Explain consciousness to the layman.

[rocketdodger]

So?

Why do you think that matters?

I have to cite Piggy's Law on you again, I'm afraid.

Why does it matter that your head would appear as a sliver if I was moving at 0.99999c relative to you?

Because you are sitting here claiming that it is impossible for a grossly deformed system to continue to do the same work.

This is in direct opposition to what we know about physics. If I am moving at 0.99999c relative to you, your head is grossly deformed from my perspective, yet you function nominally according to your own perspective.

What, you don't believe in all this "relativity" mumbo-jumbo?

 

[dlorde]

Since you seem to have a computer science background then instead of giving you the solution I am going to let you think about it by posing these questions to you.

...if you were to write a program that would utilize the most efficient sorting algorithm for any data set...

If you wanted to write a program to control a roaming autonomous robot that can roam in any previously unspecified environment...

OK; I'll take it that you're suggesting data sorting programs and autonomous robot control systems (rather than evading the question). Although it would have been nice to get a direct answer to such a simple question.

 

[westprog]

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.

That's an interesting view of the development of machine intelligence. It postulates that each stage of consciousness has been claimed to be impossible for machines, but they are getting through them one by one. First complex calculation, then chess, and soon they'll be able to do all the stuff now reserved for human beings. The people who've had doubts about this were proved wrong before, and will be proved wrong again.

I wonder who these people are who cast doubt on the ability of machines to carry out complex calculations. Surely not Pascal or Leibnitz. Machines have been used to aid calculation for hundreds of years. It's precisely what machines are good at. However, their usefulness in arithmetic is not matched with corresponding ability in mathematics, where their impact remains limited. The computer remains just a big abacus in mathematics, occasionally used for tedious repetitive work but providing little insight.

Who thought that chess would be impossible for a machine to play? The Mechanical Turk convinced people that a clockwork machine could play to a high standard back in the 1770's. It seems that they tended to over-estimate what a machine could do. In fact, the formal rule-based environment of chess was instantly recognised as ideal for computers. Weiner wrote a suggested strategy for computer chess back in 1948. The first computer chess program was written in 1957. That makes the field at least as old as I am.

So what are these continual breakthroughs in the area of consciousness? First calculations, then computer chess - now what? Faster calculations? Better chess programs? Computer Go?

What's noteworthy is that computers have gotten better and better at the things that computers are good at - but they've remained resolutely poor at the things that they were always bad at. We're coming up to the fiftieth anniversary of ELIZA. Is there a convincing bot out there which can carry on a brief conversation on Twitter, on any topic, and sound human - or indeed, as if any kind of conversation is going on?

Back in the 1970's, the real soon now view of machine intelligence was credible. I remember reading about theJapanese Fifth Generation Project that was going to change the world. It ended up giving us slightly more efficient washing machines.

 

[westprog]

I assume that was a joke, but in case it wasn't, throwing a rock is not exactly making it fly. If you think so, you're the one playing games.

Yes, throwing a rock is making it fly. Precisely what a bird does that a thrown rock doesn't is what is needed to understand in order to produce powered flight.

Of course, I can see that someone might be satisfied by producing a big rock throwing machine that he said produced flight, and jeer at people for looking for some "magical" secret ingredient because they have a deep emotional need for birds to be "special".

 

[rocketdodger]

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.

If I am moving at 99% the speed of light relative to you, a second of time for me is drastically different from a second of time for you.

At some relative speed, you could live your entire life before a single synaptic communication between neurons in my brain is finished, never mind an entire thought in my brain.

Yet you -- westprog -- have categorically denied that consciousness can exist in a system that doesn't operate in "real time."

The point of bringing up relativity is to question whether your notions of "real time" are what you think they are. If there are scenarios where the system of a conscious human would be operating so slowly from my perspective that it appears to be completely frozen in time, then clearly your arguments that computer system supporting a program operating slower than local time cannot be conscious are simply flawed.

Relativity means things are relative. See how many letters those two words share? Yeah.

EDIT -- and let me head off your predictable response, that since it is impossible to interact with someone going 99% the speed of light, it is impossible to actually observe them as nearly frozen in time -- who cares? If I get in my spaceship, and fly circles around the Earth at 99% the speed of light, and I return after a few seconds only to find you now 100 years older, am I not allowed to use my brain to infer what happened? Does it not make sense to assume that the rate of events in my body were drastically different from the rate of events in yours?

If not, how would you explain the fact that one of us has aged 100 years and the other has aged only seconds?

 

[dlorde]

Consciousness != Intelligence

I know; I was drawing a parallel between them in terms of their treatment in that context.

 

[westprog]

Why can't the same logic be applied to consciousness ?

I would hope that a very similar path would be followed with the biological principles being derived from the organisms that possess the ability, and the physical principles being abstracted.

 

[rocketdodger]

That's an interesting view of the development of machine intelligence. It postulates that each stage of consciousness has been claimed to be impossible for machines, but they are getting through them one by one. First complex calculation, then chess, and soon they'll be able to do all the stuff now reserved for human beings. The people who've had doubts about this were proved wrong before, and will be proved wrong again.

I wonder who these people are who cast doubt on the ability of machines to carry out complex calculations. Surely not Pascal or Leibnitz. Machines have been used to aid calculation for hundreds of years. It's precisely what machines are good at. However, their usefulness in arithmetic is not matched with corresponding ability in mathematics, where their impact remains limited. The computer remains just a big abacus in mathematics, occasionally used for tedious repetitive work but providing little insight.

Who thought that chess would be impossible for a machine to play? The Mechanical Turk convinced people that a clockwork machine could play to a high standard back in the 1770's. It seems that they tended to over-estimate what a machine could do. In fact, the formal rule-based environment of chess was instantly recognised as ideal for computers. Weiner wrote a suggested strategy for computer chess back in 1948. The first computer chess program was written in 1957. That makes the field at least as old as I am.

So what are these continual breakthroughs in the area of consciousness? First calculations, then computer chess - now what? Faster calculations? Better chess programs? Computer Go?

What's noteworthy is that computers have gotten better and better at the things that computers are good at - but they've remained resolutely poor at the things that they were always bad at. We're coming up to the fiftieth anniversary of ELIZA. Is there a convincing bot out there which can carry on a brief conversation on Twitter, on any topic, and sound human - or indeed, as if any kind of conversation is going on?

Back in the 1970's, the real soon now view of machine intelligence was credible. I remember reading about theJapanese Fifth Generation Project that was going to change the world. It ended up giving us slightly more efficient washing machines.

Yeah but the problem is you stopped reading about advances in computer science "Back in the 1970's."

If you bothered to read up on current events, you would see things like software carrying out biological research, formulating mathematical proofs, and making business decisions for gigantic corporations.

Not to mention the fact that research groups are simulating portions of mamallian brains, soon to be entire mamallian brains.

And you can talk to your iphone, and for simple communications, it understands you.

How do you respond to that, westprog?

 

[Belz...]

Of course, I can see that someone might be satisfied by producing a big rock throwing machine that he said produced flight, and jeer at people for looking for some "magical" secret ingredient because they have a deep emotional need for birds to be "special".

Yes, that was surely the point of my analogy, westprog.

There simply is no way to discuss anything with you.

 

[Leumas]

Of course, it might also be the case that, due to their superior knowledge of the subject, they could identify consciousness in systems we normally wouldn’t regard as "having consciousness". Superior knowledge could also lessen the bias.

PRECISELY…….quite right on ALL the points made in the above paragraph.

This renders my response to the previous paragraph obsolete…. But I will do it anyway because I want to make an additional point at the end.

Probably so.
Although it might depend on how "superior" they would be to us. The measurement, which to them would be the lower bound they could possibly accept of as "having consciousness", could still be too high for us. This would perhaps be a plausible scenario in a situation where they wouldn’t be carbon-based, nor look or behave like us. (This is also what I mean by "same kind of human bias"; not just bias in regards to functioning, but also in regards to structural similarity.)

Wasn't there a Star Trek episode just like that. Some crystalline entities that were mistaken for fuel and were mined for warp drives but then took revenge or something?

Regardless of what they are made of and what their nature is..... if they are mobile and have intentionality then they are like us.

And as you rightly say above…if they have higher technology than us then they are most likely to be able to distinguish lower life forms as alive just like we can.

If we are capable of distinguishing consciousness in a PIGEON I am quite sure they most likely would be able to distinguish it in us if we are even on the level of squirrel as far as they are concerned.

Some humans have argued in the past that a mountain is sacred and has supernatural powers. So are we to conclude by the above argument that maybe the moon is, for all we know, a conscious entity? I mean there is scifi and there is reality, and in this case we are talking about the reality of making programmed computers that are conscious.

My argument is that no matter what if a machine is PROGRAMMED then by that virtue it can hardly be called conscious.

I think programs are REMOTE CONTROL….. remote in continuous and distant time and space as opposed to just in instantaneous time and distant space.

Most people would not call a machine that is remotely controlled conscious because it does not have its OWN intentionality….rather it is just a REFLECTION of the intentionality of the controller.

Most people can appreciate the concept of “remote control” in terms of SPACE……… I am trying to explain that computer programs are TEMPORAL REMOTE CONTROL….. they are a device that enables us to remotely control the computer OVER TIME not just over space.

In other words a program is a mechanism to control a machine like the computer over TIME AND SPACE.

I doubt anyone here would argue that an automated bottling plant is conscious….at least I hope that is the case.

I doubt anyone here would argue that an RC airplane or car is conscious…. I hope.

So why would anyone argue that a remotely controlled computer is conscious when in fact it is remotely controlled by the PROGRAMMER who wrote the program just like the engineer who designed the mechanical devices in the bottling plant and the person who is operating the RC controller.

A program is a TEMPORAL REMOTE CONTROL MECHANISM that is all. A clever mechanism we humans have devised to control a mechanical/electrical machine in a novel and useful way just like the punch cards that used to control the patterns in an automated textile mill or the gears, cogs and levers in one of these entertaining clock towers in Switzerland.

 

[westprog]

Yes, that was surely the point of my analogy, westprog.

There simply is no way to discuss anything with you.

Sadly analogy is a two-edged sword, and the way it points can vary.

 

[dlorde]

It's common in games - if one were to recognise the sequence of shapes in Tetris, for example, it would make the game boring.

I don't think Leumas was referring to simple randomisation of that kind - he said:

..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.

Using it for AI agents in gaming is a fairly obvious application, where it is used to make agent behaviours more human-like or challenging for the player.

I was curious to know if he knew of some more interesting or less obvious applications, but for whatever reason, he chose not to commit to a direct answer.

 

[Leumas]

Yes, throwing a rock is making it fly. Precisely what a bird does that a thrown rock doesn't is what is needed to understand in order to produce powered flight.

Of course, I can see that someone might be satisfied by producing a big rock throwing machine that he said produced flight, and jeer at people for looking for some "magical" secret ingredient because they have a deep emotional need for birds to be "special".

Wonderfully put.....

 

[Frank Newgent]

And you can talk to your iphone, and for simple communications, it understands you.

I'm on an extended hold on the phone right now. A voice said "I'm sorry" and it sounded quite sincere

 

[Leumas]

OK; I'll take it that you're suggesting data sorting programs and autonomous robot control systems (rather than evading the question). Although it would have been nice to get a direct answer to such a simple question.

I was not evading the question... I was using a technique of Philosophy.


Your deductions about the systems and the uses are quite right.... isn't it better to figure that out for yourself rather than me telling you.

Working it out for yourself also made you think about the original statement for which you asked me to give examples. The whole process of you working it out for yourself I think made you appreciate my original concept more in depth.

 

[westprog]

I was not evading the question... I was using a technique of Philosophy.


Your deductions about the systems and the uses are quite right.... isn't it better to figure that out for yourself rather than me telling you.

Working it out for yourself also made you think about the original statement for which you asked me to give examples. The whole process of you working it out for yourself I think made you appreciate my original concept more in depth.

Just don't tell us to read a 600 page book and get back to you.

 

[Leumas]

Just don't tell us to read a 600 page book and get back to you.

Actually the version I have is 777 pages or 745 if you do not count the Bibliography and Index.

 

[dlorde]

Clearly a computer program can easily be made able to make the moves according to the rules. Such programs may well reach the stage where they can win every game against a human opponent. Can they be said to be "playing" though?

In the sense of 'participating in a game or sport', yes, of course; they are playing chess. Making moves according to the rules is 'playing the game'. Beating a competent opponent is 'playing well'. Beating the world champion is being 'the best player in the world'.

However, this is missing the point - which was that there are plenty of examples of computer simulations that 'work' for real: Can a simulated adding machine add? can a simulated mixing desk mix music? can a simulated voice generate intelligible speech? can a simulated wall clock tell you the time? can you play pinball on a simulated pinball machine? can you play Solitaire with a simulated card deck? can simulated evolution give you novel designs? etc.

The point is that computer hardware and software can perform functions that involve information processing, and the current discussion revolves around whether consciousness mainly involves or arises from information processing, and if so, whether there is any good reason why it cannot be done by computer hardware and software.

In this context, asking whether a simulated axe can chop wood, or a simulated truck can carry rubbish to the dump is irrelevant.

 

[Belz...]

Sadly analogy is a two-edged sword, and the way it points can vary.

When you know the point of an analogy, why would you bother twisting it around, as if that made a difference ? People said for a while that powered flight couldn't be done, but they couldn't be bothered to say why. No one here has offered any reason why consciousness requires a biological substrate other than "well the ones we know so far have one." which is useless. That you sidestep my analogy completely simply shows that you know that, and would rather not address it directly.

 

[dlorde]

... it seems like these researchers posit some kind of "internal" state storage via how microtubles are arranged in the cell, and they specifically talk about "bits" of information.

It's a plausible data storage mechanism, but it's difficult to see how it would be work (i.e. translation to and from the storage, & how the data would be used). The other idea that mRNA might 'fix' or modulate the synaptic state seemed simpler and more direct.