Explain consciousness to the layman.

[yy2bggggs]

I consider it at least possible that the capacity to interact with the world in real time is an essential element of consciousness.

So, imagine I was suspended in a sensory deprivation tank, but had VR goggles on, a hand control, and a headset, and was being presented with a virtual world. This virtual world could easily be sped up or slowed down.

Do you surmise I would lose consciousness since such a virtual reality wouldn't be the "real world"? If not, do your surmise that changing the speed of the virtual world would affect my consciousness? And if so, in what way?

 

[westprog]

So, imagine I was suspended in a sensory deprivation tank, but had VR goggles on, a hand control, and a headset, and was being presented with a virtual world. This virtual world could easily be sped up or slowed down.

Do you surmise I would lose consciousness since such a virtual reality wouldn't be the "real world"? If not, do your surmise that changing the speed of the virtual world would affect my consciousness? And if so, in what way?

A person in such a sensory deprivation tank would still be interacting with the real world. It's the only world he could possibly be interacting with. He might form incorrect assumptions about that world, but such is the limitation of the human sensory apparatus. We all have an incorrect or at least partially correct view of the world, some more than others, but we all interact with the real world because that's the only world we have. There is an imagined world in our minds, which is a reflection of the real world.

It's of course possible that this imagined world is entirely wrong and spurious, and that the real world is totally different to what we think. If so, all bets are off, as we can't possibly form any sensible conclusions about anything beyond what exists in our imagination.

 

[yy2bggggs]

I consider it at least possible that the capacity to interact with the world in real time is an essential element of consciousness.

So, imagine I was suspended in a sensory deprivation tank, but had VR goggles on, a hand control, and a headset, and was being presented with a virtual world. This virtual world could easily be sped up or slowed down.

A person in such a sensory deprivation tank would still be interacting with the real world. It's the only world he could possibly be interacting with.

Then you're going to have to define what you mean by real time interaction with the real world, so I can know what the heck you're trying to say.

He might form incorrect assumptions about that world,

Which is neither here nor there. It could very well be you just jumping into the tank knowing it's a simulation. What I'm after is why you think there's a relation between consciousness and interacting with the world in real time and what you think this relation is; whether or not you're hypothetically forming incorrect assumptions about something isn't something I care about.

 

[Belz...]

Sure - if we recognise that "simulated" means pretty much the same as "imaginary".

So simulations don't exist ? Really, I have no idea what you're on about.

 

[Belz...]

I would say that if something can have subjective experiences, then it's conscious, in some sense.

What is having an "experience", and how do you know computers don't have it ?

 

[westprog]

So simulations don't exist ? Really, I have no idea what you're on about.

Of course they exist, like books and films and photographs. Their relationship to the things they depict is imaginary. A book about a tornado is a real thing, with physical properties in the real world. It's also not a tornado.

 

[rocketdodger]

I just accidentally replied to a post from around page #40. It says a lot about the thread that I didn't even notice. I could probably just reply to the same few posts over and over and nobody would notice the difference.

Unlike some people, I don't make it a policy to ignore or refuse to respond.

So no, it isn't the case that "nobody" would notice the difference. I would notice the difference.

 

[westprog]

Then you're going to have to define what you mean by real time interaction with the real world, so I can know what the heck you're trying to say.

Which is neither here nor there. It could very well be you just jumping into the tank knowing it's a simulation. What I'm after is why you think there's a relation between consciousness and interacting with the world in real time and what you think this relation is; whether or not you're hypothetically forming incorrect assumptions about something isn't something I care about.

It seems to me that interaction with the world is quite obviously what the brain does - indeed, it is its primary function. That we have the capacity to shut our eyes and consider things is an interesting feature, but it seems to me quite obvious that it's secondary to being able to hunt mammoths and identify poisonous berries.

If the capacity to interact with the real world is of such critical importance to the function of the brain, it seems to me to be at least plausible that it might be of importance to consciousness, and the idea of running consciousness at one thousandth speed without effecting it becomes less certain.

 

[rocketdodger]

The problem is not that they do NOT see and believe.... the problem is that they have seen too much science FICTION and it has become so common place that they no longer can distinguish reality from the movies and fiction.

Unlike with the gods stuff (or probably just like it) they have been OVER SATURATED with the ideas of FICTIVE conscious computers and thus it MUST be true and anyone who denies it is a heretic to the new religion of science fiction and therefore must be a believer in magic and soles.

If you have grown up with Transformers and Star Trek and Terminator and Ben 10 you start wishing upon a friend who is like Data and the World Of Warcraft may seem like the ghost in the machine.

It is hard to keep focused on reality in a world where Virtual Reality has become more common and earns tons more money than any mundane reality. Either you are playing too much video games or you are making them or you are watching too many movies and TV “reality shows” or you are making them, whichever it is you are way too immersed in the world of make belief and it is understandable that your reality may become a haziness of Virtuality.

Make belief these days (and perhaps always) has become REAL VIRTUALITY and it is a lot more entertaining and profitable than boring mundane reality where you cannot wish upon a star computerized imaginary friend.

That is one possibility.

Another possibility is that these "people" you are speaking of just happen to be the ones that better understand the world of computing because they find it more interesting than other people do.

Honestly, your position in this post is tantamount to making fun of and criticizing the art history professionals working at a museum for being so interested in art, and then proclaiming to the crowd that "they is wrong, this painting was not painted by Da-Vinci, it is a Warhol."

You might be correct, it might be a Warhol, but it seems a little distasteful to just write off the expert opinion of so many interested parties.

 

[yy2bggggs]

Of course they exist, like books and films and photographs. Their relationship to the things they depict is imaginary.

No. Their relationship to the things they depict is not imaginary--it is abstract. There's a difference between a simulation and a story, or film, or flipbook--that difference is critical to our calling the thing a simulation.

Namely, the simulation has to actually follow a set of rules. Furthermore, in order for that simulation to be called a simulation of a tornado, the rules have to somehow have something to do with a tornado.

 

[Mr. Scott]

If we developed a complete simulation of a human mind, and inserted it into a robot that had our five senses and would talk and move like a person, what evidence would we seek that it was (or was not) conscious?

 

[yy2bggggs]

It seems to me that interaction with the world is quite obviously what the brain does - indeed, it is its primary function.

You're not responding to the post.

You said that it's possible that consciousness requires constant real-time interaction with the real world. Now you're just lecturing about how obvious interaction with the world is. Sure, the brain interacts with the world. But that has nothing to do with the question.

What is the relationship between consciousness and real time interaction, if not something distinct from sped up or slowed down interaction? And what do you mean by real world, if not something distinct from a virtual world?

 

[rocketdodger]

It may be of interest that a bot based on the CERA-CRANIUM cognitive architecture (as described in the link previously given: Towards Conscious- like Behavior in Comput er Game Characters) won the 2K BotPrize 2010. Although it's still very much a work in progress, lacking several important features, and is focused towards videogame character bots, the fact that an implementation of this architecture, based on models of human brain functional architecture, outperforms other AIs in this field for human-like behaviour is very promising.

I finally got a chance to read through this, and although it is still pretty cool I am less impressed now that I understand more of what they did.

What I find most impressive is the idea of having a slew of percept aggregators that sort grab simpler percepts and put them together into more complex percepts, without any instruction from the core logic. That is a very interesting idea.

However much of the rest of it is vague, I don't know if that is because they didn't want to get specific with stuff or if they actually didn't adhere to these novel concepts as tightly as they claim. For example I would really like to know how they represented their "mission percepts" and furthermore how "mission goals" are chosen and ranked, I suspect with straightforward code like the stuff I use everyday.

In this respect I agree partially with Leumas that machine consciousness similar to ours will probably require an infrastructure built for inference so that all of this stuff is implicit rather than explicit. By that I mean data structures and algorithms that do nothing but support logical inference, and the system itself needs to either learn the rules and which rules are of prime importance, or else it needs to be "loaded" with an already learned instance.

That doesn't mean just neural networks, since there are a number of other paradigms that support implicit inference ( like bayesian networks, or even just sets of logical statements that the computer can move through using rules ), but I think it will be required.

 

[rocketdodger]

You're not responding to the post.

You said that it's possible that consciousness requires constant real-time interaction with the real world. Now you're just lecturing about how obvious interaction with the world is. Sure, the brain interacts with the world. But that has nothing to do with the question.

What is the relationship between consciousness and real time interaction, if not something distinct from sped up or slowed down interaction? And what do you mean by real world, if not something distinct from a virtual world?

Part of me thinks the whole "real-time" thing is just a huge misunderstanding.

It is possible that westprog thinks the computationalist crowd is claiming that you could have a consciousness built upon nothing but computations that represent *only* the consciousness, rather than the consciousness + < whatever percepts it needs to function>.

I don't know why he would think that, but I have nagging feeling he does, because I don't know what else would be a point of contention.

Just to be clear, I don't think anyone is suggesting you could have a computer consciousness that exists in the vacuum without any percepts of its world. Nor is anyone suggesting that a consciousness in a simulation could exist without simulated percepts. That is like saying you could take a baby human, disconnect all of its sensory neurons, and it would grow up to have a normal human consciousness -- an absurd proposition.

Thus I also wonder what the heck westprog is talking about with this "real time" stuff, I have been for years, but I think it is just a massive communication breakdown.

It is also disappointing to me that he would think we are as stupid as suggesting that you could have a consciousness without percepts, but I attribute that to him being in the debate mentality.

FYI

 

[westprog]

No. Their relationship to the things they depict is not imaginary--it is abstract. There's a difference between a simulation and a story, or film, or flipbook--that difference is critical to our calling the thing a simulation.

Namely, the simulation has to actually follow a set of rules. Furthermore, in order for that simulation to be called a simulation of a tornado, the rules have to somehow have something to do with a tornado.

They all have to follow a set of rules, and they all have to relate to the thing depicted in some way - otherwise we couldn't recognise them as referencing that thing. The word "tornado" has to follow a set of rules which allow us to associate it with a tornado.

 

[westprog]

You're not responding to the post.

You said that it's possible that consciousness requires constant real-time interaction with the real world. Now you're just lecturing about how obvious interaction with the world is. Sure, the brain interacts with the world. But that has nothing to do with the question.

What is the relationship between consciousness and real time interaction, if not something distinct from sped up or slowed down interaction? And what do you mean by real world, if not something distinct from a virtual world?

The only way a brain could interface with a so-called virtual world is by interfacing with the real world. A human brain will always interact with the real world, one way or another. It's only a supposed computational consciousness that can be run at different speeds and interact with a simulated world.

 

[yy2bggggs]

They all have to follow a set of rules, and they all have to relate to the thing depicted in some way - otherwise we couldn't recognise them as referencing that thing.

That's true, but it doesn't defeat the point I was making.

In a story, the rules themselves don't have to do with the tornado. The tornado behaves according to the needs of the plot, unless it's a non-sequitur--in which case the tornadoes could do nearly anything.

In a simulation, the rules have to reflect the relationships that the tornado has with elements of interest, and the simulated tornado always behaves according to the application of those rules.

 

[yy2bggggs]

The only way a brain could interface with a so-called virtual world is by interfacing with the real world. A human brain will always interact with the real world, one way or another. It's only a supposed computational consciousness that can be run at different speeds and interact with a simulated world.

Okay, but if that is what you mean, then the only way a simulated entity could interface with a so-called simulated world is by interfacing with the real world.

So I don't understand why there's a point to make here in the first place.

Best I can tell at the moment, all you're saying is that all interactions happen in the real world. Yeah, they do. They happen if the interactions are in a brain or in a computer program. So how are we to conclude something about the brain that contrasts with the program?

Well, that remains to be seen. If you can point out what you mean by real world in such a way that it actually contrasts with computation, you can make a point about what computation cannot do. But you haven't done that, so long as all you're talking about is that all interactions occur in the real world.

 

[yy2bggggs]

Thus I also wonder what the heck westprog is talking about with this "real time" stuff, I have been for years, but I think it is just a massive communication breakdown.

Well, if it's a massive communication breakdown, how do you know what he is saying?

Anyway, that's what I'm trying to figure out.

 

[Belz...]

Of course they exist, like books and films and photographs. Their relationship to the things they depict is imaginary. A book about a tornado is a real thing, with physical properties in the real world. It's also not a tornado.

Things DO run in simulations and interact with one another. Do you dispute that ?