Explain consciousness to the layman.

[Piggy]

But the machine is an instantiation of a process. It has to perform all of the steps right by properly applying some sort of rule--such is the trick to getting the machine to do what we want.

The representation, in the sense you're using it, is merely our means of exploiting what the machine does. In the particular case where we build the machine, we know what it does because we built it--but the same idea is employed in "natural machines" that we didn't build in the first place.

So we have calculators and chess games. And we have radiometrics and dendrochronology. In all cases, you just have a system where there are parts that are regularly applying rules, and so long as you map your representations to the behaviors properly, it works precisely because these rules are applied.

What do you make of the notion that the number of rings in a tree's cross section indicates its age in years?

Tree rings don't indicate anything to the tree.

 

[yy2bggggs]

But they also relate in all sorts of ways that you're ignoring because they're irrelevant to the way you want to use the machine.

Thank you for telling me why I'm ignoring something I didn't mention. For your next trick, tell me what I had for dinner.

Translation:

Do realize that you're entirely making up this useless fact about something never mentioned, please. Your desire to extrapolate into your opposition's head is the very thing that causes you to be a poor communicator. Don't presume you can speak for me--especially if you're speaking to me.

ETA: The rest of your posts I'm fine for at the moment. The real test is how others respond to you.

 

[case#46cw39]

Someone earlier asked the question what's the difference between Data the robot and the online, ship's computer in Star Trek that makes one conscious and the other not. This is a great question and especially because we have a modern, real parallel. On a recent car commercial they said the car can respond to 600 commands, the most ever. This is equivalent to the ship's computer. Nobody would claim this makes it conscious. You can't really say it "understands" what it's doing. It is a very clever syntactic trick of the form "IF 100101010101 .and. 1010101 THEN response 101110"

Data on the other hand has something different, a Positronic Brain, that the ship's computer doesn't have. This gives Data the unique ability to semantically understand propositions just like humans and so have an authentic mind. That's the difference between first generation computers and future computers that have real minds. Can this ability be given to a computer? Yes, but most research is top secret until it is commercially ready.

 

[Brainache]

But here's the problem with that.

Folks like Pixy and Dodger go way beyond this.

As does anyone who claims that "people" who are "inside" a "simulation" like this could really in some way "become conscious" and begin to "perceive" the "world of the simulation" as the world in which they live.

But what if "the world of the simulation" is made up of images and sounds from the real world, transferred via cameras, microphones etc?

If a simulated person was reacting in real-time to the outside world like a person looking through eyeballs and listening through ears does, what then?

I'm not the one saying that the "post is hanging around" when it's offscreen.

What Westprog and Leumas and I and others are simply saying is that when the "post" is offscreen, there is no "post" at all.

What this means is that the "post" only exists when someone's reading it... otherwise, it's just a meaningless garble.

A garble which began as a thought in someone's head, yes, but it's no longer a thought and it's no longer in someone's head and it only means anything if someone who knows how to read it reads it.

The same is true of your simulation.

Why? If the computer running the simulation is still switched on, and the software is still processing information, why should it matter if a person is watching?
What if we set up a mirror so it could watch itself?
What if watching itself was part of the simulation? (seems to me this would be necessary in a simulated consciuosness anyway)

So yes, we can talk about a "world of the simulation", and as I've said many times before, it's not only useful but often necessary.

But once you start talking about the things inside a "world of the simulation" running real-world objects or becoming conscious... then you've move away from physics and into metaphysics.

Even if the simulator is wired up to things outside?

What's real is the simulator.

The world of the simulation is indeed in your head.

I don't get this.

 

[westprog]

Is the tornado itself carrying information? If not, where does information come from?

There are two possible ways to look at information. There's physical information, and there's a lot of it. There's information in the sense of what human beings exchange and derive from their environment. Either of these are reasonably clear concepts, though not especially quantifiable. There's a woolly middle ground of "information processing", never properly defined, but referred to as if it meant something.

 

[westprog]

You're wobbling back and forth. You said you recognize that there's a big difference between a simulation and a film. Now you're saying there's no causal difference.

What, then, is the difference? You explain it to me this time.

The difference is in the interpretation by a human being. I said that.

In terms of physical processes, there's no fundamental difference between them. Do I think that one is a "process" and the other not? No. Do I think that one is "dynamic" and the other not? No. Do I think that one works according to "rules" and the other not? No.

 

[westprog]

But what if "the world of the simulation" is made up of images and sounds from the real world, transferred via cameras, microphones etc?

If a simulated person was reacting in real-time to the outside world like a person looking through eyeballs and listening through ears does, what then?

Everything that happens in the simulation program happens because of something in the real world. It's the only world available for us to construct equipment.

In this case, I consider discussion of what is going on in the "world of the simulation" as a positive obstacle to understanding.

Why? If the computer running the simulation is still switched on, and the software is still processing information, why should it matter if a person is watching?
What if we set up a mirror so it could watch itself?
What if watching itself was part of the simulation? (seems to me this would be necessary in a simulated consciuosness anyway)

It would be just as meaningful as projecting the film into a mirror.

Even if the simulator is wired up to things outside?

Generally, the simulator will be wired up to the mains in the real world. Connecting it to the electricity supply of the virtual world is unlikely to be very effective.

I don't get this.

 

[case#46cw39]

The idea of a simulation of thinking being or becoming conscious or an authentic mind has to be dropped. Even though they both are processing info there is still a difference that keeps a simulation from ever being anything more then a model of thinking. Simulations are very clever syntactic processing systems, but this still isn't enough to make of them an authentic mind. The mind does semantic processing and the syntactic simulation doesn't. You can't really say it "understands" what it's doing. It is a very clever syntactic trick of the form "IF 100101010101 .and. 1010101 THEN response 101110" That's the problem; a syntactics based simulation found in first generation computers can never be sufficient to be a real mind, which is semantics based. So we need new machinery for that.

This gives semantic machinery the unique ability to semantically understand propositions just like humans and so have an authentic mind. That's the difference between first generation computers and future computers that have real minds. Can this ability be given to a computer? Yes, but most research is top secret until it is commercially ready. And it won't be a first generation syntax-based simulation; it will be second generation semantics-based machinery. So simulation has to be dropped by definition as hopeless by design.

 

[westprog]

I don't get this.

What makes something a simulation of some other system is a person using it for that purpose. The moon orbiting the Earth is not a simulation of the Earth orbiting the Sun - at least until a person uses it for that purpose.

Any physical system is likely to have analogies with another physical system. That doesn't mean that every physical system is a simulation of every other physical system. "Simulation' is a concept only meaningful in terms of the use that human beings make of it.

 

[westprog]

I'm not saying that the parts of the machine don't relate in those ways.

Of course they do.

It wouldn't work the way we want it to if it didn't.

So no one is disputing that.

But they also relate in all sorts of ways that you're ignoring because they're irrelevant to the way you want to use the machine.

I finally figured out the thing about physical systems performing computations.

AFAIAA, all physical systems can be described by mathematical models. In most cases, many different mathematical models can be applied. Newtonian or Einsteinian physics, for example. If a particular mathematical model can describe a system, then that system can be described as executing a computation according to that model.

Given the uncountable number of physical systems that exist, and the number of ways to describe them, it seems clear that computation is a universal activity. If it produces consciousness, then one would expect consciousness to exist universally.

 

[westprog]

Holy moly, this is exactly what we've been arguing this whole time.

This is precisely what we've been talking about -- whether "those particular real things doing those particular real things can generate a conscious mind"... and this is the first time you seem to be even remotely aware of that fact.

In fact, this is the only question that matters. Any representational function that anyone might have hung onto those real things doing real things, well, they just don't matter.

And your "live people" example makes no difference at all. Unless you believe that using "live people" actually makes them into chess pawns in some objective sense, whereas using bits of non-living material does not.

If you blindfolded the people, and gave them instructions, they might be moving around and reproducing the moves of chess, but they wouldn't be actually playing chess at all. They might all get together afterwards and try to figure out what was going on, but never understand it.

 

[westprog]

But if we want to discuss how that sequence of images of a man performing a perfect triple axle got onto that film, we need to look outside the film. The film only holds images--it doesn't generate them.

It should be pointed out that to show a film, or to run a program, you need particular equipment. A DVD will need a player to show the film. A program will need a computer.

When you place the DVD into the player, or the film reel into the projector, or the tape into the player, it will generate the images. What else is happening? The images aren't on the screen, you press go on the machine, and look, there they are. What's that if not generating images?

 

[westprog]

It doesn't matter that it's dynamic. This has been covered.

What this means is that it's possible to perform different computations. Running the simulation with different data is a different simulation. It's conceptually no different to playing a different film.

Of course, it's a lot easier to change the computer program. You can just enter a few numbers in a dialog box. To change the film, you might have to spend $150 million. However, that's a matter of economics. It doesn't make one system dynamic and the other not.

I repeat - running the same program with different data is performing a different computation.

 

[yy2bggggs]

The difference is in the interpretation by a human being. I said that.

Okay, let's talk specifics here. We were talking about tornados, so:

How do you interpret the tornado in this particular video?

In terms of physical processes, there's no fundamental difference between them.

I think in terms of physical processes, there was an entirely different physical process that happened in 2007 associated with a tornado, and the thing you just played after I posted it. I think there's a fundamental difference here.

Furthermore:

I think the simulator this person is talking about in this film is fundamentally different than the thing you were playing after I posted it.

Now, I've no objection to saying that the film is a form of simulation in itself. But in terms of tornados, the first film is only simulating the perceptual effects of a tornado that occurred in 2007, and the second film is only simulating the perceptual effects of the tornado simulation the lady is describing. I think that's fundamentally different from the actual tornado in the first film, and the simulator in the second one.

Surely you agree that these things are fundamentally different?

Do I think that one is a "process" and the other not? No. Do I think that one is "dynamic" and the other not? No. Do I think that one works according to "rules" and the other not? No.

The film simulates motion, but we were talking about the causal relations of the entities within it. I'm not denying that a film has causal relations, but you're not causing a tornado to blow across your screen while watching that first film, nor are you causing that particular kind of simulation to run in the second film.

And that is a fundamental difference.

 

[yy2bggggs]

But if we want to discuss how that sequence of images of a man performing a perfect triple axle got onto that film, we need to look outside the film. The film only holds images--it doesn't generate them.

It should be pointed out that to show a film, or to run a program, you need particular equipment.

You're not talking about the post you're replying to. I should note that before you get to show the film, there has to be a film. And in order for there to be a film, that film has to be produced.

This, by the way, is exactly what you were talking about--the difference between a simulation of a tornado and a film of a tornado. We could toss in the actual tornado and there will also be a difference. It's not merely a difference in interpretation either--there are entirely different kinds of things happening when you play a film, film a tornado, or film a simulation of a tornado.

When you place the DVD into the player, or the film reel into the projector, or the tape into the player, it will generate the images. What else is happening? The images aren't on the screen, you press go on the machine, and look, there they are.

Sure.

What's that if not generating images?

It's displaying the images previously generated by producing the film. Incidentally, the DVD isn't a film.

What you're doing is simply word play.

 

[yy2bggggs]

Given the uncountable number of physical systems that exist,

Careful--words mean things. If you delve into mathematics, be very aware that "uncountable" means infinite quantities that cannot be mapped to the integers, which is more specific than saying "infinite".

it seems clear that computation is a universal activity.

Sure.

If it produces consciousness, then one would expect consciousness to exist universally.

Why? And can you be more explicit? Of course there are conscious entities around anyway. Do you mean you expect to find a simulation of a conscious entity in my cup of tea, sufficient for the computational proponents to claim that a conscious entity is in there?

If so, can you give a better argument for it than "there's lots of stuff in there"?

 

[!Kaggen]

~snip~ Yes, but most research is top secret until it is commercially ready.

No its not you can buy and read GEB

 

[Pulvinar]

The idea of a simulation of thinking being or becoming conscious or an authentic mind has to be dropped. Even though they both are processing info there is still a difference that keeps a simulation from ever being anything more then a model of thinking. Simulations are very clever syntactic processing systems, but this still isn't enough to make of them an authentic mind. The mind does semantic processing and the syntactic simulation doesn't. You can't really say it "understands" what it's doing. It is a very clever syntactic trick of the form "IF 100101010101 .and. 1010101 THEN response 101110" That's the problem; a syntactics based simulation found in first generation computers can never be sufficient to be a real mind, which is semantics based. So we need new machinery for that.

This gives semantic machinery the unique ability to semantically understand propositions just like humans and so have an authentic mind. That's the difference between first generation computers and future computers that have real minds. Can this ability be given to a computer? Yes, but most research is top secret until it is commercially ready. And it won't be a first generation syntax-based simulation; it will be second generation semantics-based machinery. So simulation has to be dropped by definition as hopeless by design.

Say you're a teacher and you have a child who doesn't understand how to multiply numbers. So you teach her the precise steps involved, and then test her by giving her pairs of numbers, asking her to multiply them, and checking that her answer is what you expect. Does she now semantically understand the phrase "multiply these numbers"?

You should be able to see where this is heading.

 

[westprog]

It's displaying the images previously generated by producing the film. Incidentally, the DVD isn't a film.

What you're doing is simply word play.

Are you now ready to distinguish between the DVD and the reel of film? That's been left ambiguous up to now, since we can talk about films being viewed on DVD's. Clearly the reel of film holds images in a different way to the way that the DVD does. Does that matter?

In any case, the images are not present on the film. The images are generated by the film, and appear on the screen. There's a one-to-one correspondence with the patterns on the film and the images on the screen. That doesn't mean they are the same thing. The images on the screen still have to be generated.

There's also a correspondence between the images and an actual tornado. Does this make the film more or less like the tornado?

 

[westprog]

Say you're a teacher and you have a child who doesn't understand how to multiply numbers. So you teach her the precise steps involved, and then test her by giving her pairs of numbers, asking her to multiply them, and checking that her answer is what you expect. Does she now semantically understand the phrase "multiply these numbers"?

You should be able to see where this is heading.

You could give a child a calculator and she could give correct answers without ever understanding what the "x" symbol on the calculator meant. Would the calculator understand, though?