuron behave are not important?

This is the problem with behaviorism it assumes the importance of one level of behavior over another. This assumption has no basis in behaviorism itself and therefore behaviorism is simply a tool which is meaningless on its own.
It needs a human interpreter.
Somehow though when this is pointed out its taken to mean there must be a magic bean.
We have no choice but to recognize our own consciousness's contribution without needing to describe its behavior using a behavioral descriptor such as an algorithm.
And as Westprog and I have said on numerous occasions the way of describing consciousness is through artistic endeavors. No computational theory or magic beans required.

 

[psionl0]

a large complex information system that doesn't include self-reference is not conscious, and a smaller, simpler one that does - is.

It seems like you are defining consciousness as a self-referencing ability. (It's better than my definition - I don't have one).

 

[PixyMisa]

He's been consistently saying that for a good while, now. There's nothing surprising in that.

Maybe both you and Pixy need to compare your definitions of "consciousness" ?

I did ask. Answer has not been forthcoming.

 

[PixyMisa]

It seems like you are defining consciousness as a self-referencing ability. (It's better than my definition - I don't have one).

Self-referential information processing, yes. So self-referential data isn't conscious; it doesn't do anything.

 

[PixyMisa]

I see, so all the behaviors of all the chemical compounds that make the neuron behave are not important?

Correct. The behaviour and not the mechanism is what's relevant.

This is the problem with behaviorism it assumes the importance of one level of behavior over another.

It assumes nothing of the sort. We are talking about consciousness, not biochemistry, so that is the appropriate level to examine.

This assumption has no basis in behaviorism itself and therefore behaviorism is simply a tool which is meaningless on its own.

It needs a human interpreter.

Somehow though when this is pointed out its taken to mean there must be a magic bean.

Yep. It's pure dualism.

We have no choice but to recognize our own consciousness's contribution without needing to describe its behavior using a behavioral descriptor such as an algorithm.
And as Westprog and I have said on numerous occasions the way of describing consciousness is through artistic endeavors. No computational theory or magic beans required.

If you assert that this is the only way to describe consciousness, then you're asserting that consciousness is a magic bean.

 

[Leumas]

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.

I would go as far as to say that even the ameba has more consciousness (which most likely is none) than any computer running any program written by any human being here on Earth and in this reality.


Any person who claims that there are currently conscious computer programs has either lost hold on reality, or does not understand what the word means or is so simple minded as to be fooled by a program or just wants to include his/her wishful thinking as part of the definition.

 

[PixyMisa]

I would go as far as to say that even the ameba has more consciousness (which most likely is none) than any computer running any program written by any human being here on Earth and in this reality.

That's nice. But meaningless, unless you can say why.

Any person who claims that there are currently conscious computer programs has either lost hold on reality, or does not understand what the word means or is so simple minded as to be fooled by a program or just wants to include his/her wishful thinking as part of the definition.

No.

 

[Leumas]

If you assert that this is the only way to describe consciousness, then you're asserting that consciousness is a magic bean.

Stop it already with the magic bean stuff..... you have a whole bloody furniture of it let alone a pot and kettle.


You don't just have magic beans rattling all over, you also have sparkly pixy dust levitating you into a whole magical realm of Never Land and


Whatever anyone is asserting it cannot get any more magical and divorced from reality than

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

 

[Leumas]

That's nice. But meaningless, unless you can say why.


No.

 

[Leumas]

It seems like you are defining consciousness as a self-referencing ability. (It's better than my definition - I don't have one).

By that definition DNA and genes are INDIVIDUALLY conscious.

 

[PixyMisa]

Stop it already with the magic bean stuff.

I'll stop mentioning them when people stop arguing for their existence.

You don't just have magic beans rattling all over you also have sparkly pixy dust levitating you into a whole magical realm of Never Land and

Are you feeling alright?

Whatever anyone is asserting it cannot get any more magical and divorced from reality than

That's nice. Now, do you actually have a reason for saying that?

By that definition DNA and genes are INDIVIDUALLY conscious.

No.

 

[Leumas]

How do you know that?

Because I can distinguish reality from wishful thinking and have not yet allowed myself to be fooled into confusing Virtual Reality for a Real Virtuality. Also read the rest of the post you quoted.


By the way….. where is the Nobel Prize that you have been awarded for writing the first conscious computer program as you claim here

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

Or if you are just one of many, who then is the person that won the prize for being the first person ever to create consciousness in a computer. I am sure the event would have been hailed all over the scientific community let alone the theology and philosophy departments of every university in the world and pretty much every newspaper and talk show and media outlet on earth.

Please show me evidence of peer reviewed scientific publications claiming to have created consciousness in a manmade machine of any kind.

I am sure the event would be on par with the invention of the atomic bomb or the invention of the plane at the very least in drawing accolades and media spotlights. Why hasn’t anyone heard about it? Is it a conspiracy to not alarm the simple minded hordes? Why hasn’t the Nobel committee not been alerted. Judging by the ease with which they give out peace prizes to warmongers I am sure their standards would be quite lax and you PixyMisa might win a Nobel prize for the programs you created that have fooled you into thinking that they are conscious.

 

[PixyMisa]

Because I can distinguish reality from wishful thinking and have not yet allowed myself to be fooled into confusing Virtual Reality for a Real Virtuality. Also read the rest of the post you quoted.

That doesn't answer the question; it's just a bundle of unconnected assertions.

By the way….. where is the Nobel Prize that you have been awarded for writing the first conscious computer program as you claim here

There's no Nobel Prize in computer science, and I'm not remotely the first to do such a thing.

Or if you are just one of many who is the person that won the prize for being the first person ever to create consciousness in a computer. I am sure the event would have been hailed all over the scientific community let alone the theology and philosophy departments of every university in the world and pretty much every newspaper and talk show and media outlet on earth.

No you're just babbling.

Please show me evidence of peer reviewed scientific publications claiming to have created consciousness in a manmade machine of any kind.

Start here. Don't know exactly which ones to recommend, but I'd say start with anything by Hofstadter, and then read everything he references.

I am sure the event would be on par with the invention of the atomic bomb or the invention of the plane at the very least in drawing accolades and media spotlights.

Why do you think that?

I keep asking, and I keep getting non-answers.

Why hasn’t anyone heard about it? Is it a conspiracy to not alarm the simple minded hordes? Why hasn’t the Nobel committee not been alerted. Judging by the ease with which they give out pace prizes to warmongers I am sure their standards would be quite lax and you PixyMisa might win a Nobel prize for the programs you created that have fooled you into thinking that they are conscious.

It's a standard programming technique found everywhere. No-one gives prizes for that.

 

[Belz...]

I see, so all the behaviors of all the chemical compounds that make the neuron behave are not important?

I don't see a reason why it should. Is the complexity of individual atoms important ?

For example, in terms of data storage, what matters is the actual information beign stored, be it on paper, in bytes, etc. The atomic composition of the information is irrelevant.

This is the problem with behaviorism it assumes the importance of one level of behavior over another.

Perhaps. I'd like to see a good argument for the reverse, however.