Explain consciousness to the layman.

[Piggy]

If I run a simulation of a tornado, and I output the results to a huge screen, from a distance the photons coming from the screen are almost identical in behavior to the photons coming from the tornado. If you want I can even add a pretty sky, a forest in the background. Then the photons coming from a given chunk of the horizon -- where the screen is -- are almost identical in behavior to the photons that would be coming from that chunk of the sky if there were no simulation + screen.

And I don't mean "identical" just to a human observer. They have very similar wavelengths and hence very similar energy, they are aligned in very similar ways, their numbers are very similar, etc. For all practical purposes the simulation has led to a change in the photons bouncing around our world that is very similar to the change that a real tornado makes.

So what do you call that, if it isn't "working?" Even more to the point, what do you call that, if not "existing?"

Saying that something which is producing some actual changes to the world, changes that are very similar to some of those than a tornado would cause, is neither "working" nor "existing" seems absurd to me.

I really want to hear your answer to this because I honestly don't see how your entire argument holds water even in such an easy to imagine scenario. Maybe I am crazy, I dunno.

"Very similar" doesn't cut it.

And do you believe that the display would look similar to a tornado from the point of view of a butterfly?

I doubt it, unless you bothered to set up the output in the spectrum of butterfly optics.

No, the photons coming from that screen are not of the type and arrangement you get from a tornado... they're only good enough to fool the human eye, which is what they're designed to do.

In any case, a tornado isn't defined as the light you'd expect a tornado to emit... a tornado is a tornado.

The simulator is doing what the simulator does, which if you observe the simulator -- especially the part "running the logic" -- is not what a tornado does, which is why it's a simulation and not a replica.

The "tornado" exists only when an observer with the right sort of eyes and ears and brain views the system, and then it exists as a state of the observer's brain.

When the programmer goes home for the night, there's no tornado in the lab, only a machine doing essentially what it would be doing if it were simulating a drag race, or Frodo's journey, or the orbit of Europa.

 

[rocketdodger]

The two most important questions are:

What exactly is the brain doing when it performs any given experience? (Which is to say, what are the neural correlates of experience?)

Why is any given nueral correlate associated with the particular experience it correlates with, rather than some other experience, or none at all?

I just don't see how you could answer anything in terms of "neural correlates" without resorting to some sort of "this neuron activates these neurons" and "these neurons over here are doing this when that experience is being performed" language, and I fail to understand how such language is significantly different from anything we use when speaking about computers.

Can you explain that?

 

[rocketdodger]

"Very similar" doesn't cut it.

And do you believe that the display would look similar to a tornado from the point of view of a butterfly?

I doubt it, unless you bothered to set up the output in the spectrum of butterfly optics.

I don't need to do that, though. I didn't say similar in all respects, or even "many" respects, I said "some" respects. Restricting the output to the spectrum we can sense is fine.

Just because it is restricted doesn't imply there is an observer dependency. I can restrict the size of the explosion of a nuclear bomb to be approximately as big as that of a stick of dynamite, are you claiming then that the dynamite only blows up like the nuke if I am there to observe it?

No, the photons coming from that screen are not of the type and arrangement you get from a tornado... they're only good enough to fool the human eye, which is what they're designed to do.

So ... they aren't the type and arrangement you get from a tornado, yet they can fool the human eye?

You don't see a contradiction in that statement?

Obviously if the human eye is fooled, at some level the photons are similar to those from a tornado. Why do you argue against such obvious logic?

In any case, a tornado isn't defined as the light you'd expect a tornado to emit... a tornado is a tornado.

Whether the light output of a tornado is the same thing as a tornado is irrelevant, you are the only person fixated on that strawman -- move past it.

You clearly said that without an observer a simulation isn't working and doesn't even exist.

I am asking you how that can be true if the simulation objectively changes the world in at least some of the ways a tornado objectively changes the world.

The simulator is doing what the simulator does, which if you observe the simulator -- especially the part "running the logic" -- is not what a tornado does, which is why it's a simulation and not a replica.

But that isn't true -- one of the things a tornado does is change photons in its environment a certain way, and the simulator clearly also changes photons in its environment a certain way. And with certain restrictions applied, those two sets of changes are very similar.

The "tornado" exists only when an observer with the right sort of eyes and ears and brain views the system, and then it exists as a state of the observer's brain.

When the programmer goes home for the night, there's no tornado in the lab, only a machine doing essentially what it would be doing if it were simulating a drag race, or Frodo's journey, or the orbit of Europa.

Except if it were simulating a drag race, it would cease to generate changes in the environment, in a restricted sense, similar to those of a tornado. Yeah you could narrow the restrictions down to almost nothing and then it would be equivalent, but that is irrelevant.

What you seem to be doing is arbitrarily deciding that photons don't matter, or only matter if they are "close enough." Don't you get sick of arbitrary rules you make up to win arguments?

How about if we hook up a big fan to the simulation -- so now both photons and wind speed at some distance from the simulator happen to be close to that of a tornado. Sound, too? That is easy. Hey, I can even add seismic vibrations. By now even the forest animals will be running from cover -- yet it is only a simulation.

At what point does this thing become something that is "working" and "exists?" Are you going to keep moving the goalposts for team arbitrary?

 

[tsig]

I just don't see how you could answer anything in terms of "neural correlates" without resorting to some sort of "this neuron activates these neurons" and "these neurons over here are doing this when that experience is being performed" language, and I fail to understand how such language is significantly different from anything we use when speaking about computers.

Can you explain that?

Seems that Piggy, et. al. will go to any lengths to deny that it's all just electro-chemical reactions.

 

[yy2bggggs]

And that's part of your problem.

You're viewing the entire system in terms of references and referents.

No, Piggy. That's another straw man you constructed.

I'm simply telling you how reference works.

As the light bouncing off a tree hits my eyes and causes cascades of neural activity, there is, at first, no reference to anything...

Of course not. The reference is constructed by your brain.

For the same reason, there is no "image of the moon" reflected on a pond until and unless someone's there to consciously see it.

Nonsense. All of this reference building business is part of agency, and not what you're considering the conscious mind. The references are constructed, and can even be acted upon, without any conscious awareness of it.

If I dream about a tree, what is the "referent" of that experience?

Easy. There is none.

Now how did you know it was a tree you dreamed of as opposed to, say, a herd of elephants? What's the difference between dreaming of a tree and dreaming of a herd of elephants, and why does it make sense to say your dream was a dream of a tree in the first place?

 

[punshhh]

Seems that Piggy, et. al. will go to any lengths to deny that it's all just electro-chemical reactions.

Yes but do we know all these reactions? and the emergent properties of living chemistry involved?

 

[Leumas]

Seems that Piggy, et. al. will go to any lengths to deny that it's all just electro-chemical reactions.

Tsig,

To answer your above post there are multiple points to be made.

1- I keep telling you that you need to read posts a little better than just skimming so that you can actually get what the posters are saying before you comment on what they are saying based upon incomplete knowledge due to incomplete and inaccurate reading of what they wrote.

See these few posts that I alone made that prove how wrong your above assertion is.

Pebbles are not BIOLOGICAL things and thus they require a motivator. Biological things move and grow and are ACTIVE PROCESSES in and of themselves (due to active chemical and electrical engines).

It is possibly an emergent synergetic property of the critical mass of complexity that the brain bundle has evolved to be. It is perhaps the result of all the positive and negative feedback loops of all the sensory input and output signals combined with the attenuation, convolution, augmentation, reverberation, initiation and relaying of electrochemical signals combined with cross talk and cross sparking between various and all parts of the closely INTERTWINED and CONVOLUTED BUNDLE of matter called the brain.

That is all there is to it....that is what happens in us.... certain parts react to something which will cause them to trigger the release of chemicals that affect the FIRINGS OF OUR NEURONS in a certain way.

That is not the case with the neurons.... the chemicals actually affect how they fire and how often they fire.

So unlike a transistor for instance which as used in computers is either on or off, and the switching rate is fixed, the neuron can change the firing rate depending on the presence or not of certain chemicals and the amount of these chemicals. Also different chemicals make different situations.

So the INFORMATION STATES of a neuron are not just binary one bit. Rather it is a combination of binary and analog as well as being MANY BITS of states due to various chemicals.

In other words the information content of a Neuron is orders of magnitude more than a transistor and that is discounting the analog aspect of chemical quantities.

2- At the risk of repeating yet again what I have already repeated multiple times and have been labeled a kook for doing it.... I remind you that if you are so sure of what consciousness "just" is then I suggest that you go inform the 5 neuroscientists quoted below. I am sure they would be eternally grateful and might even reward you for it. Or at the very least maybe you should write a scientific paper in one of the neuroscience journals.

So as you see, "Piggy et al" are in quite a good company when they do not adamantly and hubristically assert that "it's all just electro-chemical reactions" since apparently neuroscientists who are working on the matter are to be included in the "et al" part.

...a quote from a book on human brain function written by 5 neuroscientists:

"We have no idea how consciousness emerges from the physical activity of the brain and we do not know whether consciousness can emerge from non-biological systems, such as computers... At this point the reader will expect to find a careful and precise definition of consciousness. You will be disappointed. Consciousness has not yet become a scientific term that can be defined in this way. Currently we all use the term consciousness in many different and often ambiguous ways. Precise definitions of different aspects of consciousness will emerge ... but to make precise definitions at this stage is premature."

3- Even if it is "just" electrochemical reactions.... where are the electrochemical reactions that are taking place in a computer simulation?

Remember that the debate is now about whether a computer simulation might be sufficient to produce consciousness or not. "Piggy et al" assert that it is not, precisely because it might be that the "electrochemical reactions" and other things we do not yet quite know well enough (unlike you of course who is sure it is "just" that) are what is required for consciousness to emerge in the machine and which are missing in the computer as it is simulating.

That is precisely what "Piggy et al" are CONJECTURING.... that an EMULATION might be required rather than a simulation because replicating some of the "electrochemical reactions" among other things could turn out to be what is necessary for consciousness to emerge in a manmade machine and thus a computer simulation would be incapable of achieving the necessary PHYSICS that may prove to be what is required.

4- Regardless of what you might think... there are currently no existing conscious manmade machines except in the IMAGINATION of people who seem to keep conflating science FICTION with reality.

So any conjectures made on any side of the debate are just that….guessing…. and when guessing is the game then guesses based on REALITY and FACTS are usually more likely to turn out to be true than ones based upon wishful thinking, imagination and fictive scenarios.

Tron and Terminator are just movies of science FICTION.

Regardless of any assertions to the contrary....there are no conscious entities running around inside computers being blown about by destructive tornados.

 

[punshhh]

No, Piggy. That's another straw man you constructed.

I'm simply telling you how reference works.
Of course not. The reference is constructed by your brain.Nonsense. All of this reference building business is part of agency, and not what you're considering the conscious mind. The references are constructed, and can even be acted upon, without any conscious awareness of it.

Easy. There is none.

Now how did you know it was a tree you dreamed of as opposed to, say, a herd of elephants? What's the difference between dreaming of a tree and dreaming of a herd of elephants, and why does it make sense to say your dream was a dream of a tree in the first place?

As it looks as though the discussion of this point of dispute is drawing to a close. Perhaps I can now introduce another point which focusses more on the link between intelligence and consciousness, bringing the discussion back to consciousness.

Now I'm not going to bring up qualia as it causes heated debate and I don't see much relevance for consciousness with it. Qualia is of issue in a discussion of experience, which I'm not addressing.

My point is to do with knowing, being and the self

I know that I am looking at a reflection of the moon in a puddle, or I prefer to consider seeing a reflection of the moon in a dew drop.

Also I am being present, I have presence in the physical realm in which the moon and the dewdrop are, in time and space.

Also I am, the entity being present knowing both myself, my existence, my existence in the physical realm and the existence which appears as the reflection in the dewdrop.

In what sense can these qualities to attributed to an intelligent computer?

 

[rocketdodger]

That is precisely what "Piggy et al" are CONJECTURING.... that an EMULATION might be required rather than a simulation because replicating some of the "electrochemical reactions" among other things could turn out to be what is necessary for consciousness to emerge in a manmade machine and thus a computer simulation would be incapable of achieving the necessary PHYSICS that may prove to be what is required.

Yeah we get it.

And our position is that piggy doesn't really know what he is talking about when he tries to make arbitrary distinctions between emulation and simulation.

Why don't you google "emulation versus simulation" and see for yourself if it is as cut and dry as piggy has been claiming ?

Oh, and you might be interested in the fact that according to wikipedia "emulation" doesn't even have meaning outside of computing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emulator

The fact is, piggy is just making most of this stuff up on the fly to try and support his argument. That is fine -- I do similar stuff all the time. However, if one is going to make stuff up, it means one could possibly be wrong. In this case, someone is definitely wrong -- on many points.

 

[rocketdodger]

Yes but do we know all these reactions? and the emergent properties of living chemistry involved?

Well, we know that all the reactions are at least the same kind of reactions we see in other stuff. Meaning, no magic reactions.

We also know that at some level the emergent properties are irrelevant -- stuff that emerges too slow, or on too small a scale, we can safely ignore. Yeah that might "flavor" experience and consciousness, but it doesn't start it or prevent it, because we experience and think pretty quick and pretty strong -- whole neurons get activated, and in fractions of a second.

Finally we can easily look at the difference between a conscious person and an unconscious one. People who are awake, or dreaming, have drastically different neural activity than those who just got hit with a hammer ( or are braindead ).

So -- connect the dots. The only significant difference we are able to detect, given what is actually fairly exhaustive technology at this point, is the pattern of neural activation in the brain. There is no significant correlation when it comes to consciousness vs. non-consciousness in any other aspect of the brain.

Now, you might argue that perhaps there is more to the patterns than we think, and that would be at least a plausible argument, a step in the right direction. It turns out that there isn't more to the patterns than we think, though, so although plausible it is just incorrect. We can have a discussion about that if you would like.

 

[rocketdodger]

In what sense can these qualities to attributed to an intelligent computer?

Well, first you should try to figure out exactly what those qualities entail in yourself.

Here is a good start -- try to imagine what your consciousness would be like if you had no sensory perception. From birth. Try to imagine what your thoughts would even be like if there was no vision, no hearing, no taste, no feeling, nothing. Not just sensory deprivation, but sensory non-existence.

Do you think you would be conscious in the same way as you are now, in that scenario?

 

[Piggy]

Seems that Piggy, et. al. will go to any lengths to deny that it's all just electro-chemical reactions.

Um... you seem to have misunderstood our point, which is precisely that this is all that it is.

We ask for nothing more.

 

[Piggy]

I just don't see how you could answer anything in terms of "neural correlates" without resorting to some sort of "this neuron activates these neurons" and "these neurons over here are doing this when that experience is being performed" language, and I fail to understand how such language is significantly different from anything we use when speaking about computers.

Can you explain that?

Yes, but I hope it won't be too long a read for you.

I stopped a draft reply last night for that reason, but plan to pick it up again this evening.

 

[Piggy]

I don't need to do that, though. I didn't say similar in all respects, or even "many" respects, I said "some" respects. Restricting the output to the spectrum we can sense is fine.

Just because it is restricted doesn't imply there is an observer dependency. I can restrict the size of the explosion of a nuclear bomb to be approximately as big as that of a stick of dynamite, are you claiming then that the dynamite only blows up like the nuke if I am there to observe it?

The difference between this and the simulation is that you have a real explosion in both cases.

If you recall, in my "mega post" I used doll furniture as one example of a scale replica.

But you're trying to say that the simulated tornado is a real tornado because it gives off light patterns which are similar in some respects. That's so silly it's not even worth discussing.

When we describe the simulator, it's chips and voltage potentials and monitors.

When we describe the simulation, it's high winds and funnel clouds and moisture.

Those are 2 different systems, and you can't claim that the same matter and energy are somehow really producing both.

We can observe and measure the simulator, and nowhere will we find any high winds, water, and funnel clouds.

These exist only in the mind of the observer, and more specifically only in the mind of an observer with the right kind of eyes and brain.

Period.

 

[Piggy]

Nonsense. All of this reference building business is part of agency, and not what you're considering the conscious mind. The references are constructed, and can even be acted upon, without any conscious awareness of it.

The activity of the brain, in the case of conscious perception of the outside world, is linked both to the outside world and to the performance of experience. This allows the body to deal effectively with the rest of reality.

Taken as a whole, this system can be said to include a reference and referent. However, we should keep in mind that the human experience of the tree bears no actual resemblance to the tree -- it's made up entirely of things that have no existence outside of experience (color, odor, sound, texture, etc.).

Of course, if we wanted to we could also describe the ripples in a pond as being referred from a pebble dropped in the water, and we could describe the encoding of information about the pebble in the resulting wave pattern.

What's going on in the non-conscious brain is like the second example, which is why it can be problematic to talk about references and referents when it comes to the non-conscious (or pre-conscious or para-conscious) activity of the brain.

 

[Piggy]

The fact is, piggy is just making most of this stuff up on the fly to try and support his argument. That is fine -- I do similar stuff all the time. However, if one is going to make stuff up, it means one could possibly be wrong. In this case, someone is definitely wrong -- on many points.

My argument is supported by the laws of physics, so I'm not worried on that count.

And the fact that your arguments are not supported by neurobiology is telling.

As for simulation and emulation, I prefer the terms simulation and replica, which I think are going to be much more easily understood by most people.

 

[westprog]

Seems that Piggy, et. al. will go to any lengths to deny that it's all just electro-chemical reactions.

Which are of course identical to things which aren't electro-chemical reactions. Er... what's wrong with this picture?

It's "Piggy et al." who are saying that something about these particular electro-chemical reactions might be important. It's "Pixy et al." who are insisting that even though the brain is electro-chemical in function, we can just ignore that aspect of it, provided that the broad schematic functionality is analogous.

 

[Leumas]

The difference between this and the simulation is that you have a real explosion in both cases.

If you recall, in my "mega post" I used doll furniture as one example of a scale replica.

But you're trying to say that the simulated tornado is a real tornado because it gives off light patterns which are similar in some respects. That's so silly it's not even worth discussing.
When we describe the simulator, it's chips and voltage potentials and monitors.

When we describe the simulation, it's high winds and funnel clouds and moisture.

Those are 2 different systems, and you can't claim that the same matter and energy are somehow really producing both.

We can observe and measure the simulator, and nowhere will we find any high winds, water, and funnel clouds. These exist only in the mind of the observer, and more specifically only in the mind of an observer with the right kind of eyes and brain.Period.

The fact that you even have to explain that, is in itself mind boggling.

 

[westprog]

The classic AI 101 example is tic-tac-toe. Since this is a very tractable game, it's easy to program a player for this game that simply gives a specific programmed response to each opposing move. Such responses are not considered intelligent because, whereas this program does indeed evaluate an environment, it does not "figure out what to do". An intelligent approach would have the tic-tac-toe playing program analyze the puzzle space, compare possible moves to others using some sort of algorithm, and move according to the result of this analysis.

The intelligent approach is necessary to program a decent chess playing game, since in this case, the problem is pragmatically intractable beyond something akin to an open book.

It's interesting that you here explicitly state that the means by which an outcome is reached are of more significance than the outcome itself. Thus one program can use intelligence to produce an outcome, while another can use brute force. To the external observer, of course, both will behave identically.

I will point out that this analysis contradicts a purely behavioural view of consciousness, whereby if an entity shares the behaviour of a conscious organism, then it perforce is conscious.

There's an obvious contradiction between these two viewpoints.

 

[westprog]

Yes, exactly, in that higher-pitched and carefully-enunciated tone common to all languages which means "this is what you should be saying."

Who says kids aren't programmed?

The grammatical errors that all children make when speaking are an indication that of intelligence that perfect reproduction of adult speech patterns would not demonstrate. In order for a child to make a grammatical error, she would need to analyse speech and deduce the rules of language, and then use those rules to produce a new form of speech that she has never heard before. If you listen carefully to the kinds of errors that children make when speaking, they invariably involve a more logical form of language than that which their parents speak. Even if entirely uncorrected, children will learn more and more rules and special cases as they go on.