• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Explain consciousness to the layman.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Brainache said:
Rocket Dodger, DLorde and others: The architecture isn't that important, what matters is the processing.
Click to expand...
Well, I think the architecture is important, but can be emulated in software.

Other than that, I think you've captured the gist.
 
westprog said:
If we are in fact able to emulate a single neuron using an artificial device, that will be a huge breakthrough. We certainly can't do it with microprocessors.
Click to expand...
AIUI, we're talking about what might be possible, i.e. we're dealing with the hypothetical, not the currently practical. I've already posted links to early implementations of the kind of processor that could be used (e.g. IBM's Cognitive Computing Chip). It seems reasonable to assume that future developments of such a processor could perform all the substantive processing functions of a neuron (i.e. I can't see an insurmountable problem in doing so).
 
Last edited:
westprog said:
If we are in fact able to emulate a single neuron using an artificial device, that will be a huge breakthrough. We certainly can't do it with microprocessors.
Click to expand...

Why can we not emulate a single neuron with a microprocessor?
 
westprog said:
You are simply assuming that what a computer does is similar to what a brain does, and that what a printing press does isn't. Of course if you start out by assuming the thing you want to prove you can derive what you want.

I'll explain why the computer can't be conscious if you'll explain, specifically and succinctly, why the printing press wouldn't be conscious.
Click to expand...

No. I am not assuming what a computer does is similar to what a brain does, but why would this assumption be incorrect, in so far as it would make a conscious computer impossible?

A printing press does nothing that any of the ordinary definitions of consciousness include. I pick this one: "Consciousness refers to your individual awareness of your unique thoughts, memories, feelings, sensations and environment." A printing press does none of those, though a computer could be PROGRAMMED to do all of them.

Your turn.
 
Last edited:
Beelzebuddy said:
It might not be true any more, but the statement was quite factual at the time. It was one of those late afternoon goldbricking exercises. If you added up all the activatable proteins in all the synapses in the brain, and all the transistors and bits of memory in all the processors and hard drives on earth, the brain would just barely win out.
Click to expand...
I very much doubt that, even if we're counting proteins and not just synapses. As my earlier calculations showed, the number of transistors in the internet - not counting hard drives at all - dwarfs the number of synapses in the brain.

Could you cite the numbers involved? Both sets.
 
Piggy said:
When I say "shape matters" I mean that shape makes a difference in the function of the brain in the same kind of way that it makes a difference in my truck (of course).

If I want to build something that does what my truck does, I have to take into account not just a change of small-scale reactions, but also larger-scale phenomena which also depend on shape (such as systems using pressure, for example).

The same is true for other organs of the body -- there's a limit to how much spatial distortion the object can handle before it stops doing some of the things it does.

That said, there's going to a range of possible shapes that could oblige the function... as well as many others that can't.

But if you really want to build a replacement part for some organ in your body -- whether it's a brain or a liver or whatever -- then yeah, you have to take shape into account in your understanding of what it does and how it works in the real world.

Did you really imagine that this could be ignored?
Click to expand...

Has anyone suggested that a simulated brain/consciousness would be used as a replacement part in a human body?

I don't think anyone of the "computationists" were anticipating an artificial brain that required blood circulation or to metabolize sugar. That would be the whole point of an artificial brain; it runs on mains power or batteries, not biology.

Or have I missed something again?
 
Brainache said:
Or have I missed something again?
Click to expand...

No, you haven't.

Basically piggy's position boils down to the fact that he isn't 100% sure of just what brain functions are required for consciousness, so to be safe he thinks the only option is to just reproduce the whole thing exactly.

Problem is, I am not sure how useful that viewpoint is in a world where it is impossible to reproduce the whole thing exactly.
 
Mr. Scott said:
No. I am not assuming what a computer does is similar to what a brain does, but why would this assumption be incorrect, in so far as it would make a conscious computer impossible?

A printing press does nothing that any of the ordinary definitions of consciousness include. I pick this one: "Consciousness refers to your individual awareness of your unique thoughts, memories, feelings, sensations and environment." A printing press does none of those, though a computer could be PROGRAMMED to do all of them.

Your turn.
Click to expand...

A computer could no more be programmed to have thoughts, memories, feelings or sensations than the printing press could be set up to print them. No such programs exist, and it is pure conjecture to ever suppose that they could exist.

In the early days of computers, one would have expected people to have this idea that programming could do all sorts of things. Nowadays when everyone has a computer and is well aware how horribly limited the things are, one would hope that such thinking would have faded away. Mind, I suppose that Apple fans consider their pretty little boxes already have thoughts and feelings.
 
You know, I asked a simple question, and you guys are too busy fighting with each other to give me an answer.
 
dlorde said:
AIUI, we're talking about what might be possible, i.e. we're dealing with the hypothetical, not the currently practical. I've already posted links to early implementations of the kind of processor that could be used (e.g. IBM's Cognitive Computing Chip). It seems reasonable to assume that future developments of such a processor could perform all the substantive processing functions of a neuron (i.e. I can't see an insurmountable problem in doing so).
Click to expand...

The question could probably be resolved into "What is the substantive processing function of a neuron". It's been insisted by the computationists that this function is identical to that of an electronic circuit. The physicalists consider that it's an as yet unidentified property of a neuron. Both would consider that if you could produce a device that would replace a neuron in a human body, then you'd have a good basis for replicating a human brain.
 
PixyMisa said:
I very much doubt that, even if we're counting proteins and not just synapses. As my earlier calculations showed, the number of transistors in the internet - not counting hard drives at all - dwarfs the number of synapses in the brain.

Could you cite the numbers involved? Both sets.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that the internet, as a whole, has a consciousness? (I'm not being argumentative, I really want your answer.)
 
All I wanted was to catch up on the debate of what qualifies as "consciousness"- I didn't realize I was walking into a heavily fortified minefield.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom