Explain consciousness to the layman.

[punshhh]

I agree.

However this is irrelevant, because if we analyze what is going on anywhere, we see that only an observer is aware of the resemblance of a real tornado to a real tornado as well.

Yes I see your point, my relevance was that the simulator is effectively a sensory or representational apparatus. As opposed to a generator of a conscious mind. If there is a conscious mind involved in the simulation, it will operate as a separate entity independent of the simulator, either within a piece of neural net hardware or software.

Simulated tornado, real tornado, to be called "tornadoes" they both require an observer capable of recognizing that they have a resemblance to the notion of "tornado" that the observer understands.

Who is the observer?
If you are proposing a computer as observer, it takes us right back to the question can a computer be conscious. Because for it to truly be a conscious observer it requires being, otherwise it is an automaton mimicking observation.

Being is what is provided by life in the example of consciousness we have to study.

What spark of being is provided in an intelligent computer for it to be a truly conscious being?

Surely it isn't a threshold of complexity?

 

[PixyMisa]

The point I'm making is that if it's valid to talk about the world in the simulation, it's just as valid (or invalid) to talk about the world inside the book, or the film. If there are properties unique to the simulation, then I haven't yet seen them.

As I said, simple, obvious, and entirely wrong.

A simulation is a dynamic process. Books and films are static data. If you change the starting parameters or processing rules of a simulation you get different results. If you change the starting parameters or processing rules of a book or a film... You can't do that, because they don't have any.

 

[PixyMisa]

Being is what is provided by life in the example of consciousness we have to study.

Circular argument.

What spark of being is provided in an intelligent computer for it to be a truly conscious being?

Begging the question.

Surely it isn't a threshold of complexity?

Why not?

 

[punshhh]

Circular argument.

Perhaps from where your standing, not so from my position.

Begging the question.

Yes, come on Pixy what is your answer for the spark that bumps an automaton into a conscious being?

Why not?

Why not end up with computers the size of countries processing trillions and trillions of bits of information. Which is still nothing more than an automaton following a program.

Where is the leap from machine into being?

 

[Brainache]

Perhaps from where your standing, not so from my position.


Yes, come on Pixy what is your answer for the spark that bumps an automaton into a conscious being?


Why not end up with computers the size of countries processing trillions and trillions of bits of information. Which is still nothing more than an automaton following a program.

Where is the leap from machine into being?

It's hard to tell, if your position is somewhere out beyond the event horizon of the formless...

 

[PixyMisa]

Perhaps from where your standing, not so from my position.

Yes, but you're wrong.

Yes, come on Pixy what is your answer for the spark that bumps an automaton into a conscious being?

Begging the question.

Why not end up with computers the size of countries processing trillions and trillions of bits of information.

Because that's really wasteful. My desktop computer can do that quite handily.

Which is still nothing more than an automaton following a program.

Sure.

Where is the leap from machine into being?

What leap? People are machines.

 

[punshhh]

It's hard to tell, if your position is somewhere out beyond the event horizon of the formless...

Haven't you realised yet that we're all over there. Because over there is actually here. Here and there is an illusion, its all here and now.

 

[punshhh]

Yes, but you're wrong.

you don't know my position, so you don't know I'm wrong.

What leap? People are machines.

What is the spark?

It looks like your saying its just volume of computation.

People are living machines, when I'm alive I experience consciousness, when I'm dead I don't why is it any different for computers?

Oh I remember now, you said that if the brain of a dead person is stimulated correctly it returns to life. Is it the same person or is it a automaton?

 

[PixyMisa]

you don't know my position, so you don't know I'm wrong.

I can read your statements. Your statements are wrong. Either your position is also wrong, or your statements do not correspond to your position.

Either way, not my problem.

What is the spark?

Begging the question.

It looks like your saying its just volume of computation.

What is?

People are living machines

People are machines.

when I'm alive I experience consciousness, when I'm dead I don't why is it any different for computers?

I will happily grant you that a computer that is switched off is not conscious.

Oh I remember now, you said that if the brain of a dead person is stimulated correctly it returns to life.

Nope. I already corrected you on that.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

It looks like your saying its just volume of computation.

To me it seems like it’s more about ways of computing (but certainly also requires a critical amount of it).

I think it’s better to view computation as a way of describing a process in a system (as an explanatory framework).

People are living machines, when I'm alive I experience consciousness, when I'm dead I don't why is it any different for computers?

Only in certain situations does consciousness come into play, even when you’re alive. You are not experiencing in deep sleep or when under general anesthesia, yet the brain is not dead in those circumstances.

This suggests that a dead-alive distinction isn’t what we should be looking at. It’s perfectly fine to look at a living brain and sort out what a living brain is doing differently when producing consciousness vis-à-vis when not.

Oh I remember now, you said that if the brain of a dead person is stimulated correctly it returns to life. Is it the same person or is it a automaton?

Well, to me, if it would be simulated correctly, it would be a simulation of a dead brain. It would not simulate the necessary brain mechanisms that the person had when being alive.

 

[tsig]

Yes I see your point, my relevance was that the simulator is effectively a sensory or representational apparatus. As opposed to a generator of a conscious mind. If there is a conscious mind involved in the simulation, it will operate as a separate entity independent of the simulator, either within a piece of neural net hardware or software.

Who is the observer?
If you are proposing a computer as observer, it takes us right back to the question can a computer be conscious. Because for it to truly be a conscious observer it requires being, otherwise it is an automaton mimicking observation.

Being is what is provided by life in the example of consciousness we have to study.

What spark of being is provided in an intelligent computer for it to be a truly conscious being?
Surely it isn't a threshold of complexity?

The programmer breathed upon the chip and lo it became a living being.

 

[punshhh]

I can read your statements. Your statements are wrong. Either your position is also wrong, or your statements do not correspond to your position.

You must have missed this statement.

Being is my magic bean and is where I feel inclined to consider the possibility of alternative ontologies to physical matter materialism.

I know that when you say something is right or wrong, what you mean is from your position it is either right or wrong.

Begging the question.

Begging an answer, it is just the volume of computation isn't it?

What is?

Consciousness in computers.

People are machines.

Speak for yourself.

I will happily grant you that a computer that is switched off is not conscious.

Remember not only your definition of consciousness is on the table.

Nope. I already corrected you on that.

Oh, not alive then, just conscious.

 

[punshhh]

The programmer breathed upon the chip and lo it became a living being.

In a sense, there may be something intrinsic to matter(spacetime) which results in life and therefore consciousness when in certain configurations, DNA for example.

From the understanding of physics that we currently have, one could theoretically create another universe following these laws of physics and find that no life or consciousness would form. Due to us missing out a vital ingredient to the system which our physicists are not aware of at this time.

We don't know and therefore we should not presume to have a complete understanding of life, or what we don't as yet understand about it.

Indeed the magic bean could be on the end of our noses and we are blind to it.

 

[punshhh]

To me it seems like it’s more about ways of computing (but certainly also requires a critical amount of it).

I think it’s better to view computation as a way of describing a process in a system (as an explanatory framework).
Only in certain situations does consciousness come into play, even when you’re alive. You are not experiencing in deep sleep or when under general anesthesia, yet the brain is not dead in those circumstances.

This suggests that a dead-alive distinction isn’t what we should be looking at. It’s perfectly fine to look at a living brain and sort out what a living brain is doing differently when producing consciousness vis-à-vis when not.
Well, to me, if it would be simulated correctly, it would be a simulation of a dead brain. It would not simulate the necessary brain mechanisms that the person had when being alive.

Yes I agree.

I put stimulate a dead brain, rather than simulate a dead brain.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

Yes I agree.

I put stimulate a dead brain, rather than simulate a dead brain.

Ah yes, sorry, misread that one.

 

[yy2bggggs]

What spark of being is provided in an intelligent computer for it to be a truly conscious being?

Surely it isn't a threshold of complexity?

Surely not; that would be like saying that vision would be a threshold of complexity. You can't just get something in an intelligent computer by throwing complexity at the problem--you have to actually implement something.

A conscious mind requires specific implementation details to produce a sense of agency. If you could produce an intelligent computer with consciousness, this requirement wouldn't change--it would have to specifically implement the sense of agency before it could have a sense of agency.

 

[PixyMisa]

You must have missed this statement.

Being is my magic bean and is where I feel inclined to consider the possibility of alternative ontologies to physical matter materialism.

No, I saw that. It's intrinsically anti-rational, and deserves no comment beyond that.

I know that when you say something is right or wrong, what you mean is from your position it is either right or wrong.

No.

Begging an answer, it is just the volume of computation isn't it?

Your question is based on a premise which contains a logical fallacy.

Consciousness in computers.

Consciousness in computers, including humans, is based on the structure of the computations, not the volume. This has been made abundantly clear in many, many posts across many threads.

Speak for yourself.

You are free to produce evidence to the contrary.

Remember not only your definition of consciousness is on the table.

A definition by which a switched-off computer is consciousness is not a useful definition.

Oh, not alive then, just conscious.

That is the inescapable conclusion from your hypothetical scenario, yes.

 

[annnnoid]

What leap? People are machines.

People are machines. Reasoning: Since Pixy can use the same word to describe a person as Pixy can use to describe an automaton, it is quite reasonable to conclude that people and automatons are equivalent, if not identical (are they identical Pixy?)

But hang on, if there is one thing that has been quite conclusively established, it is that the scientific community currently engaged in the study of ‘people’ is all-but unanimously resolved that we neither know what a person is nor how a person works.

….but Pixy does. A person is a machine ( ‘rocket-science’ it’s called), therefore there can be no issue in maintaining that a person shares some fundamental fraternity with the very same laptop on which they play Donkey Kong!

Wikipedia: …under ‘machine’ we have 10 trillion items, one of which is the ‘entity’ known as human being…therefore every one of those ten trillion items must be the very same thing.

A conclusion of truly epic proportions.

 

[rocketdodger]

I'm continually amazed that the supporters of the computational model don't have a problem with this, or are willing to handwave it away as something irrelevant. The computational nature of the brain is just to be accepted, and major, significant differences like the interactive nature of the brain can be left aside.

That's because you continually ignore the posts of those supporters.

Case in point -- I made a post just yesterday evening that clearly explained we do *not* think you can leave aside the interactive nature of the brain, in fact that we think it is absolutely essential.

Yet here you are claiming otherwise.

Posts like this stem from either blatant dishonesty or blatant ignorance of the discussion.

 

[rocketdodger]

Who is the observer?

That is up to you to decide. Off the top of my head, probably some human?

I am simply saying that the argument that a "real tornado" has more of a claim to the title of "tornado" than a "simulated tornado" is entirely arbitrary. A "real tornado" and a "simulated tornado" are different things, granted, but applying the term "tornado" requires an observer in either case.

Thus far, people like piggy have been trying to argue the opposite -- that a "simulated tornado" is somehow "less tornado" than a "real tornado" because a simulated tornado requires an observer to recognize that it is a tornado.