Explain consciousness to the layman.

[Brainache]

If you ask Data if he is conscious he will say "yes" if he is. if he is not conscious then he'll say "no" or possibly get a little confused and ask for clarification but I think Data was obviously well enough read to fully comprehend the question and have been able to figure out the answer.

Consciousness is subjective and only apparent to the person themselves but it is apparent to the person themself. If it wasn't we wouldn't be discussing this. So there is an objective physically measurable way to measure consciousness in others and it is to ask them.

(In Data's case we can ignore the possibility of lying or a lack of sophistication to answer the question accurately)

...

Would the fact that Data can have dreams and nightmares be evidence of his consciousness?

 

[Leumas]

You should tell them that when using "passes a Turing Test" as an operational definition of consciousness, no machine has achieved consciousness.

OK... did you know about the Turing test before you started contributing to this thread? Did you know that it is a "holy grail" of the Artificial Intelligence field of research?



Do you think that the Turing test is

A- Overly exacting
B- Too lax
C- Sufficiently rigorous​

If you do not answer A... then would you advice anyone who concocts a homemade operational definition that maybe they should look into the Turing test to verify if their made up definition falls short of it to ensure that their definition is of any value?

 

[Brainache]

Are you being facetious or are you actually serious?

If the former then …. If the latter then

I think you missed the point of the whole "Tornado" side track. IIRC it started with Piggy saying that a simulation running in a computer couldn't affect things in the real world.

Others are arguing that a simulation of a brain hooked up to a robot body, or a simulation of a tornado hooked up to a fan would indeed affect things in the real world.

Nobody except you has claimed that a simulated tornado is the same as a real tornado.

Some have been arguing that a simulated consciousness is no different from a "real" consciousness. Because they say that consciousness is a result of "information processing". Why should it matter if that processing is done by neurons or software? Information processing is information processing, whether it is being done by a lump of electro-chemical fleshy stuff, or by electrons and silicon.

Some have been arguing that there is something special about flesh and blood brains which can't be reproduced in a computer.

I just wish I had a friend like Data who could sort it all out with a simplistic analogy, kind of like pushing a lump of dough through a pasta strainer...

 

[yy2bggggs]

OK... did you know about the Turing test before you started contributing to this thread?

Yes.

Did you know that it is a "holy grail" of the Artificial Intelligence field of research?

It can be considered that, sure. But not everyone in AI is after that goal; and, AI research won't end if that goal is hit.

Do you think that the Turing test is

A- Overly exacting
B- Too lax
C- Sufficiently rigorous​

I think the question doesn't make sense. As an operational definition, it specifies exactly what it is talking about. That's a perfectly legitimate thing to do.

But if I want to consider my cat conscious, then I don't like either of the above options. Keep in mind that my cat cannot pass a Turing test.

If you do not answer A... then would you advice anyone who concocts a homemade operational definition that maybe they should look into the Turing test to verify if their made up definition falls short of it to ensure that their definition is of any value?

Nope. Incidentally, I consider the use of the Turing test as a criteria of consciousness homemade. It's usually used as a test for intelligence, not consciousness. (Same general caveats apply here too, however; if I want to consider my cat intelligent, I don't like any of those options).

ETA: Oh, and westprog... my cat is currently awake as I type this.

 

[DavidByron]

Because it's entirely subjective. The test is that we would trust the impressions of a person or people to tell whether an entity is conscious or not. There is no objective basis whatsoever.

It's like saying that the test for the presence of dioxin in drinking water was to ask an expert for his opinion. We wouldn't regard that as a test at all.

Well that is what you have to do. The test itself means nothing unless you have an expert to interpret it. In the end all you have is the subjective view of the expert that the test results indicate dioxin. The apparatus itself doesn't have the answer.

As far as the definition of consciousness goes - I think that there are possibly good grounds to believe that not only is consciousness (in particular, subjective experience) undefined, but that it's inherently undefinable. This does not mean that we are unable to talk about it at all. The test is that we are, in fact, able to talk about it.

I don't understand what you could mean. Consciousness is easy to define and has been defined. It is true there is some confusion because people often use the word in slightly different ways. There's nothing magic or complicated about it at all. It's a thing like anything else. In any case "conscious" is a word so you can always define it, it's more a question of whether the definition is useful or not.

However, although the 'you know it when you see it' approach may not be good enough, because, as you point out above, and as punshh himself suggests, you can't be sure that it isn't an imitation, simulation, or mimic of consciousness,

Why would that be an issue for consciousness alone? There are no actual philosophical zombies so there's no actual chance of deception. Besides which how often is this an issue for any other science? If scientists had to think,

"Gosh maybe my apparatus was stolen by magic science-hating fairies at the last second and they substituted something that looks like it but is rigged to mess up my data? Clearly I cannot rule out this possibility. Nor can I rule out the possibility that the same fairies will similarly spoil every other scientists data who seeks to reproduce this experiment."

well nothing would ever get done. In fact that sort of an excuse sounds a lot like the things that psychics say to explain why science cannot measure or reproduce psychic phenomena.

 

[DavidByron]

Would the fact that Data can have dreams and nightmares be evidence of his consciousness?

By the very definition of consciousness if Data "has" anything at all he is conscious. Consciousness is having any experience or awareness at all, as opposed to a philosophical zombie.

 

[Leumas]

I think you missed the point of the whole "Tornado" side track. IIRC it started with Piggy saying that a simulation running in a computer couldn't affect things in the real world.

Others are arguing that a simulation of a brain hooked up to a robot body, or a simulation of a tornado hooked up to a fan would indeed affect things in the real world.

Nobody except you has claimed that a simulated tornado is the same as a real tornado.

What .... Are you really saying what the highlighted sentence appears to be saying? Seriously?


If so then my question to you would be..... never mind.... I am speechless.... what can I say?

I just wish I had a friend like Data who could sort it all out with a simplistic analogy, kind of like pushing a lump of dough through a pasta strainer...

I am going to play along with the conflation of FICTION and reality and ask you.... in the FICTIVE world of Star Trek

What is Data's brain made of?

What is the Enterprise computer like?

Was Data declared a sentient being and conscious?

Was the computer on the Enterprise declared a sentient being and conscious? Why not?

Was Data accorded human rights?

Was the computer on the Enterprise accorded the same rights as Data? Why not?

What is the difference between Data and the Enterprise's computer?

In your opinion is the Enterprise's computer sentient and conscious? Why or why not?

If you answer yes to the above question then do you think the Federation are slavers and racists for not awarding the computer human rights the same as Data?
​

 

[Leumas]

Yes.It can be considered that, sure. But not everyone in AI is after that goal; and, AI research won't end if that goal is hit.

I think the question doesn't make sense. As an operational definition, it specifies exactly what it is talking about. That's a perfectly legitimate thing to do.

But if I want to consider my cat conscious, then I don't like either of the above options. Keep in mind that my cat cannot pass a Turing test.

Nope. Incidentally, I consider the use of the Turing test as a criteria of consciousness homemade. It's usually used as a test for intelligence, not consciousness. (Same general caveats apply here too, however; if I want to consider my cat intelligent, I don't like any of those options).

ETA: Oh, and westprog... my cat is currently awake as I type this.

I like your answers..... doesn't mean I think they are right.... I mean I like the way you avoided the questions.

 

[yy2bggggs]

I like your answers..... doesn't mean I think they are right.... I mean I like the way you avoided the questions.

Let's see... I divided your post into four pieces.

The first one I provided a very direct answer to.

The second one was rhetorical, but I answered it anyway. And it also was a bit misleading, suggesting that the field of AI is focused on getting a machine to pass a Turing test.

The third section involved a leading question and is a fallacy of division. In particular, it relies on accepting the assumption that intelligence equates to consciousness; following that assumption, it "covers" its "bases" by asking if a certain degree of intelligence is overkill, not enough, or too much intelligence to be conscious. I still don't know what exactly you would consider conscious, but I would like to call my cat conscious. And I dislike all of those specifically because I don't want to equate consciousness to a degree of intelligence. Furthermore, I don't think it's accurate to rank intelligence on a linear scale in the first place.

The fourth section I gave a very straightforward explicit simple answer to.

So, in summary, by this labeling, one and four were definitely not avoiding anything. Two I explicitly maintain is misleading. And three is just leading, making two assumptions that are unjustified.

You could very well say that by not making the assumptions in your leading question in three, I was avoiding the question. But I personally think the question itself is the problem.

I would be interested in hearing your opinion on whether or not you think we should include my cat as a conscious entity. If not, why not? And if so, do you think my cat can pass a Turing test?

 

[Brainache]

What .... Are you really saying what the highlighted sentence appears to be saying? Seriously?


If so then my question to you would be..... never mind.... I am speechless.... what can I say?

OK then, put it this way: You are the only one claiming that anyone else is saying that a simulated tornado is the same as a real tornado.

I apologise for the confusion.

I am going to play along with the conflation of FICTION and reality and ask you.... in the FICTIVE world of Star Trek

What is Data's brain made of?
​

Not sure. I believe it is called a positronic neural net. Whatever that is. I assume positrons arranged in some kind of network configuration.

What is the Enterprise computer like?

Not too different from real computers, just has really good voice recognition.

Was Data declared a sentient being and conscious?

I think so, wasn't there a trial? It's been a while since I saw that episode.

Was the computer on the Enterprise declared a sentient being and conscious? Why not?

It wasn't designed by the brilliant Dr Nunian Soong, who's controversial theories of machine intelligence weren't accepted by the mainstream?

Was Data accorded human rights?

Yes, IIRC.

Was the computer on the Enterprise accorded the same rights as Data? Why not?

It wasn't a conscious machine like Data or the Voyager EMH.

What is the difference between Data and the Enterprise's computer?

I don't know. You'd have to ask the writers. I suspect it has something to do with the functions they were designed and programmed to perform.

In your opinion is the Enterprise's computer sentient and conscious? Why or why not?

Not. It wasn't designed to be conscious like Data, nor was its programming augmented in the same way as Voyager's EMH.

If you answer yes to the above question then do you think the Federation are slavers and racists for not awarding the computer human rights the same as Data?

I don't think the Enterprise computer is conscious just because it is complicated and talks in Majel Barret's voice. I don't think it processes information in such a way as to lead to consciousness like Data does.

I assume it is something to do with the internal achitecture of the machine, but as it is just fiction, it doesn't really matter until we start building Datas for real.

But I can't see any reason why an information processing system has to be made of flesh to be conscious. If we ever learn how to make a computer that works like a brain, why would it not be conscious?

Are you saying it needs a soul?

 

[!Kaggen]

Anyone seen Summer_Wars^WP

interesting that "love machine" the autonomous rogue AI is a program in Oz that gains "brute force" stealing other users access codes and then there informational abilities. However in order to break the access code of the whole network the AI deceives a human maths boffin for "the intelligence" to break the code for him. Now the AI can effect the real world by controlling all the controls the real world placed "safely" in Oz.
Traditional Japanese values come to the rescue to take back control from the AI before it destroys a nuclear power plant then their traditional family home.

I think it's revealing that even super-realistic master manga creators recognize, respect and value the human contribution to the technology they rely on.

 

[Leumas]

OK then, put it this way: You are the only one claiming that anyone else is saying that a simulated tornado is the same as a real tornado.

I apologise for the confusion.

Half forgiven.... your modified new statement is still "confusion". Read the posts and you will see why.

Not sure. I believe it is called a positronic neural net. Whatever that is. I assume positrons arranged in some kind of network configuration.

Not too different from real computers, just has really good voice recognition.

I think so, wasn't there a trial? It's been a while since I saw that episode.

It wasn't designed by the brilliant Dr Nunian Soong, who's controversial theories of machine intelligence weren't accepted by the mainstream?

Yes, IIRC.

It wasn't a conscious machine like Data or the Voyager EMH.

I don't know. You'd have to ask the writers. I suspect it has something to do with the functions they were designed and programmed to perform.

Not. It wasn't designed to be conscious like Data, nor was its programming augmented in the same way as Voyager's EMH.



I don't think the Enterprise computer is conscious just because it is complicated and talks in Majel Barret's voice. I don't think it processes information in such a way as to lead to consciousness like Data does.
I assume it is something to do with the internal achitecture of the machine, but as it is just fiction, it doesn't really matter until we start building Datas for real.

Excellent... that was a very productive game despite it being all about FICTION.


As you have rightly concluded Data is different from the very powerful computer who as you keep saying is an "information processing system".

So here we have Data who is an information processing unit and we also have a talking information processing system that can voice recognize and can analyze all sorts of things from just a command like "computer give me the solution for the next problem of this episode" and give people the answer. It can even control the Enterprise and perform battle maneuvers and even analyze stellar formations.

Yet despite both Data and the computer being both amazing MACHINES you and apparently Gene Rodenberry concluded that Data is "human" while the computer is not.

So obviously it is not the "information processing" that made you and the Star Trek writers decide that Data was worthy of human status while denying it to the computer.

You have correctly concluded that it is

something to do with the internal achitecture of the machine

Quite right....EXACTLY.....that is PRECISELY what “Piggy et al” are saying.

But I can't see any reason why an information processing system has to be made of flesh to be conscious. If we ever learn how to make a computer that works like a brain, why would it not be conscious?

Are you saying it needs a soul?

Brainache..... this thread has been going on now since 15th of January and for 92 pages.... I've lost count of how many times I and "Piggy et al" have stated our position over this.

It is unfair of you to skip reading all the previous posts and then jump in making all sorts of assumptions based on nothing.

If you want to join in on the fun do everyone the courtesy of reading the previous posts and THEN comment on people's positions.

And it is not as if you had to go back all the way….. only a few posts ago I and Piggy said

It is still extremely bizarre to hear folks make this accusation, when the biological perspective is precisely that there is no need for anything except matter and energy.

No God, no magic, no nothing.

[snip]

It's all physical... no magic, no gods, no beans.

Why y'all keep insisting otherwise is nothing short of baffling.

The tactic of equivocation especially in combination with contextomy to obfuscate is a powerful sophism.

[snip]

When not contextomized and equivocated, I take the term in this discussion to mean a physical system that imitates the brain.....as I have mentioned a zillion times already....something like a Neural Network or for scifi fans positronic brain like in Star Trek.... a system that is not a PROGRAMMED COMPUTER executing programs.... but rather a system that acts in a similar manner to a brain where there are no programs (or perhaps just subsystems programs e.g. DSP chips).

It is really not very impressive of you to jump in making MISINFORMED and annoying assumptions because you have not even bothered to read the posts of the people you want to attack.

You may have been confused by the endless repetition of the false dichotomy that it is either "information processing" or "magic beans".... but we have already stated umpteen times that that is a false dichotomy and is a deliberate reeking red herring to boot.


But I will do you a favor and save you some trouble......

No.... we are not stating that it needs a sole
No.... we are not saying it has to be of any living matter whatsoever
No.... no magic or souls or dualism or any of the twaddle that some people keep stating falsely to obfuscate the situation.

As you yourself have concluded about Data.......what we are saying is that if a machine is ever to achieve consciousness it will have to be

something to do with the internal achitecture of the machine

You have noticed that Data had a special EXTRA SOMETHING other than the just simplistic criterion of "information processing" and you concluded that it has something to do with the ARCHITECTURE of the positronic brain......therefore normal computers running programs will not cause consciousness to emerge in the machine (just like the Enterprise computer).

We are saying the same as you…. what is needed is "something to do with the internal architecture of the machine" so that it will emulate the PHYSICS, and perhaps even the chemistry of the ONLY THING on this earth to actually achieve consciousness.


It is not magic or souls..... it is PHYSICS and CHEMISTRY.... it is REALITY as opposed to fiction and wishful thinking.

 

[Brainache]

Half forgiven.... your modified new statement is still "confusion". Read the posts and you will see why.






Excellent... that was a very productive game despite it being all about FICTION.


As you have rightly concluded Data is different from the very powerful computer who as you keep saying is an "information processing system".

So here we have Data who is an information processing unit and we also have a talking information processing system that can voice recognize and can analyze all sorts of things from just a command like "computer give me the solution for the next problem of this episode" and give people the answer. It can even control the Enterprise and perform battle maneuvers and even analyze stellar formations.

Yet despite both Data and the computer being both amazing MACHINES you and apparently Gene Rodenberry concluded that Data is "human" while the computer is not.

So obviously it is not the "information processing" that made you and the Star Trek writers decide that Data was worthy of human status while denying it to the computer...

You are confused.

I have been following this thread for quite a while.

Let me ask you a few questions now:

Does a computer process information?

Does "Data" process information?

Does a brain process information?

Does a cockroach process information?

Does a thermostat process information?

If you answered yes to these questions, would I be justified in saying that you think all of these things are the same?

Of course there are different ways of processing information. The way human brains do it leads to consciousness.

Piggy has been asserting that if a computer simulates a brain, it won't be conscious. Ever. That was where the side track about tornados started.

I don't understand why he says a simulation of a brain, doing exactly what a real brain does, cannot be conscious. If consciousness is an emergent property of the activity in our brains, why shouldn't it emerge in other things doing what brains do?

 

[dlorde]

I skimmed the link, and don't understand if the cognitive architecture is hardware, software, or a combination?

It's a software architecture. Part of the article describes how it was implemented and how it was interfaced to a game engine.

 

[dlorde]

That is pretty awesome stuff.

I was pleasantly surprised by how closely it follows the current most popular models for higher brain function, the Global Workspace Theory (GWT) and the Multiple Draft Model (MDM). The fact that a very basic implementation of this architecture is so effective suggests that these models may have some legs.

It will be fascinating to see how this system behaves out with the addition of advanced learning, algorithms, episodic and general long term memory, and theory of mind.

 

[dlorde]

What should we tell people who claim to have managed to write simple mundane programs to make normal modern computers conscious?

Tell them you don't agree with their definition of consciousness - although they're probably well aware of that.

Continuing to argue as if they're using the same definitions as you is a pointless exercise, because it's arguing a straw man.

 

[dlorde]

Why would that be an issue for consciousness alone?

I don't think it is - my point was aimed at those who think that an imitation, simulation, or mimic of consciousness, isn't or can't be conscious even when you can't tell the difference when interacting with it; i.e. suggesting that the Turing Test isn't sufficient because it could be passed by a consciousness 'mimic'. It's moving the goalposts by redefinition again, another 'consciousness-of-the-gaps'.

 

[dlorde]

Redundant

 

[dlorde]

We are saying the same as you…. what is needed is "something to do with the internal architecture of the machine" so that it will emulate the PHYSICS, and perhaps even the chemistry of the ONLY THING on this earth to actually achieve consciousness.

Thing is, people mean different things by 'internal architecture'. There is physical architecture and there is software architecture.

If I understand it correctly, one lot are saying that the relevant physical architecture of the brain must be physically modeled in the artificial version, and the other lot are saying that the relevant physical architecture can be modeled in software to the same effect.

No doubt someone will correct me if I have this wrong.

 

[Leumas]

You are confused.

I have been following this thread for quite a while.

Let me ask you a few questions now:

Does a computer process information?

Does "Data" process information?

Does a brain process information?

Does a cockroach process information?

Does a thermostat process information?

If you answered yes to these questions, would I be justified in saying that you think all of these things are the same?

No you won’t be justified at all… because that is precisely the opposite of what I say.

I am not the one who says that because a computer is an "information processing system" and so is the brain then they would be the same.

Some have been arguing that a simulated consciousness is no different from a "real" consciousness. Because they say that consciousness is a result of "information processing". Why should it matter if that processing is done by neurons or software? Information processing is information processing, whether it is being done by a lump of electro-chemical fleshy stuff, or by electrons and silicon.

You see….. it is you who says that "Information processing is information processing”…. Or at least you are defending that position as evinced by your statement

But I can't see any reason why an information processing system has to be made of flesh to be conscious. If we ever learn how to make a computer that works like a brain, why would it not be conscious?

If your definition of “works like a brain” is “information processing” then that is a sorely simplistic definition since as you have noted above a cockroach would then be the same as a brain according to that criterion.

Of course there are different ways of processing information. The way human brains do it leads to consciousness.

Precisely…. What the brain does ….. physics, chemistry, electricity, biology….these are the things the brain does.

Information processing is one ….JUST ONE RESULT of what the brain does…. information processing is an EFFECT, not a CAUSE.

Consciousness is another effect of what the brain does.

Anyone who thinks that consciousness is information processing or vice versa is confusing results with the cause and is committing a Correlation fallacy.

Piggy has been asserting that if a computer simulates a brain, it won't be conscious. Ever. That was where the side track about tornados started.

The tornado discussion was to show that a SIMULATION of a brain just like a SIMULATION of a tornado is not the same as the actual thing.

That was the point ….. a SIMULATION is not the same as the real thing.

Others tried to argue that it is….. that is where they were arguing that a simulated tornado IS the same as the real thing…. go read the posts.

They then went on to say that if we hook a fan to the simulation it would generate a tornado and so the simulation is the same as the real thing.

Other than this being utterly ludicrous of course, the fact still stands that even if we were to grant the simplistic notion that a fan would generate a tornado, the fact remains that it then no longer becomes a simulation…it becomes an emulation….not a simulation.

A simulation inside a computer of a tornado does not interact with the TIME-SPACE of the REAL WORLD the same way as a real tornado.

Likewise…. A simulation of a brain inside a computer does not interact with the real world the same way as the real brain does…..and so it is not going to produce consciousness.

And no… just hooking up arms and legs to a computer simulation will not be that extra bit that is needed….and by the way… despite what some people may think…. hooking up fans to a tornado simulation is not going to produce tornadoes either.

I don't understand why he says a simulation of a brain, doing exactly what a real brain does, cannot be conscious. If consciousness is an emergent property of the activity in our brains, why shouldn't it emerge in other things doing what brains do?

Because a computer simulation is not doing “exactly what a real brain does” ……let me repeat that again….. a computer SIMULATION CANNOT DO EXACTLY what a real brain does.

If "other things do what a brain does" then they are NOT A SIMULATION.

Just as a tornado simulation does not do what a tornado does…..so a computer simulation does not do what a brain does.

Now if you have a machine that DOES DO what a brain does….then yes…it may jolly well produce consciousness…….BUT….a simulation of a brain WON’T….since a computer simulation of something does not do the same actions as the thing.

A tornado simulation does not affect the world as does a tornado…..and so a computer simulation of a brain will not do what a brain does.

Now if …despite the ludicrous aspect of the notion… if we hook apparatus to the simulation where it can produce a tornado….then it no longer is a simulation….. it is an emulation…since the additional apparatus is not SIMULATED…it is REAL stuff that can move real air molecules and can produce real thermodynamics and pressure diffrential and so forth.

Likewise…if we add stuff to the computer simulation of a brain … whatever that might be… so as to make it behave like a real brain then again it no longer is a simulation…it becomes an emulation since now it would be interacting with the TIME-SPACE of the WORLD in a similar manner of a real brain….. much like Data’s brain.

In reference to the scifi stuff….. the difference between a computer simulation of a brain and an emulation of a brain is like the difference between the computer on the Enterprise and Data’s brain.

But... let's go back to REALITY..... You yourself asserted that

If we ever learn how to make a computer that works like a brain, why would it not be conscious?

Which is very true.....Indeed... "If we ever learn how to make a computer that works like a brain" then in my opinion, and I think most of "Piggy et al" would agree, it most likely would produce consciousness.

We are in full agreement I think there.....the contention is on this part...

works like a brain​

One side is asserting that the SALIENT point about that which is sufficient to produce the desired consciousness is "information processing".

Another side is contending that the above is "monumentally simplistic" and it is a confusion between causes and effects besides being rejected by neural scientists.

So the 6 billion dollars question is

What is it that we need to do "to make a computer that works like a brain"​

Perhaps before we can answer that question we need to answer the questions

What is consciousness and what is it about the brain that produces it and why and how​

So far the answers are not clear and anyone who thinks it is "information processing" might be advised to heed the scientists who are working assiduously on the subject but still say "we do not know".