Explain consciousness to the layman.

[Piggy]

Relativity, right from when it was first proposed, has always been used to justify all kinds of weirdness - much as quantum theory is. The fact remains - relativity has nothing to do with the normal interactions of particles moving at low relative velocities. Indeed, the independence of a frame of motion is the whole point of relativity. We don't need to consider whether a computer or a brain is moving across the universe at 20% of the speed of light. It's a principle of relativity that we don't need to consider this. The system will interact normally.

I know. It's getting harder and harder to frame responses.

And, too, RD is claiming that the relative positions of the particles in spacetime are irrelevant... only their interactions matter.

That's what you get from the syntax-only bunch.

 

[Piggy]

As an example of how a widely distributed system couldn't work, it might be quite helpful. However, even if we were to ignore everything we know about physical law and accept it as possible, it still wouldn't prove anything. If it did prove anything, it would only prove the incorrect assumptions that were used to construct the example in the first place.

Well, let's give him the benefit of the doubt.

He's going somewhere, I just don't know where yet.

But if the next step depends on asserting that any vaporized object can continue doing the same real work it was doing before the vaporization (whether or not its particles are still magically entrained) I can tell you right now, that dog won't hunt.

 

[PartSkeptic]

I personally believe one day we will be able to EMULATE the human brain in a machine....... but not by programming it..... sure some parts may be programmed to do control of certain physical processes... but just like controlling a lathe.... we need the lathe’s mechanical parts to perform the lathing no matter how much programming there is.

I think something akin to a neural network that can emulate the PHYSICS of the brain will have a very good chance. But actual physics not simulated physics....

I am in agreement. And I understand simulate and emulate.

But yes.... a computer is programmed and its programming is DESIGNED to mimic SRIP making the computer APPEAR to be SRIPing and thus giving the illusion of being superficially conscious.

It is 2 am and I am awake. That is I am conscious. And examining my own consciousness or state of consciousness. And comparing this state to other semi-conscious or unconscious states.

I am aware that I am taking in visual and tactile stimuli, as well as how I warm I am and the itch on my arm, and my line of logical thought. This awareness varies depending on focus. This is the SRIP.

If I focus intently on logical thought, and cut out body awareness, it is as if I jumped from one period of self-awareness to another period of self-awareness, and only have the memory of the logical train of thought.

I am laying down memories of my physical states in a sequence that I can access either instantaneously, or look further back. If the recall period is longer, the recall is not as sharp, and fades as the time interval gets longer. It seems that a short feedback loop of focusing on the memory of physical state is a necessary component of self-awareness which in turn is a component of consciousness.

When I sustained concussion in a football game as a teenaager, I apparently was standing and talking to others but have no memory of that period. I was functioning but unable to store the memories. I would call myself unconscious. About 5 minutes later, when I became aware that I was standing and talking, I suddenly became dizzy and fell down. Only then were others (and I) aware that I had a problem.

I guess this was like sleep walking. Functioning but with no memory of thoughts or input. And a person with dementia, who cannot remember what they have said or where they are, are they conscious?

If a computer with sensory inputs is programmed to do this - that is, lay down a series of images and sensory input for instant recall and later recall, does it not meet the criteria for consiousness? If the machine "talks" to you as you interact with it, and it tells you how it is "feeling and thinking", how is that different to a human?

Does it matter that it is following a program? It can tell you that is self-aware, and how it is feeling, what it's visual and tactile sensory input is, and what it's thought patterns are at the time.

If you deprive the machine of sensation, and it records it's thoughts and "emotional state" (emotional state being part of the programming) is it not equivalent to a human who is deprived of external sensory input.

I think this pdf might explain a lot about what I mean. Read sections 16.1 to 16.3 inclusive…. also notice the diagram below.

A program is REMOTE CONTROL in anticipation. Can you see how a machine that follows a program can never be considered conscious or even intelligent….. the intelligence and consciousness are the programmer’s not the machine’s.

Thanks for the link. But it seems to argue against you. It describes how to "improve" the intelligence of a machine by giving it needs and desires.

Are you not imposing an artificial constraint on the machine? Making your own definition of what intelligence and being conscious is?

Humans may "grow" into a complex adaptive computer, but in a short period of time, are we not following a program irrespective of the origin of that program.

 

[PixyMisa]

I guess this was like sleep walking. Functioning but with no memory of thoughts or input. And a person with dementia, who cannot remember what they have said or where they are, are they conscious?

Human-level consciousness is clearly not an all-or-nothing process, but there is a core level of function there that we recognise as a person - psychologically and indeed legally.

If a computer with sensory inputs is programmed to do this - that is, lay down a series of images and sensory input for instant recall and later recall, does it not meet the criteria for consiousness? If the machine "talks" to you as you interact with it, and it tells you how it is "feeling and thinking", how is that different to a human?

Good question. I'd say that some of the components that we recognise as different are complexity, autonomy, and agency; so far our computer programs haven't yet reached a level where we recognise them as people. But there's no clear reason why human levels of complexity, autonomy and agency can't be reached with more computing capacity and more sophisticated programs. (Of course, I'm also not saying that this would be easy...)

 

[yy2bggggs]

Does the machine really say Feed me? Think about it for a few minutes.

Leumas:

Best I can tell, you have three themes here. First, there is whether or not the vending machine really says "Feed me". Second, there is the theme that humans have a tendency towards hyperactive agency detection. And third, there's the thesis that machines would never be conscious.

Regarding the first theme... I highly doubt that anyone here would say that this vending machine wants people to feed it.

Regarding the second theme, that's entirely correct. But there's also a contrary problem. This has been discussed before, but just as well as humans having a hyperactive agency detection, they are equally prone to remove human characteristics from another.

The final thesis I think is where you're running the most wild. The biggest problem here is that there is no objective basis whatsoever that I can see to constrain your scope--after all, we're talking about all possible machines of a certain class, right? (And best I can tell, we're not even restricting the class beyond that humans built it?) You emphasize that the key difference between machines and conscious entities is that the former are designed by humans, whereas the latter evolved. But I have no idea why you think conscious beings can only evolve. There's nothing about evolution that screams out, to me, that it alone can produce conscious entities.

Related to this is the fact that we can use the argument about applying caution due to our hyperactive agency detection to any line drawn; up the line to saying that only humans can be conscious, all the way to only my race is, or only men are.

So, yeah, humans have hyper active agency detection. But real agency is also a thing that happens, and happens according to some sort of condition. I want to know why you think that condition must be biological in nature; specifically, I want to know if you have a good argument for it, or if you're just drawing the line where you would like for it to be.

It's really easy, given that we want to say machines cannot be conscious, because they'll always "only" be "just" a machine, to draw a line there. Once there, it's painfully easy to say that the critical criteria is that you have to be biological in some key way.

But I just don't get why that line is actually related to consciousness. It seems to me that it's simply related to a desire to not be "just a machine."

Anyhow, you seem to be suggesting by this appeal to hyper agency detection that you would like to include "agency" in a definition for consciousness. Is this accurate?

 

[PixyMisa]

Also, how exactly are biological systems not machines?

 

[westprog]

Well, let's give him the benefit of the doubt.

He's going somewhere, I just don't know where yet.

But if the next step depends on asserting that any vaporized object can continue doing the same real work it was doing before the vaporization (whether or not its particles are still magically entrained) I can tell you right now, that dog won't hunt.

Since it's conceptually quite a difficult thing to manage, let's consider just two particles. We place them somewhere totally isolated from the universe. (Impossible, of course). They are interacting in some way. Ok, let's produce some conceptual device - we can call it a magic bean. We move the particles apart some arbitrary distance, with the magic bean between them. As far as each of the particles is concerned, the magic bean intercepts the signals, and somehow bypasses the laws of nature to make it seem - to each particle - as if the other particle were in its original position. (Naturally, this is impossible).

However, even it we accept this layering of impossibilities, we cannot claim that the second system is the same as the first, or is doing the same things. To any observer, we have to accept that different things are going on. We cannot, in any sense, regard the two processes as equivalent.

 

[Wowbagger]

I think this conversation has started getting a little too long. Perhaps we should all simply agree that consciousness is just a product of the pituitary gland, and put everything else to rest?!



...assuming easy, inaccurate answers are good enough, for this crowd.

 

[PixyMisa]

Hey, it worked for Descartes!

Then again, Descartes is dead, so see where that got him.

 

[punshhh]

Could you expand on that? What sort of overlay? What does it do? I won't ask you to propose how it works, but if you have an idea, I'm interested in that too.

I nearly forgot to address this as I am very busy at the moment and the thread is very fast.

By overlay I am referring to a kind of holographic projection of the self within the physical space occupied by the head. In which the entity of the self experiences the process of being a subjective, living, independent, sentient being. To the extent that the body can at times be regarded merely as an appendage.

It is not easy to express in the kind of terminology used here how this mechanism works. For I am used to discussing it in the the language of woo.

But if you think there's something to consciousness beyond my definition, please tell me what that is, as specifically as possible.

Yes, the experience of existing as a distinct point of being, around which the entire known universe is understood/perceived as a landscape.

I would like to point out that I don't regard any of this to be beyond the realms of artificial intelligence. But that we are as yet a long way off and are still back with the single cellular organisms in complexity, in this regard. However I expect that the evolution of AI may be quite rapid once a certain threshold of understanding is reached.

 

[PixyMisa]

I nearly forgot to address this as I am very busy at the moment and the thread is very fast.

By overlay I am referring to a kind of holographic projection of the self within the physical space occupied by the head. In which the entity of the self experiences the process of being a subjective, living, independent, sentient being. To the extent that the body can at times be regarded merely as an appendage.

It is not easy to express in the kind of terminology used here how this mechanism works. For I am used to discussing it in the the language of woo.

Sounds like you're describing Dennett's Cartesian theater^WP.

 

[Belz...]

semantics is not my game it's yours.

Huh, what ? What the hell are you talking about ?

Semantics ? Are your posts in any way related to mine ?

I asked why the other poster thought only carbon based life forms could be conscious. You said "evidence". Aside from the fact that this means nothing, do you at least understand how my powered flight example shows that it's not very useful to hold such a position based, presumably, on the fact that we only yet know carbon-based-life-based-consciousness ?

 

[Belz...]

Such a conversation could certainly have taken place. However, the difference is that anyone by throwing a stone could have seen that it was possible for flight to take place. There is no corresponding similar example for consciousness.

Westprog, please take the time to READ my post. I said "powered flight". POWERED.

 

[punshhh]

Sounds like you're describing Dennett's Cartesian theater^WP.

I wasn't specifically, more like an overlay similar to the Cartesian theater in that there is projection involved. But the screen is projected onto the world in front of (around) the head and the guy sitting in the chair is your personality and is your actual size. This gives a real sense of being present in that external world.

I see this as occurring alongside the Cartesian theater ( minds eye), which is projecting into a virtual space.

Perhaps hallucination occurs when the line between these two projections (and/or one or two other projections) becomes blurred.

 

[!Kaggen]

Westprog, please take the time to READ my post. I said "powered flight". POWERED.

Exactly semantic games

 

[dlorde]

... More advanced computer programs are written in anticipation of not being able to anticipate all possible situations and thus we try to anticipate how to make it respond in those unanticipated situations using code that has randomness or to occasionally perform a different subroutine.

Interesting; can you give a couple of examples of such programs, and the fields in which they operate?

 

[dlorde]

But the analogy is fallacious..... a more proper analogy would be

I don't think that a simulated axe will ever be able to cut a tree.​

Do you think a simulated chess player will ever be able to play chess?

 

[dlorde]

It's really easy, given that we want to say machines cannot be conscious, because they'll always "only" be "just" a machine, to draw a line there. Once there, it's painfully easy to say that the critical criteria is that you have to be biological in some key way.

We've seen this in relation to human vs machine intelligence. When we only had adding machines, the ability to perform rapid complex calculations was seen as a feature unique to human intelligence, beyond machines. When programmable computers arrived that could perform complex calculations beyond human abilities, the goalposts of True Intelligence^TM were moved to areas where humans were still considered supreme, e.g. chess. When chess programs became commonplace and Deep Blue beat Kasparov, the world champion, the goalposts moved again and True Intelligence now involved language processing, understanding, use of knowledge. Then IBM developed Watson, which beat the world's best Jeopardy players, and the goalposts still haven't settled.

At each stage, people said "We thought that's what intelligence was, but we were able to make a machine that could do it, so there's obviously more to it than that"; which effectively defines True Intelligence as that which machines can't do, and has an interesting parallel in the 'God of the Gaps' argument.

I suspect there will be a similar progression with machine consciousness, where at each stage, surprise will be followed by moving the goalposts of True Consciousness^TM.

ETA - it also seems to me that there are two sides to this, the traditional idea of human uniqueness and superiority in mental abilities, and the ill-defined nature of the concepts involved. Fortunately we're seeing a rapid erosion of the former due to recent animal behaviour studies, so the goalposts may less in evidence as time passes.

 

[Leumas]

Human-level consciousness is clearly not an all-or-nothing process, but there is a core level of function there that we recognise as a person - psychologically and indeed legally.

There are many animals that are clearly conscious too. So it is not only the human-level of consciousness that we need to account for when we investigate consciousness and especially when we aim to emulate it.

Good question. I'd say that some of the components that we recognise as different are complexity, autonomy, and agency ; so far our computer programs haven't yet reached a level where we recognise them as people.

Not just people…..not even dogs or cats or apes or dolphins or whales nor even pigeons or squirrels.

But there's no clear reason why human levels of complexity, autonomy and agency can't be reached with more computing capacity and more sophisticated programs.

No reason if you just want to muse with conjectures in the mind. I grant you that if all we want is to do is muse about the topic then yes one may not want to limit ones imagination. But when it comes to reality the facts of physics matter a lot especially when we are trying to make a real system not just a simulated one.

Why isn’t a mountain conscious or the moon or even earth itself with all these billions of years of being around while the ONLY thing, in our solar system at least, that has managed to be conscious is the lump of convoluted matter called the CEREBRUM. The fact that there is NOTHING ELSE in this world that has achieved consciousness other than the cerebrum might be of CRUCIAL significance.

I am not saying that NOTHING that we might make will do that nor am I saying that it has to be biological when and if we ever do make something that can achieve consciousness….. what I am saying is that maybe there is something in the PHYSICAL MAKEUP ….not magic or dualism or metaphysics or god or anything of the kind…… but something with the way the PHYSICS of the situation which we YET DO NOT UNDERSTAND that might be the a threshold that we need to cross in order to one day make a machine that would EMULATE the cerebrum of say a dog and would reproduce those PHYSICAL PROPERTIES that are required.

It is very much like trying to achieve flight…. Until we understood Bernoulli’s principle and Drag we could not just make something that looked like a bird or even behaved like a bird and made it fly PROPERLY.

Sure some people played with kites and gliders and bamboo sticks but until we really understood the PHYSICAL DYNAMICS of it that ACTUALLY allowed the birds to fly, we could not make machines that REALLY fly.

Some people thought all it would take is feathers or flapping wings or lots of prayer….. but until we understood the laws of fluid dynamics and how to apply them we were lacking that CRITICAL MASS of knowledge to make a plane.

But even then there was that sound barrier…. the people who made airplanes thought that there is no reason why a plane that can fly at 500 mph could not fly at Mach 1 or 3 or even 100. They saw the plane they made fly….they thought that all it would take is just more power, better profiles, etc.

They even did calculations and computer programs that told them that given the thrust and drag and lift generated etc. they should get mach 3. They did calculations after others and it appeared that there is absolutely no reason whatsoever why a plane that has sufficient power and the right profile should not achieve speed of sound and higher.

The problem is that they had THE WRONG PROFILE….. they THOUGHT they had all that was needed. Because of the fact that they did not understand that CRITICAL DIFFERENCE between a profile that can achieve subsonic flight and the one that can achieve sonic flight.

Of course through the understanding of the PHYSICAL DYNAMICS of the system that could achieve sonic fight could they then achieve it.

You see….. THE PHYSICS of the system matters quite a bit…. If you do not get the physics right you will not get the system to work.

But in a simulation or thought exercises we can achieve anything….. in Xbox games the person can jump from one wall to another to climb up a tower. In a movie a hero can fall ten stories but then find a ledge to catch with the tips of his fingers and be saved. But the reality of the PHYSICS of these situation is that this cannot happen. Nice movies and great entertainment….. but the PHYSICS of it is not ever going to allow it to be REALITY.

If we do not understand the PHYSICS of something we can simulate it till kingdom come…. and it will work every time in the simulation according to the physics formulas we CODED in the program …. It surely will work in the simulation…..because there is nothing in the simulated world to prevent it from working as we have programmed it.

But had we also programmed the FULL REALITY of the system and incorporated the factors that we did not know existed then even the simulation might prohibit a prince from hopping from one pole to another across chasms. The simulation might giggle while he is falling to his death and say “you fool what made you think that you can do things that defy the laws of physics”.

(Of course, I'm also not saying that this would be easy...)

Great….. with this I am in full agreement with you….. so now can you understand why

computer consciousness is in any way remarkable?

If it is not easy then any person who does it first is doing something that is praise worthy since so many others have been trying to do it for so long and as it is not easy they must have spent lots of effort and resources to finally achieve it. And thus it is a point in history to be remarked upon and accordingly it is REMARKABLE.

 

[Leumas]

Leumas:

Best I can tell, you have three themes here. First, there is whether or not the vending machine really says "Feed me". Second, there is the theme that humans have a tendency towards hyperactive agency detection. And third, there's the thesis that machines would never be conscious.

Also, how exactly are biological systems not machines?

If you read my posts you will find that I clearly say

I personally believe one day we will be able to EMULATE the human brain in a machine....... but not by programming it..... sure some parts may be programmed to do control of certain physical processes... but just like controlling a lathe.... we need the lathe’s mechanical parts to perform the lathing no matter how much programming there is.

I think something akin to a neural network that can emulate the PHYSICS of the brain will have a very good chance. But actual physics not simulated physics....
[snip]
Yes....humans are machines....
[snip]