Explain consciousness to the layman.

[DavidByron]

If a researcher happened not to have subjective experience himself (assuming that such a researcher might not exist) why would he believe that subjective experience was real? He could explain everything that his subjects did in other ways.

Everything except why everyone was "lying" to him. He'd have to come up with a theory to explain why everyone he talked to was a liar on the topic of consciousness but not on any other topic. Or he could chose to believe the simpler explanation per Occam's Razor.

Similarly I could choose to not believe that Australia exists.

 

[Leumas]

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?

Despite your artful avoidance of answering my questions and even going so far as to misrepresent some of them... I will answer some of yours.


I think you are confused about what a Turning test is.

The Turning test is for a human-emulator to fool a human into thinking it is a human....not for a cat or dog to fool a human into thinking they are humans.


But yes cats are conscious (less than dogs ) in my opinion.... as valuable as that might be..... they are also a darned lot more intelligent than many humans I tell you.


Now the cat-turning test would be if a cat-emulator manages to fool another cat into thinking it is a cat.

But I am also willing to accept if the cat-emulator can fool a human into thinking it is a cat.


So as you see it is not the cat that has to pass the Turing test..... it is a cat-emulator that has to do it.


In fact I think a cat-emulator fooling another cat is going to be an order of magnitude harder to do than to fool a human.


I also think that a cat-emulator that would fool humans will be harder to do than a human-emulator that can fool humans because humans are fooled all the time by even non-existing things let alone a machine that would talk "intelligently" back at them. Billions of people are fooled by words every minute of every day. Most people are easily fooled by even stupid people.


I personally am not convinced that some of the people I have interacted with in my long life were in fact conscious.... I think they might fail the Turing test.

 

[yy2bggggs]

[snip]
I think you are confused about what a Turning test is.

Why would you think I am confused about what a Turing test is?

But yes cats are conscious (less than dogs ) in my opinion.

Sure.

Now the cat-turning test would be if a cat-emulator manages to fool another cat into thinking it is a cat.

I think you're making this up. Citation?

So as you see it is not the cat that has to pass the Turing test..... it is a cat-emulator that has to do it.

That suggests a large and undefined range of Turing tests. In that phrase of the article you found interesting, what do you suppose they mean by Turing test? Do you suppose they are including cat emulators attempting to fool the interviewer that it is a real cat?

And when you say the holy grail of AI is to pass a Turing test, do you suppose that if a person passes a Turing test whereby they fool an interviewer into thinking a machine is a real cat, then they have succeeded?

In fact I think a cat-emulator fooling another cat is going to be an order of magnitude harder to do than to fool a human.

Why? I think the required behaviors to accomplish this would be a lot easier. Getting the cat interested in the first place would be a problem, and a larger issue would be determining whether the cat judged a particular entity as another cat or not.

But I wouldn't be surprised if my cat thinks my dog is a cat.

I personally am not convinced that some of the people I have interacted with in my long life were in fact conscious.... I think they might fail the Turing test.

I find it somewhat interesting that you consider a cat conscious, yet don't consider a human you have interacted with as conscious. I do, however, think this sentiment borders on being a little creepy.

 

[rocketdodger]

Are you being facetious or are you actually serious?

If the former then …. If the latter then

I am serious.

 

[rocketdodger]

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.

I agree.

I also propose that the *most* fascinating aspect will come about when someone starts rendering viewports into textures for the system to filter and process like the visual cortex of most animals.

 

[dlorde]

... a computer simulation of something does not do the same actions as the thing.

Computer simulations can do the substantive actions of some 'real' things - as I mentioned some time ago; for example, a computer simulation of a calculator can do the same calculations, and a computer simulation of a game of solitaire will allow you to play solitaire. A computer simulation of a chess board will let you play chess with it, a computer notepad will let you take notes, a computer clock simulation will tell you the time, and so-on. They're obviously not identical to the real thing in all respects, but the substantive actions or functions are the same.

One could say that these are real, and emulated, and simulated calculators, solitaire games, and chess boards, notepads and clocks - which simply shows what a pointless game of sematics it is; it seems to me the claim that trucks and tornadoes are somehow relevant in this context is equally pointless.

There are some real world things that can be simulated/emulated/whatever to equivalent substantive effect with a computer; I suspect the brain is one.

p.s. I may be misreading the signs, but in this thread, 'simulation' seems to have become vaguely associated with software implementation, and 'emulation' with hardware implementation; I'd just like to point out that these are not generally valid relationships.

 

[Brainache]

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

But you keep asserting that that is what I'm saying.

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.

​

Neither am I. like I'm not saying that because a thermostat is an information processing system then it is the same as a human brain.

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

Well it is. I'm only saying that if our simulation processes information the same way our brains do, then it should 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.

Let me try again: All human brains process information, but not everthing that processes information is a human brain.

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

No. In what way does a brain "do biology"? Our brains and consciousness are the result of those things, not the cause.

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.

I am arguing that consciousness is an effect of the type of information processing that our brains do. I don't think we have to make artificial brains biological in order for them to be conscious.

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

Good thing nobody is arguing that then. If you thought I was saying that everything that processes information is conscious, then I must be really bad at this, or you aren't paying attention to what I'm saying.

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.

No one said that at all. Read it again.

They were responding to the assertion that a simulation couldn't affect anything in the real world by giving a simple example of a simulation hooked up to hardware that could indeed move objects in the real world. Not blow down houses, just blow a few leaves around. That is an example of a simulation affecting the real world. Just like a simulation of a human brain controlling a robot body could affect things in the real world.

The rest is just you agreeing with me.

 

[DavidByron]

Well I got as far through as page 37 and now I am leaving the JREF board because of some heavy handed and biased moderation. So anyway I wont be replying to anything directed at me.

 

[Leumas]

You are confused.

I have been following this thread for quite a while.

Ok... you say you have been following the thread....so let us see what conclusions we can draw from that statement in the light of previous ones you made.

But Before I do that I would like to read this little play:

L: Look at this animal. It barks it looks just like an Alsatian, it behaves just like a dog.....it is a dog I think.

M: Ah so you are saying it is an Alien from Mars

L: What? How the hell did you get this from what I said..... I just finished saying that I think it is a dog.... let me repeat.... I think it is a dog.

N: Ah so now you are a believer in aliens because you are saying it is an alien cat.

L: What the heck? Did you not hear me... I just said it is a dog....no aliens....no alien dogs....just a dog...in fact since it looks like an Alsatian dog I might even go as far as to say that it is a German Shepherd.

M: Aha....so now you are saying it is a human being from Germany.

L: Oh my stars.....what the bloody hell.... I give up.

Now enters upon the scene Mr. B who jumps into the conversation and addresses L saying

B: I do not understand how can you not see that since it is an animal that barks and walks on four legs and has a snout it must be a Chihuahua....why do you think it is a magical cat from Venus? Does it really have to be a magical cat from Venus?

L: Dear B... I have been conversing with all those other gentlemen here and I have stated numerous times that it is a Dog....if you were here you would have seen that. Moreover, you are wrong it is not a Chihuahua since you seem to have not accounted for the body size and shape. It clearly looks like an Alsatian and its size and body shape would obviate any possibility of it being the small animal from Mexico.... it is most likely a German Shepherd from Germany.

B: Ah but I have been here and I have heard all that was said.... you are confused....why do you insist that it cannot be a Chihuahua… Chihuahuas have four legs and snouts and bark just like this animal so why do you think that the body size has any bearing on the matter?​

So now any person after reading the above play should conclude what?


Let's have a look at your statement

I have been following this thread for quite a while.

But earlier you said

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?

But if as you claim you have been reading this thread all along then you must have noticed the numerous times where I SPECIFICALLY state a REJECTION of such things. I specifically addressed the “flesh” thing and stated numerous times that it is not so. And I have made it quite clear from the beginning that it is all PHYSICS.

Here are a few posts which if as you claim you have been following the thread you should have read….and these are ONLY A FEW

• http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8134215#post8134215
• http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8112744#post8112744
• http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8109212#post8109212
• http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8103854#post8103854
• http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8106368#post8106368
• http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8103854#post8103854
• http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8077111#post8077111
• http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8068076#post8068076
• http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8056440#post8056440

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.... and ABSOLUTELY yes.... SRIP is a SYMPTOM of consciousness.... it is definitely a RESULT of consciousness..... but it is not the cause.
[snip]

I am not going to trace Piggy’s posts but here is just a recent one

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.

So if as you claim you have been following the thread then what reason would STILL induce you to maintain that

Are you saying it needs a soul?

I originally assumed that you must have missed the myriad of posts "Piggy et al" have made rejecting the accusation. But then you state that you have not done that….you INSIST that you have not missed them and point out that I am the one who is confused.

So why would you then go back and accuse me of thinking that it needs “flesh” and a “soul” if you have not missed the many posts CLEARLY stating the CONTRARY.

If you have not missed the posts and read them and understood them and STILL REPEAT the same accusation….then what is the reason? Are there motives for incessantly repeating an accusation of needing "magic"?

If it is not a mistake then it is a DELIBERATE TACTIC.... it is either an oversight (which you deny) or a deliberate obfuscation?

Which is it?

As Piggy has put it…..

It is still extremely bizarre to hear folks make this accusation,...
[snip]
Why y'all keep insisting otherwise is nothing short of baffling.

 

[Leumas]

The rest is just you agreeing with me.

Great.....finally..... I am glad that you finally agree with me (commutativity)... I welcome you to the right side of this thread..."Piggy et al".

 

[Brainache]

I originally assumed that you must have missed the myriad of posts "Piggy et al" have made rejecting the accusation. But then you state that you have not done that….you INSIST that you have not missed them and point out that I am the one who is confused.

So why would you then go back and accuse me of thinking that it needs “flesh” and a “soul” if you have not missed the many posts CLEARLY stating the CONTRARY.

If you have not missed the posts and read them and understood them and STILL REPEAT the same accusation….then what is the reason? Are there motives for incessantly repeating an accusation of needing "magic"?

If it is not a mistake then it is a DELIBERATE TACTIC.... it is either an oversight (which you deny) or a deliberate obfuscation?

Which is it?

As Piggy has put it…..

OK. Good to see you dropped the tornado nonsense. Did you go and read those posts again properly this time?

OK piggy is saying it takes matter and energy and physics to make a consciousness. But then he also seems to be saying that what goes on in a simulation isn't matter and energy and physics therefore it is impossible to create consciousness via a simulation.

Why isn't what goes on in a simulation matter and energy and physics?

What is simulated physics?

We all seem to be saying that living things are biological machines programmed by their environments and that we have at least one example of such a biological machine which is conscious (Humans).

Why would programming not work to make a non-biological machine conscious?

What if we made a simple machine that was programmed to build replicas of itself and sent it off into space, could its descendants eventually evolve intelligence and consciousness, given millions or billions of years?

 

[punshhh]

OK piggy is saying it takes matter and energy and physics to make a consciousness. But then he also seems to be saying that what goes on in a simulation isn't matter and energy and physics therefore it is impossible to create consciousness via a simulation.

As I see it the distinction is that a simulation is a projection of a scenario (tornado) onto/through a medium like a monitor screen. The simulation is coded in such a way that what is seen on the screen by an observer resembles a tornado.

So if we analyze what is going on here we will see that only the observer is aware of the resemblance of a tornado (in his/her mind) and this comes from a sequence of patterns generated on an illuminated screen.

The computer processing the instructions for the projection device does not have a complete coded representation of the tornado in its memory. Rather it has a code programed to generate an illuminated pattern on the screen. A pattern which resembles the appearance of a tornado when the screen is viewed by a human.

I suppose we could have another computer in the room with a camera recording the images on the screen. This computer could be connected to the first computer and a coded representation of the image of the tornado on the screen could be recorded in its memory.

Again what we have is a representation of light patterns on a screen, not a coded representation of a tornado. The tornado only exists as light patterns on a screen which can only be understood by a human observer.

Likewise if you substitute a conscious being for the tornado, you only have the image of the body of a conscious being on a screen and its sound or voice heard through the speakers.

It is nothing more than a light show projected for the interpretation of a human viewer. It may be a projection of a conscious computer, but that conscious computer would be a separate piece of hardware as all we have up to now is a projector.

Why isn't what goes on in a simulation matter and energy and physics?

It is, but it is a projector, not what the image on the screen of the projector is showing for the understanding of a human observer.

What is simulated physics?

Its a movie

We all seem to be saying that living things are biological machines programmed by their environments and that we have at least one example of such a biological machine which is conscious (Humans).

Yes.

Why would programming not work to make a non-biological machine conscious?

I think it would work, but the form of consciousness would probably be very different to human consciousness. Unless it was a living non biological machine in which case it might be a bit closer.

What if we made a simple machine that was programmed to build replicas of itself and sent it off into space, could its descendants eventually evolve intelligence and consciousness, given millions or billions of years?

Of course if there were some mechanism by which it could evolve. Just take the example of the highly evolved AI who rescue the android boy from the ice at the end of the film AI.

Infact fast forward a few million/billion years from there and you would probably have an artificial God making and designing universes for kicks.

 

[punshhh]

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'.

Show me a conscious computer and I might believe.

 

[punshhh]

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.

I cannot speak for others, but it seems to me that the main objection so far is with simulated consciousness, whatever that is. The idea that there is a conscious being in the world of the simulation.

I see no reason why "software architecture" cannot be part of a conscious computer. Or indeed that one part of the computer reading a simulation from another part of the computer could not be included.
In fact I think it would be using simulations in this way on a few levels if it were to be similar to the human brain. For there seems to be lot of projection going on in the brain.

 

[Brainache]

...Again what we have is a representation of light patterns on a screen, not a coded representation of a tornado. The tornado only exists as light patterns on a screen which can only be understood by a human observer.

Likewise if you substitute a conscious being for the tornado, you only have the image of the body of a conscious being on a screen and its sound or voice heard through the speakers.

It is nothing more than a light show projected for the interpretation of a human viewer. It may be a projection of a conscious computer, but that conscious computer would be a separate piece of hardware as all we have up to now is a projector.

It is, but it is a projector, not what the image on the screen of the projector is showing for the understanding of a human observer.

I was thinking more of something like one of those "Non Player Characters" in World Of Warcraft except a lot more sophisticated. A peice of software that reacts to its environment. OK, in WOW the environment is simulated and the NPC is unsophisticated. But imagine some time in the future a very clever programmer (more likely a team of them) makes an NPC so complex and sophisticated that it seems human. Maybe every instance of that software running somewhere produces a different NPC with its own idiosycracies and tastes.

OK, it is still only interacting within the confines of some simulated game environment, but then a very clever team of engineers put that NPC into a robot body. Now the NPC is out and about in the real world, going to and fro and walking up and down in it...

It acts like a human, cracks jokes, gets happy, sad, angry, whatever... Is it conscious? Or is it just a projection of simulated physics?

...

I think it would work, but the form of consciousness would probably be very different to human consciousness. Unless it was a living non biological machine in which case it might be a bit closer.

Of course if there were some mechanism by which it could evolve. Just take the example of the highly evolved AI who rescue the android boy from the ice at the end of the film AI.

That would be natural selection. Assuming there might be slight variations in the reproduction process...available resources, copying errors etc.

Infact fast forward a few million/billion years from there and you would probably have an artificial God making and designing universes for kicks.

Let's not go crazy here...

 

[punshhh]

I was thinking more of something like one of those "Non Player Characters" in World Of Warcraft except a lot more sophisticated. A peice of software that reacts to its environment. OK, in WOW the environment is simulated and the NPC is unsophisticated. But imagine some time in the future a very clever programmer (more likely a team of them) makes an NPC so complex and sophisticated that it seems human. Maybe every instance of that software running somewhere produces a different NPC with its own idiosycracies and tastes.

I'm showing my age here, I haven't played a computer game since space invaders and Pac man.

If we go back to the description in my last post where we have a simulator projecting a conscious computer onto a screen with a voice coming through the speakers. If this was interfaced with the conscious computer, then you would be viewing a conscious computer on the screen and if it had sensing apparatus it would be able to interact with you.

But the conscious computer isn't the projector, it would be a separate piece of hardware.

So all you need to do now is get a larger box with a screen, cameras and speakers. Put a simulating computer and a conscious computer in and you have a conscious computer you can interact with.

Give it/him legs and arms and you've got a conscious robot.

OK, it is still only interacting within the confines of some simulated game environment, but then a very clever team of engineers put that NPC into a robot body. Now the NPC is out and about in the real world, going to and fro and walking up and down in it...

Yes if you have a conscious computer, I see no reason why it can not interact in a simulation just like in the real world if the simulation is sophisticated enough.

And this is probably the holy grail of AI, I see no reason why said conscious computer* cannot be in the form of software.

It acts like a human, cracks jokes, gets happy, sad, angry, whatever... Is it conscious? Or is it just a projection of simulated physics?

Yes it would be if the computer were conscious*.

The point I'm making is that the simulator is not the conscious bit, it is an apparatus like an eye or a mouth is for a human. The conscious bit is an integrated computer somewhere else in the box. Or in the form of a separate piece of software.

That would be natural selection. Assuming there might be slight variations in the reproduction process...available resources, copying errors etc.

Yes.

Let's not go crazy here...

We wouldn't wan't Naked Lunch now would we.

But seriously I would expect that any good philosopher would have considered that God might well be a highly evolved AI, why not? It makes a lot more sense than some of the other notions.



* remember I have assumed in this post that a conscious computer can be made. It does not address the issue of whether computers can be conscious or not, that is another issue. This post is about the correct role of simulators in the question of AI.

 

[Belz...]

He did not miss it.

No but apparently you did.

 

[Belz...]

Show me a conscious computer and I might believe.

Assuming you agree that it's conscious.

What's your definition of the word ?

 

[dlorde]

Show me a conscious computer and I might believe.

Conscious by whose definition?

Looked in the mirror today?

 

[dlorde]

I cannot speak for others, but it seems to me that the main objection so far is with simulated consciousness, whatever that is. The idea that there is a conscious being in the world of the simulation.

That does seem to cause some people difficulty. It seems quite reasonable to me that if I can sit in a realistic flight simulator - i.e. a conscious being in the world of the simulation, then an artificial consciousness could also 'sit' in (be connected to) a simulator that stimulates its sensory inputs to similar effect.

In fact I think it would be using simulations in this way on a few levels if it were to be similar to the human brain. For there seems to be lot of projection going on in the brain.

Quite. The brain generates a crude simulation of reality, as I said some time ago.