Explain consciousness to the layman.

[TheGoldcountry]

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.

I detect a wee bit of sarcasm running through your comments.

 

[Leumas]

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 will disagree with you.

... whether the human brain is the most complex thing we know of. (It's not.)

He does not even think that achieving consciousness in computers

is in any way remarkable

 

[Leumas]

I detect a wee bit of sarcasm running through your comments.

Ah.... you got me....

 

[Beelzebuddy]

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.

Could you point me to these earlier calculations? This is a big thread to rifle though.

Latest number of synaptic switches: 86 billion neurons * roughly 10k synapses per neuron * roughly 1k switches (ion channels, receptors, signalling molecules, etc) per synapse = 860 petaswitches

As for the other side we just googled stuff like "total number of computers" and ran with it.

 

[dlorde]

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.

Pixy has no need to convince me, I understand the context of the definition he uses, and, in that context, I don't have a problem with it. In my opinion, it isn't practical in our discussion (or general discussion) because I, and the large majority of contributors, have a far more complex implementation in mind than basic SRIP.

 

[dlorde]

I detect a wee bit of sarcasm running through your comments.

It happens. "We grow tired of everything but turning others into ridicule, and congratulating ourselves on their defects.” William Hazlitt

 

[westprog]

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

Of course they don't. The part of the computer called "memory", as in Random Access Memory, has nothing to do with human memory beyond a similar name. This usage of anthropomorphic terms for computer hardware and software has been in general a bad thing which has led to confused thinking about the subject.

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.

Since you've admitted you don't know how human beings work... see how easy it is to argue like that?

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

Oh, well, if you've taught courses.

 

[westprog]

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

It can be reproduced by something but isn't identical to it? Too many angles on a pinhead for me.

 

[Leumas]

I would like to be honest and say I'm new to this thread- can anyone sum it up in a few words? Piggy or Leumas would be appreciated, they are normally eloquent with a sparse use of words.

Thanks for the compliment.

In the light of your subsequent posts I'm guessing that it would be redundant to respond to the above post since you have apparently figured out the pathetic state the thread is in already. Nevertheless I will state my opinion below.

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.

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.

You know, I asked a simple question, and you guys are too busy fighting with each other to give me an answer.

This thread started out to explain consciousness to the layman. It devolved into a polarized tug of hubristic pedantry about science fiction of whether consciousness can be PROGRAMMED into computers or not.

It reminds me of the 70's arguments about Nature vs. Nurture.

What amazes me is how people love to POLARIZE themselves into dichotomized sides and not realize that the issue might not be black and white and that there might be shades of gray.

In their zeal to deny dualism and souls (correctly) some people have thrown the baby with the bath water. They go too far in also denying the uniqueness and awesomeness of the natural phenomenon called consciousness. Overly anxious to not leave any space for woo they simplify the physics to "monumentally simplistic" "operational definitions" that "are not of practical value".

They polarized the dichotomy so thoroughly that anyone who stands anywhere other than on their side of the extreme end of the spectrum is immediately dismissed as standing on the other extreme end and they start hurling abuse and false epithets at them and irrationally attribute to them the same positions as the other polar extreme. Their mental filters cannot let through except black or white.

Imagine a debate about creating living cells.

The polar ends would be naturalists and religionists. The religionists would deny that we can create a cell one day because only god can.

The REASONABLE naturalists would assert that we perhaps can one day do it if we can ever reproduce the right PROCESS and this may occur when we have acquired more knowledge about the fabulous and wonderful thing called cells. The reasonable naturalist stands in wondrous awe of the power of nature and evolution and would respect that life is the product of billions of years of evolution and would not presume to belittle the biological complexity of life and reduce it to “monumentally simplistic” definitions just so that he can deny the religionists their GAP.

The ZEALOUS naturalists wants to deny the religionists any ground by claiming that there is nothing whatsoever special about a cell and that in fact we have already made cells in the labs and that we can replicate the function of a cell using some transistors. These extreme naturalists are eager to not concede that we do not really know how to make cells yet and belittle and simplify the cell so much that they render it meaningless.

In their zeal to close the gap into which the religionists love to cram their gods, they fall in the same trap. They cram technology in the same gap to fill it up before religionists can utilize it and vehemently deny that they do not know everything.

In this case they forget that we do not know all there is to know in order to reproduce the phenomenon called consciousness and think that all that stands in their way to produce fully conscious machines is just more transistors while some are in fact sure that it has already been done.

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.

It is all nothing but FAITH.... faith in the future ability of achieving the current science FICTION of today.

Granted we have achieved a lot of the science fiction of the past already. But much of the time it was with realistic elimination of the too fictive aspects of the fiction and much has proven to be too impractical to implement even though we have the necessary knowledge.

Moreover, there are science fiction things that for all intents and purposes are fully achievable by the physics principles as we know them today, yet are impossible to do. There are no physics principles why we cannot make a transporter (ala Scotty). The physics that we know says the E=MC² and there is nothing to prevent zapping people between places. But we cannot make the device….why? Theoretically it is fully possible, yet I am sure most people would agree that it is practically impossible….why?

My stance is that sure one day we will perhaps produce "conscious machines" when we sufficiently understand the phenomenon. But I very much doubt it would be with programming computers as the current technology stands even with orders of magnitude more speed and size.

I believe programmed machines are nothing but remotely (in time and space) controlled puppets. Just as RC cars are a step up in puppetry from Punch and Judy so is a computer program a step up over the RC car in remote control.... a program is remote control over time and space as opposed to just space which is what people normally comprehend as remote control.

To see my stance on what I conjecture consciousness is see this post. The post has quotes from two other posts. All three COMBINED detail my OPINION.

But here is a summary

I personally think that consciousness is an EMERGENT PROPERTY of A CRITICAL MASS of COMPLEXITY..... much like the individual cells in a body ALONE would not be able to crawl out of a primordial pool but as they COALESCED they created a SYNERGY where the whole is greater than the sum.

It is possibly an emergent synergetic property of the critical mass of complexity of Physical, Electrochemical and Biochemical processes that the brain bundle has evolved to be.

It is perhaps the result of all the positive and negative feedback loops of all the sensory input and output signals combined with the attenuation, convolution, augmentation, reverberation, initiation and relaying of electrochemical signals combined with cross talk and cross sparking between various and all parts of the closely INTERTWINED and CONVOLUTED BUNDLE of matter called the brain.

The brain is the result of billions of years of evolution that eventually gave rise to the bundle of biological matter that interacts within and without itself and can maintain electrical impulses from within and without while also modifying, reverberating, attenuating, augmenting and initiating these signals and cross talking and cross sparking and so on and so forth along with a combination of internal and external positive and negative feedback systems that give rise to even more feedback.
​

When I reject the possibility of a computer running programs as we have today producing consciousness it is because I think that certain SYNERGETIC and EMERGENT properties of complex systems can be drastically affected due to differences in physical interactions within the subsystems and changing the NATURE or scale of these physical interactions will change the overall system and most likely not give rise to the same emergent and synergetic effects. That is why computer architectures as we have today running software the way they do will not be able to EMULATE the brain processes so as to produce consciousness.

Everything in this universe is natural. Everything is nothing but physical processes of interaction and reaction. However, that does not mean that we understand it all nor does it mean that we can reproduce it even if we do understand it (we cannot build planets despite Star Wars). This does not mean I am conceding “magic beans” or “souls” or any other claptrap of “metaphysics”.

There is NO meta-physics….there is only physics….. however in my eagerness to deny metaphysics I would not demean the processes of physics either and I would not rush to claim that we know all there is to know. All I know is that if something is mysterious then it is not due to WOO but due to something we do not yet know that to us today would be as mysterious as microwaves would have been to Joseph Fourier.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

Thanks Leumas- I think we agree, but I'm not sure- are you on my side or not?

 

[Leumas]

Thanks Leumas- I think we agree, but I'm not sure- are you on my side or not?

If you are not on mine then you are on yours...


Seriously.... I think we do agree.... but on what?

 

[westprog]

Could you point me to these earlier calculations? This is a big thread to rifle though.

Latest number of synaptic switches: 86 billion neurons * roughly 10k synapses per neuron * roughly 1k switches (ion channels, receptors, signalling molecules, etc) per synapse = 860 petaswitches

As for the other side we just googled stuff like "total number of computers" and ran with it.

The idea that there's some objective measure for "complexity" is not well-founded. The more chaotic and purposeless the interactions, the greater the complexity.

 

[Leumas]

Um, yeah, thats kind of the whole "synaptic plasticity" thing that I mentioned, that I already know about.

And don't kid yourself into thinking that every single ion channel in a synapse somehow serves a unique function, that is absurd. They act en-masse.

Try again?

I thought the article might relieve your boredom with being always right..... I guess I failed….. However, it might be futile to “try again” given how you know it all already.

I am rather bored by being consistently correct, and having to hand hold people through common sense, now that other actually interesting discussions are taking place.

Oh, and since you are trying to argue that the brain functions differently than a computer, perhaps you shouldn't include expert testimony that a brain has more switches than the internet. In case you forgot, switches are kind of what computers are built from. So.... yeah.

Seriously?

So because I know that an internal combustion engine (ICE) functions differently from a jet engine (JE) I am not allowed to use any argument for how it burns gasoline differently to produce power? After all an ICE also burns gasoline to produce power....so by your argument I cannot discuss how a JE does that differently because the ICE does it too.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

The idea that there's some objective measure for "complexity" is not well-founded. The more chaotic and purposeless the interactions, the greater the complexity.

Well, you're wrong, but that's a nonsequiter anyway, so whatever.

 

[westprog]

Well, you're wrong, but that's a nonsequiter anyway, so whatever.

For any physical system, we can consider only a subset of the interactions, and count the possibilities, and decide how complex the system is accordingly. However, this always involves ignoring most of the interactions going on in the system, and hence its value as a gauge of objective complexity is limited. It's a useful concept when designing a system, when minimising interactions is usually a good idea.

 

[PixyMisa]

Could you point me to these earlier calculations? This is a big thread to rifle though.

Latest number of synaptic switches: 86 billion neurons * roughly 10k synapses per neuron * roughly 1k switches (ion channels, receptors, signalling molecules, etc) per synapse = 860 petaswitches

So in round numbers, call it 100 billion * 10k * 1k = 1 quintillion:

1,000,000,000,000,000,000

As for the other side we just googled stuff like "total number of computers" and ran with it.

There's your problem. There are well over a billion computers in the world with an average of between 10 and 100 billion transistors each, so very conservatively:

10,000,000,000,000,000,000

And probably closer to:

100,000,000,000,000,000,000

Add in disk space and you add another two or three zeroes. Allow for the far higher switching rate of transistors and you add another seven zeroes. (I've been ignoring that, but it's really an important factor: That higher switching rate means a transistor can get far more work done, meaning a much higher dynamic complexity.)

So even if we count not just neurons, not just synapses, but individual proteins, it doesn't work. The human brain is not the most complex known system.

ETA: My new computer has around 300 billion transistors. The servers we've just installed at work have over 4 trillion each - plus another 60 trillion bits of solid-state storage apiece. So that number based on 10 billion per computer is very conservative.

 

[PixyMisa]

The idea that there's some objective measure for "complexity" is not well-founded. The more chaotic and purposeless the interactions, the greater the complexity.

As always, you are wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexity#Specific_meanings_of_complexity

 

[PixyMisa]

thanks, I wasn't questioning our curiosity, I was questioning people's need to define the human mind for everyone else.

Because - as with any topic - without defining it, we cannot speak meaningfully about it.

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.

Which is no-one in this thread.

 

[PixyMisa]

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

As I said, if you check the numbers, you'd find out that I am right and you and Piggy and that article are wrong.

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

No, you're citing Gizmodo. And that article is wrong.

 

[Mr. Scott]

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

Brain fart!

I'm quite confident a conscious computer IS possible.

LOL