Explain consciousness to the layman.

[Brainache]

My point was, people used my question as an opportunity to snipe at others. I wanted a sincere response, and all I got was an internet insult war.

My response was a sincere one. I wasn't insulting anyone, just trying to give a summary of the last ten or fifteen pages of the thread.

There doesn't seem to be a consensus of what consciousness is, beyond a general "something that human brains do".

It has turned into a discussion about whether or not consciousness could be created in a machine.

I just summarised the various arguments (as I understood them) as they stand at the moment between the posters in this thread.

 

[PixyMisa]

Are you saying that the internet, as a whole, has a consciousness? (I'm not being argumentative, I really want your answer.)

That discussion was on a side-question, whether the human brain is the most complex thing we know of. (It's not.)

I did address your specific question before, though: I think that some components of the internet are definitely conscious, but I don't think it is when considered as a whole.

 

[PixyMisa]

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.

Sorry, this is a consciousness thread. You want something peaceful, like international politics.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

Sorry, this is a consciousness thread. You want something peaceful, like international politics.

OK, you made me laugh.

 

[!Kaggen]

Sorry, this is a consciousness thread. You want something peaceful, like international politics.

False dichotomy.

Not the adjectives, the verbs.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

False dichotomy.

Not the adjectives, the verbs.

There's two verbs in there, which one are you questioning?

 

[!Kaggen]

There's two verbs in there, which one are you questioning?

There is no dichotomy between consciousness and international politics. International politics as an activity is a subset within set which is the activity we call consciousness.

Remember Pixy Misa, consciousness is a verb. You know all the ways to fly yet?

 

[TheGoldcountry]

There is no dichotomy between consciousness and international politics. International politics as an activity is a subset within set which is the activity we call consciousness.

Remember Pixy Misa, consciousness is a verb. You know all the ways to fly yet?

I think we agee, but the two of us are being very obtuse. If I can state my position now, I think the human brain is the best example of "consciousness" AT THIS POINT. I welcome the effort to create AI, but I don't see it within my lifetime. I am ready to be proven wrong.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

I think animals are "conscious" but they don't think like humans do. I have a cat sleeping beside me right now. She doesn't "think" the same way I do, and I wouldn't try to change that. Why do we need to define the greatest ability we have?

 

[PixyMisa]

So that we can speak meaningfully about it?

 

[Mr. Scott]

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.

That's a strange statement. Computers don't have memories?

I'd like to ask you what it is about consciousness in the brain that is not computable, but you've already admitted you do not understand how computers work. I'll listen to your attempt.

I've taught courses on how computers work, and feel quite confident a conscious computer is not possible.

 

[Mr. Scott]

I'll leave it to those more eloquent than me

This may be a pattern here. You don't like what someone says about you, so you call "straw man" and refuse to elaborate. Weak.

 

[Mr. Scott]

I think animals are "conscious" but they don't think like humans do. I have a cat sleeping beside me right now. She doesn't "think" the same way I do, and I wouldn't try to change that. Why do we need to define the greatest ability we have?

Because part of that ability is insatiable curiosity, and we need conscious machines to make devices smarter. A conscious power grid, nuclear power station, or auto control computer might be a great advance. Just don't motivate them like HAL 9000.

Animal consciousness is very interesting. I recently saw the "Project Nim" documentary about how, in the 70s, a chimp was taught American sign language so we could communicate and get into the chimp mind. Spoiler alert: The experiment was considered a failure, because it was concluded that the only thing the chimp learned to use language for was to beg.

The story of Irene Pepperberg's African Gray parrot Alex is much more interesting. I recall Alex watching another parrot make a wrong answer, getting irritated, and correcting it in an angry, impatient tone. You could still argue that Alex was using language to beg.

One wonders if we, in just more complex and obscure ways, use language merely to beg.

 

[gentlehorse]

delete

 

[TheGoldcountry]

Because part of that ability is insatiable curiosity, and we need conscious machines to make devices smarter. A conscious power grid, nuclear power station, or auto control computer might be a great advance. Just don't motivate them like HAL 9000.

Animal consciousness is very interesting. I recently saw the "Project Nim" documentary about how, in the 70s, a chimp was taught American sign language so we could communicate and get into the chimp mind. Spoiler alert: The experiment was considered a failure, because it was concluded that the only thing the chimp learned to use language for was to beg.

The story of Irene Pepperberg's African Gray parrot Alex is much more interesting. I recall Alex watching another parrot make a wrong answer, getting irritated, and correcting it in an angry, impatient tone. You could still argue that Alex was using language to beg.

One wonders if we, in just more complex and obscure ways, use language merely to beg.

thanks, I wasn't questioning our curiosity, I was questioning people's need to define the human mind for everyone else. I haven't figured out my own brain, I probably know I never will, so I get a tiny bit annoyed when others proclaim to have it all figured out.

 

[rocketdodger]

I've taught courses on how computers work, and feel quite confident a conscious computer is not possible.

Bold mine -- did you mean to say "not possible" ?

 

[Leumas]

Of course, if you actually checked the numbers, you'd realise that I'm right and you and Piggy - and that article - are wrong.

I tip my straw hat to your unwavering certitude of your self-assured "certainty"..... what more can be said?


Since you are obviously asserting that the neuroscientists are wrong I suggest you go post a rebuttal article in the same journal and correct the poor people before they spend more of Paul Allen's $500 MILLION dollars on a pointless exercise since you obviously have cracked it all already and since you have already achieved consciousness in ordinary household computers running ordinary programs you habitually write with ease.

Please PixyMisa..... go inform the world about your findings so that we won't have to waste more money on this pointless research.

But before you do you may want to heed the fact that Rocketdodger thinks that your idea is "monumentally simplistic" and DLorde thinks that it is "not a practical definition".

You may want to convince them first before you embarrass yourself in front of people who actually know something about the subject.

P.S. Guys, you're citing Gizmodo.

No we are citing Stephen Smith whose research is summarized for the layman in Gizmodo.

 

[Leumas]

Are you saying that the internet, as a whole, has a consciousness? (I'm not being argumentative, I really want your answer.)

He thinks normal household computers are conscious. Moreover, he claims that he himself wrote programs that have achieved consciousness in ordinary computers. Additionally, he thinks that there is absolutely nothing remarkable about any of this that it is not even something to attract the attention of any of the scads of the scientists in scores of research labs spending billions of dollars to achieve what he claims he effortlessly achieves all the time.

That's slightly off-topic, but an interesting question. There is no reason in the computational model why a network of individually conscious components can't generate a separate and distinct consciousness belonging to the network itself.
The human users of the internet are conscious; at least some of the applications typically found on a modern computer are conscious.

Whether the internet as an ecosystem is conscious is a complex question. One answer would be that it has multiple overlapping consciousnesses. There's no unifying mind, but there are conscious behaviours when you look at specific parts of the system.

Yes, absolutely. I've written such programs myself. It's a common programming technique.

do you think computer consciousness is in any way remarkable?

 

[Leumas]

I think we agee, but the two of us are being very obtuse. If I can state my position now, I think the human brain is the best example of "consciousness" AT THIS POINT. I welcome the effort to create AI, but I don't see it within my lifetime. I am ready to be proven wrong.

Oh.... in the minds of the computational literalists you are wrong. They of course cannot prove it....but that does not hinder them thinking that you are wrong regardless.

They are SURE that you are wrong and PixyMisa even thinks that he has ALREADY proven it because he himself wrote ordinary programs running in ordinary modern computers that have already achieved consciousness.

Others cite Star Trek and Tron and Terminator and other such Science FICTION as an obvious proof of your error.

If you are so limited in your outlook that you cannot see how unremarkable the human brain is and that it can be easily equaled if not surpassed by some transistors then just ask PixyMisa et al to disabuse you of your “kooky magic bean” ideas…..maybe Data and Hal can bring evidence to bear too in order to convince you.

 

[dlorde]

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.

No, they say that function can be reproduced by an electronic circuit (and software). Not the same thing at all.