Explain consciousness to the layman.

[Mr. Scott]

Whatever the similarities may be, it's fairly clear that the physical processes going on in the brain are very different from those going on in the computer.

This is an electronic schematic of a "simulated" neuron:

A computer program can simulate an electronic circuit like this, as well as a network of them.

If we built a computer programmed to simulate a complete human brain, and wired it to a robot with the senses and motor capabilities of a human body, would it be conscious?

If not, why not?

 

[westprog]

This is an electronic schematic of a "simulated" neuron:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/67364f7519b89762e.jpg[/qimg]

A computer program can simulate an electronic circuit like this, as well as a network of them.

If we built a computer programmed to simulate a complete human brain, and wired it to a robot with the senses and motor capabilities of a human body, would it be conscious?

If not, why not?

If the electrical circuit were to produce exactly the same physical effects as neurons, then possibly that would be the way to go. However, I know that no such circuits exist at present, because nerve damage is permanent and cannot be repaired. We cannot slip an electronic device into a damaged spine. That would be step one, which we should probably manage before speculating about what we could do for step fifty-six.

 

[Frank Newgent]

But you don't need to make that analogy -- nobody here claims that information can have meaning without an observer to infer that meaning.

In fact you could say that "meaning" is just part of how an observer reacts to information, as in "if observer reacts with behavior X, the information carried meaning Y for the observer."

So it isn't that hard to define, either.

Show me an algorithm containing Gadamer's Truth and Method

I apologize for this comment. How an observer reacts to information ie relating to interpretation theory - including the entire framework of an interpretive process encompassing all forms of communication such as written, verbal, and nonverbal - would require an algorithm impossibly large in present terms.

Not to say it can't/won't be done someday. In the meantime I'd settle for a robot simply covering, say, the broadcast of a high-school basketball game

 

[PixyMisa]

If the electrical circuit were to produce exactly the same physical effects as neurons, then possibly that would be the way to go. However, I know that no such circuits exist at present, because nerve damage is permanent and cannot be repaired.

So? If you want to replicate irreparable nerve damage, don't repair the circuit.

 

[Leumas]

This is an electronic schematic of a "simulated" neuron:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/67364f7519b89762e.jpg[/qimg]

A computer program can simulate an electronic circuit like this, as well as a network of them.

If we built a computer programmed to simulate a complete human brain, and wired it to a robot with the senses and motor capabilities of a human body, would it be conscious?

If not, why not?

Where did you get this circuit from?

There are three things about this

1. This circuit is an EMULATION of a neuron (if it is correct) not a simulation.
   
   
2. You are absolutely correct about electronic circuits being possible to simulate in a computer program based on SPICE modeling.
   
   However if you know how these work you would realize that they are only mathematical calculations of the circuit and not the actual physical actions of the circuit.
   
   When I want to design a column and predict its buckling load I solve a few differential equations and get numbers. That is what is being done in these simulations of electronic circuit networks.
   
   The solutions can be presented as sets of numbers or graphs or can be presented as if they are oscilloscope displays (but not real time).
   
   In other words this is the same as saying we can simulate the movement of planets or the dynamics of weather in a computer program.
   
   
3. There are certain types of electronic circuits that can be simulated using a computer program like filtering in Digital Signal Processing (DSP). But these involve actual electronics at the front and back ends of the process. These PHYSICAL electronics are INDISPENSABLE….they cannot be done away with. They do the conversion of actual real voltages and signals to data that then can be manipulated in a simulated filter and then the resulting simulation data is converted back to real physical voltages and signals.
   
   This makes the overall system an EMULATION and not a simulation. Moreover, in these systems TIMING is of PARAMOUNT importance and can drastically affect the results of the emulation.
   
   In the case of SPICE simulations they do not emulate circuits because they work in mathematical calculations and not in real time or acting on real world electrical voltages or currents.
   
   SPICE simulation of electronic circuits work with Matrix solutions and digital integration and other MATHEMATICAL equation solving.
   
   Therefore the simulation of the above circuit would not in any way behave like a circuit. It is just like you would have done with paper and pencil and lots of erasing while trying to solve a Kirchhoff network.
   
   Do you think solutions of mathematical formulas on a piece of paper representing the orbit of the moon will ever be the orbit of the moon? Do you think the solution on paper of the dynamics of airflow over an aerofoil will ever make an actual airflow over a real aerofoil?
   
   Well that is the same for SPICE modeling of electronic circuits.... they are only solutions of mathematical formulas presented in a nice format to look at.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

This circuit is an EMULATION of a neuron (if it is correct) not a simulation.

Could you please clarify that?

Could it not also be seen as a simulation if the intent is to imitate the operation of a neuron? (the definition being: “Simulation is the imitation of the operation of a real-world process or system over time.”) (WP)

The same Wiki-page has pictures of a wooden mechanical horse simulator as well as one of outer space.

 

[dlorde]

The things that a computer can fully simulate to be equivalent to the thing itself are things that are already in the digital realm. An e-book is a book. Online poker is poker. That's because a book is already a digital object, and can be transcribed without loss. The fundamental rules of poker can be digitised. However, a simulated tennis game is not tennis, because tennis isn't part of the digital world*.

So, clearly, the computationalist claim is that brain function is in the 'digital realm', i.e. it can be treated as a 'digital world' mechanism in the way generates behaviours and consciousness.

You seem to disagree. What aspects of brain function that lead to consciousness do you feel can not be treated as being part of the digital realm, and why?

 

[dlorde]

Whatever the similarities may be, it's fairly clear that the physical processes going on in the brain are very different from those going on in the computer.

Of course. The physical processes going on in a wind-up clock are very different form those in the computer simulation, but they both tell the time. The physical processes of chess played on a physical chessboard between humans are very different from those of chess played on a simulated board with a human against a simulated chess player, but they both result in games of chess being played.

 

[Belz...]

Yes, there's been a lot of waffle about how one system is dynamic, and the other isn't, and one works according to rules and the other doesn't, and one is causal, and the other isn't - all of which evaporates away when looked at closely with precise definitions of what we're talking about.

Right, so you didn't understand those explanations.

I've had to come up with my own definitions of many of the terms used here.

Gee, that's useful.

 

[Belz...]

There's no obvious causal connection between the frames of a reel of film. However, there's no causal connection between the successive instructions of a computer program either.

Well, I think this is the source of your misunderstanding, and until you correct it, you will continue to misunderstand.

 

[Leumas]

Could you please clarify that?

Could it not also be seen as a simulation if the intent is to imitate the operation of a neuron? (the definition being: “Simulation is the imitation of the operation of a real-world process or system over time.”) (WP)

The same Wiki-page has pictures of a wooden mechanical horse simulator as well as one of outer space.

Sometimes in technical spheres certain words have more specific nuances than in the general layman language usage.

In the context of this thread where the debate is about SOFTWARE and HARDWARE the word simulate should be strictly speaking reserved for software alone while emulate is hardware but with allowance for some software in certain sub-systems of the overall emulator.

But don't take my word for it....why not look at what IBM engineers had to say as I have already quoted in the post quoted below which also expounds my meaning in more detail.

So in the context of this thread both systems you mentioned (horse and space) would be emulators and not simulators.

emulate

1. to attempt to equal or surpass, esp by imitation
2. to rival or compete with
3. (Electronics & Computer Science / Computer Science) to make one computer behave like (another different type of computer) so that the imitating system can operate on the same data and execute the same programs as the imitated system

[from Latin aemulārī, from aemulus competing with; probably related to imitārī to imitate]​

simulate

1. to make a pretence of; feign to simulate anxiety
2. to reproduce the conditions of (a situation, etc.), as in carrying out an experiment to simulate weightlessness
3. to assume or have the appearance of; imitate

[from Latin simulāre to copy, from similis like]​

Notice how in the definition of Emulate there is no sub-meaning of pretending or feigning.... rather it is imitate with fidelity or even surpassing.

On the other hand notice how for simulate there is that nuance of fakery which is exactly what the INTENDED meaning is when used in regards to computer systems that create an ARTIFICIAL IMITATION.


In Engineering research, an emulation is a physical model that imitates the system under investigation in how it interacts with the environment.

Even when it comes to computers have a look at this excerpt

Originally Posted by Emulation versus simulation
The word "emulator" was coined in 1963 at IBM[12] during development of the NPL (IBM 360) product line, using a "new combination of software, microcode, and hardware".[13] They discovered that using microcode hardware instead of software simulation, to execute programs written for earlier IBM computers, dramatically increased simulation speed.

Earlier in 1957, IBM provided the IBM 709 computer with an interpreter program (software) to execute legacy programs written for the IBM 704 to run on the IBM 709 and later on the IBM 7090[14] In 1963, when microcode was first used to speed up this simulation process, IBM engineers coined the term "emulator" to describe the concept.

It has recently become common to use the word "emulate" in the context of software. However, before 1980, "emulation" referred only to emulation with a hardware or microcode assist, while "simulation" referred to pure software emulation.[15]

For example, a computer specially built for running programs designed for another architecture is an emulator. In contrast, a simulator could be a program which runs on a PC, so that old Atari games can be simulated on it.

Purists continue to insist on this distinction, but currently the term "emulation" often means the complete imitation of a machine executing binary code.

Nevertheless, the term "emulation" when used in GENERAL ENGINEERING, means a PHYSICAL model that imitates the target system being researched.

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).

 

[dlorde]

So in the context of this thread both systems you mentioned (horse and space) would be emulators and not simulators.

According to the quotes you provided, in the context of computing, simulation and emulation are used more interchangeably than they were pre-1980 (presumably because of changes in processor design and the increasing use of emulation layers above the microcode - which is itself a form of software):

It has recently become common to use the word "emulate" in the context of software. However, before 1980, "emulation" referred only to emulation with a hardware or microcode assist, while "simulation" referred to pure software emulation.

So the consciousness simulation that's been discussed in this thread would be a software emulation of consciousness.

 

[Leumas]

According to the quotes you provided, in the context of computing, simulation and emulation are used more interchangeably than they were pre-1980 (presumably because of changes in processor design and the increasing use of emulation layers above the microcode - which is itself a form of software):

So the consciousness simulation that's been discussed in this thread would be a software emulation of consciousness.

The purpose of definitions and language is so that people can communicate the ideas in their heads in a way that others can grasp. I have explained what I think is the distinction between the two words in the context of this discussion.

The idea I am trying to convey is that software alone (simulation) will not result in consciousness and that what might be necessary is hardware and maybe in addition to some software (emulation).

I have based my definition upon the one originally used by IBM engineers. However, please feel free to define anything you want anyway you need.....

But it is not my "operational definition" that lead someone to deduce "monumentally simplistic" conclusions which resulted in them thinking that "normal modern computers are conscious" because they are running "ordinary software" that is habitually written with ease and that all this is so "unremarkable" that no one even paid attention to all these "conscious computers" and that the Internet is conscious just like SkyNet and that tornados can be created by hooking fans to computers and that the “world of the simulation” has conscious entities running around just as was prophesied by the documentary called Tron.

Whichever definition you prefer to use, please try to maintain sight of the fact that there are no conscious computers and whatever conjectures or science FICTION you might describe using these definitions, will not negate the fact that they are no more than just SPECULATIONS that are not even based on reality.


Here is the rest of the quote you partially quoted….. I guess I must be an OLD PURIST....oh well as Walter is fond of saying.

Purists continue to insist on this distinction, but currently the term "emulation" often means the complete imitation of a machine executing binary code.

Also notice the bold part in the last part of my old post….here it is again to make it easy for you to see it….

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).

 

[westprog]

Right, so you didn't understand those explanations.

That's the idea, isn't it? "He just can't see it. If he could just grasp the picture like us, he'd agree". It couldn't be a flaw in the arguments.

Gee, that's useful.

It's an unfortunate necessity, because so many undefined terms are being thrown around, with a demand for precise definitions being regarded as an affront.

 

[westprog]

Well, I think this is the source of your misunderstanding, and until you correct it, you will continue to misunderstand.

If I want to find out how computers work, I can talk to somebody who builds the things.

 

[rocketdodger]

Well, I think this is the source of your misunderstanding, and until you correct it, you will continue to misunderstand.

Yep.

I don't think it is a coincidence that the two people responsible for 90% of the opposition's posting volume on this thread just don't understand how computers work.

I am actually astounded that westprog, who claims to have been in "the industry" at some point in his past, would say that there is no causal relationship between the instructions in a computer program.

Not only is it immediately obvious to anyone who has ever written a program that the results of the operation of one instruction typically influences the next, but also the most fundamental principle of digital logic is causation -- the current flowing through one transistor influences the operation of the adjacent transistors in the circuit, and so on and so forth.

You can literally understand nothing about electronics besides the operation of abstract logic gates and still completely understand how computers work, because the only required concept is causation between the logic gates.

And one of the things included in "understanding how computers work" is the knowledge that "instructions" are just currents traveling through logic gates. If that isn't causal in nature, then I don't know wtf westprog means when he says "causal."

 

[rocketdodger]

I apologize for this comment. How an observer reacts to information ie relating to interpretation theory - including the entire framework of an interpretive process encompassing all forms of communication such as written, verbal, and nonverbal - would require an algorithm impossibly large in present terms.

Not to say it can't/won't be done someday. In the meantime I'd settle for a robot simply covering, say, the broadcast of a high-school basketball game

Yes but you need to remember that when one says "algorithm" for such a thing, it is only in principle.

In practice nobody would know the whole "algorithm," no more than knowing all your DNA would be equivalent to knowing you as a person.

In practice such an "algorithm" from our perspective would merely be a small set of steps that constitute a framework for the system to learn and react to the environment, increasing its own complexity as it went.

Just like the central dogma of molecular biology. Our DNA doesn't represent who we are, it is merely a set of instructions that the simple "algorithm" of the cells carries out in order to build a system that can learn and react to the environment. That system being us, of course.

So think of the computer stuff we are talking about in those terms -- I don't expect anyone to come up with a full program that constitutes a sentient intelligence. I expect someone will come up with a very clever system that, after it learns a ton of stuff on its own, becomes sentient.

 

[Leumas]

Yes but you need to remember that when one says "algorithm" for such a thing, it is only in principle.

In practice nobody would know the whole "algorithm," no more than knowing all your DNA would be equivalent to knowing you as a person.

In practice such an "algorithm" from our perspective would merely be a small set of steps that constitute a framework for the system to learn and react to the environment, increasing its own complexity as it went.
Just like the central dogma of molecular biology. Our DNA doesn't represent who we are, it is merely a set of instructions that the simple "algorithm" of the cells carries out in order to build a system that can learn and react to the environment. That system being us, of course.

So think of the computer stuff we are talking about in those terms -- I don't expect anyone to come up with a full program that constitutes a sentient intelligence. I expect someone will come up with a very clever system that, after it learns a ton of stuff on its own, becomes sentient.

There you go.... now that is sound stuff.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

This is an electronic schematic of a "simulated" neuron:

>IntegrateAndFire.jpg

A computer program can simulate an electronic circuit like this, as well as a network of them.

If we built a computer programmed to simulate a complete human brain, and wired it to a robot with the senses and motor capabilities of a human body, would it be conscious?

If not, why not?

ISHYGDDT.

If you built it on a 1:1 neuron basis, I doubt it would be conscious (or indeed, even functional) because perceptrons toss out so much of the real biological functionality it's appalling. And if you don't build it 1:1, you might as well use formal logic instead; you'd have to understand that much about the brain anyway.

Now, compartment models are a different kettle of fish.

 

[Leumas]

Yep.

I don't think it is a coincidence that the two people responsible for 90% of the opposition's posting volume on this thread just don't understand how computers work.

I am actually astounded that westprog, who claims to have been in "the industry" at some point in his past, would say that there is no causal relationship between the instructions in a computer program.

Not only is it immediately obvious to anyone who has ever written a program that the results of the operation of one instruction typically influences the next, but also the most fundamental principle of digital logic is causation -- the current flowing through one transistor influences the operation of the adjacent transistors in the circuit, and so on and so forth.

You can literally understand nothing about electronics besides the operation of abstract logic gates and still completely understand how computers work, because the only required concept is causation between the logic gates.

And one of the things included in "understanding how computers work" is the knowledge that "instructions" are just currents traveling through logic gates. If that isn't causal in nature, then I don't know wtf westprog means when he says "causal."

I think the problem here is that you might know about computers but you do not understand that you do not understand how brains work.

Even if you understand how computers and programs work perfectly well you are not in any way qualified to conclude that you can make them operate like a brain because you do not even understand how a brain works.

The problem is that you are not willing to admit that you do not understand how the brain works.

The aphorism that little knowledge is more dangerous than no knowledge is quite apt here.

Knowing all about the design and construction of internal combustion engines (ICEs) will not carry any weight with people who know about Jet Engines (JEs) when I tell them that since an ICE takes in fuel and produces mechanical power then it must be readily attainable to make a JE out of an ICE.

Sure, some of the principles involved in making ICEs may help me attempt to make a JE and may give me a head start over someone who does not even know how to make ICEs.....but I will still fail if I am unaware of all the problems that are UNIQUE to the construction and design of JEs. Especially if I am not able to realize the differences based upon my insistence that they both are used to propel objects so I could easily convert one into the other.

You see both the JE and the ICE have the sole function of creating mechanical power out of chemical power. Now if we take this “operational definition” as the basis for why a JE is just like an ICE then we fail to take into account the differences in almost every aspect to do with the metallurgical and mechanical construction, the physics, the thermodynamics, and fluid mechanics of what it would take to have a working Jet engine.