Explain consciousness to the layman.

[Mr. Scott]

You computationlists have only yourselves to blame for this constant suspicion. You’re constantly making outlandish claims with little or no substantiation (computers can be programmed to have feelings…how easy can it be to make such claims?)

Exactly what is it about machines or computers that makes them incapable of experiencing consciousness or feelings?

 

[westprog]

Exactly what is it about machines or computers that makes them incapable of experiencing consciousness or feelings?

Now that's an example of arguing from ignorance.

 

[punshhh]

Exactly what is it about machines or computers that makes them incapable of experiencing consciousness or feelings?

Because they are not alive.

When we make living machines they may become conscious and have feelings.

 

[case#46cw39]

"The nature of consciousness is like that of a software process. It is immaterial but possible to be generated by any physical substrate able to perform the required computation."
-- Raul Arrabales, leading AI expert and creator of above mentions ConScale, a scale for 'measuring the cognitive development of consciousness in artificial agents.' www.ConsScale.com. Also the creator of the above mentioned CERA-CRANIUM Cognitive Architecture and CC-Bot2 (Description of CERA-CRANIUM Cognitive Architecture at http://aigamedev.com/open/articles/conscious-bot/ )

 

[dafydd]

Because they are not alive.

When we make living machines they may become conscious and have feelings.

A computer made out of biological material would still be a computer.

 

[tsig]

My post was not addressing the DETAILS of your conjectures. It was about the way you brag about how long your CV is and the way you think that that makes your speculations more valid. I was trying to point out that despite my CV being perhaps longer I still hypothesize differently.
Unless of course you are saying that emulation is the way to go not computers which then means that we are in agreement.... but that still does not mean anything.... I personally at least do not think that I am qualified despite my large and long knowledge to brag about it as qualifying me to guess outside the realms of current scientific FACTS despite how much science fiction I am wishing for.

It is not the size of ones knowledge that matters.... it is how it is utilized.... fictive applications of it is not ever going to be as rewarding as applying it to palpable reality.

So we're now into a CV measuring contest?

Complaining about a poster bragging about the length of his CV only to imply that yours is longer is hypocritical.

 

[tsig]

There may be some comments in my post which are found in arguments from ignorance, but I'm not using them to infer anything. I'm merely suggesting a philosophical position in relation to consciousness.

Consciousness is the window or portal through which all things are or can be known.

infer
[in-fur]   Origin
in·fer
   [in-fur] Show IPA verb, -ferred, -fer·ring.
verb (used with object)
1.
to derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence: They inferred his displeasure from his cool tone of voice.
2.
(of facts, circumstances, statements, etc.) to indicate or involve as a conclusion; lead to.
3. to guess; speculate; surmise.4.
to hint; imply; suggest.

 

[case#46cw39]

A computer made out of biological material would still be a computer.

Right. That's why we use the term 'artificial' (man made) in everything. So we get artificial intelligence, artificial consciousness and artificial life. If we were to create an artificial tornado, clouds would have to be seeded in some man made way to get a man made or artificial tornado. (A simulation is an informational model of a tornado only; no need to affect actual clouds to produce a man made or artificial tornado)

 

[tsig]

More like argument from twaddle. Argumentum ad twaddlum.

From the faeries in the shrubs to beyond the event horizon, it's been a strange journey.

 

[tsig]

But tsig…we are, in fact, ignorant (as that quote quite clearly establishes). But this case is unique. We’re not ignorant about some distant abstraction (on either a macro or micro scale). The ignorance is the most immediate and fundamental that could exist.

There does not exist (within the epistemology of science) an understanding of either what we are or how we are created. To proceed otherwise is, in fact, the real argument from ignorance.

The obvious question is…how does this ignorance implicate our experience of our condition?

In the world of skeptics…this would seem to be one of those ten-foot-pole issues.

Well, when a mommy and daddy love each other in a certain way, another human is created.

 

[rocketdodger]

The BBC program about AI is proving quite interesting. Especially when listening to what the people doing this research actually think. Not necessarily what we've been told here.

Care to explain?

What I have been able to catch on youtube ( since I am a rotten Americun, BBC won't let me see it legally ) seems to suggest that your view and understanding of modern AI capability is quite far off.

For instance, that bit about the two robots learning about their environment, developing a language on their own, and then trying to teach each other that language.

Of course you won't bother with technicalities like actual results, you would rather just parrot researchers saying things like "it is much more difficult than we imagined years ago" and proclaim victory in this debate. Eh?

EDIT -- oh, see, even I was a bit conservative. The robots are learning the implications of their own movements by viewing their bodies as they move. That you would even presume to suggest that such real world results support the anti-computationalist position is something other than honesty.

 

[dafydd]

From the faeries in the shrubs to beyond the event horizon, it's been a strange journey.

But a mystical one!

 

[dafydd]

Right. That's why we use the term 'artificial' (man made) in everything. So we get artificial intelligence, artificial consciousness and artificial life. If we were to create an artificial tornado, clouds would have to be seeded in some man made way to get a man made or artificial tornado. (A simulation is an informational model of a tornado only; no need to affect actual clouds to produce a man made or artificial tornado)

You have to get used to punshhh's evidence-free, let's pretend approach.

 

[tsig]

Exactly what is it about machines or computers that makes them incapable of experiencing consciousness or feelings?

They ain't humanz.

Only humanz iz special.

 

[westprog]

They ain't humanz.

Only humanz iz special.

That seems a fair summary of the reasoning.

• Humans are conscious.
  
• Humans are not special.
  
• Therefore other things must be conscious as well.
  
• Why not computers? They sort of think too, don't they?

I've been following this discussion for a long time now and that's what it mostly seems to reduce to. And it seems to be sufficient evidence for a lot of people.

 

[dafydd]

Exactly what is it about machines or computers that makes them incapable of experiencing consciousness or feelings?

I doubt if a computer will ever be able to fall in love.

 

[Frank Newgent]

Nor if we were created last Thursday by a random act of God, or any other conceivable means for our existence. Nevertheless, it seems reasonable to accept the empirical evidence we have so far obtained as being the best indication we have of our situation until better evidence becomes available.

Looks like we're stuck with the school of hard knocks and endless repetition. I don't doubt we'll get there in the end though.

rocketdodger is the one who's always claimed IT IS IMPOSSIBLE to know whether we are experiencing an actual reality or are in a simulation. Ask him.

When I argued that it is possible to deduce whether we are experiencing an actual world here and now as opposed to be experiencing a simulation I was told... ah, you read it.

From a previous thread:

Knowing you are unable to tell whether you are in a perfect simulation... do you live your life differently from somebody who finds the idea absurd?

No, and that was exactly my point. What's yours?

I'd set about determining which possibility were the more likely first off. If chances indicated I were in a simulation I might even move to Hollywood

That aside, since we already know that any particular thing such as the beer I'm drinking is either a computer program feature or an actual beer... what actually exists - simulation or external reality - is already compatible with the external-world propositions.

If you argue that my beer is a computer program feature you destroy your own argument. If you argue that my beer is a cold frosty one then you have no argument at all.

A true simulation cannot allow for the possibility of a real external world. Something I couldn't get rocketdodger to come to grips with.

and

I'd set about determining which possibility were the more likely first off. If chances indicated I were in a simulation I might even move to Hollywood

You can't determine which is more likely. You must assume it's real, because that is the only thing that's helpful to you. Otherwise, you collapse into solipsism.

That aside, since we already know that any particular thing such as the beer I'm drinking is either a computer program feature or an actual beer... what actually exists - simulation or external reality - is already compatible with the external-world propositions.

If you argue that my beer is a computer program feature you destroy your own argument. If you argue that my beer is a cold frosty one then you have no argument at all.

No, I'm arguing that you cannot know. You must assume it's real. After all, the only way you experience your beer is through your senses. A computer simulation can have beer in it. Even cold frosty ones.

A true simulation cannot allow for the possibility of a real external world. Something I couldn't get rocketdodger to come to grips with.

Why is that? I'm not following.

The question of whether we are in a simulation or the external world necessarily acknowledges the external world. A priori knowledge having nothing to do with the senses.

Since we already know we might be in a simulation or we might be in the external world I ask you: what about that cup of coffee over there... computer program feature of the simulation or an external world cup of coffee?

If you call it a computer program feature you acknowledge that computer program feature within the external world and destroy your own argument. If you call it a cup of coffee you have no argument at all.

Both alternatives take place in the external world.

If you want to make your simulation argument successful it must be incompatible with real external-world propositions. Good luck with that.

and

If the brain in a vat can tell it's a brain in a vat, then it's not a true brain in a vat.

Yes. A brain in a vat could only realize it was a brain in a vat if it had knowledge of the external world... something a brain in a vat could not have.

 

[annnnoid]

It matters because your claim is that the models we reference are "simple."

If 99% of people can't understand those models, I don't see how they can be "simple."

Everything else is irrelevant, I am only making a statement about your claim regarding the "simplicity" of the models.

You overlooked the word ‘relative’…which is the relevant part. We’re dealing with something that has been described…not unreasonably…as the most complex object in the known universe.

This is news to me.

Unless you mean like "what caused the big bang," but if you are using our lack of first-cause understanding as a platform to proclaim that we don't know what we are or how we are created, well that is just absurd.

We are a system of particles, just like everything else in the known universe, and we know exactly where we come from -- a sperm and an egg.

So I guess I’ll just conclude you flatly disagree with the conclusions presented in that quote. Where the cog sci community says we don’t know what consciousness is or how it is created….you say that either doesn’t matter or we do. Ok then.

Exactly what is it about machines or computers that makes them incapable of experiencing consciousness or feelings?

Exactly what is it about humans that makes them capable of experiencing consciousness or feelings. Nuff said.

Well, when a mommy and daddy love each other in a certain way, another human is created.

Did you read the quote tsig…or do facts not interest you? At this point in time, the cognitive science community does not know what consciousness is or how it is created. In case you missed it….consciousness is you. Unless you know something the cognitive science community does not, you do not know what you are. Any comment?

 

[Xulld]

I am reading a book that was recommended by Dan Dennet called, "I am a strange loop"

It talks about feed back loops and how the self referential abstractions lead to higher cognition.

I have really just begun reading it so I cannot comment, thought Id just add my two bits.

Has anyone else read this book?

 

[dlorde]

The point is the way people look at computers and computer programs. The object-oriented paradigm ... it's only a helpful fiction.

... The processor will look at some piece of data, and do something accordingly. The data won't do anything. ... The complexity of behaviour arises because the processor overwrites data ... and changes its behaviour according to what data it reads.

... If someone believes that a person might exist in a simulation - then what is their condition when the processor is executing another bit of code? Are they self-aware then - or just when they are being accessed?

So much of the discussion of the "world of the computer" relies on metaphor and illusion, which is treated as if it were objectively real.

OK, I see what you mean. I agree with the sentiment behind all of that - but I also see the same kind of thing in the human brain.

Patterns of electro-chemical pulses come in from the senses and trigger other patterns of electro-chemical activation around the brain. Some of pathways these patterns follow are reinforced more than others, these tend to be activated by similar patterns, some patterns suppress the activity on other pathways, some feedback on themselves, and so-on.

To echo your description above: the incoming pulse patterns tend to activate the 'stronger' pathways, but the 'strength' of the connections that make up these pathways doesn't do anything until the pulses cascade down them. The complexity of behaviour arises because of the complexity of the architecture and the relationships between these pattern pathways; the strength of the connections tends to fade unless reinforced, new pathways can form when novel patterns are introduced, pathways indirectly feed back on themselves, reinforcing or suppressing, reinforcement may occur through repeated activity or a 'fixing' hormonal wash, or a flood of signals, and so-on.

If someone believes a person might exist in a brain, then what is their condition when a neuron is 'firing' in response to a pattern of pulses? Are they self-aware then or just when a pattern of activity is flowing through one branching pathway or another?

So much of the discussion of the "world of the mind" relies on metaphor and illusion, which is treated as if it were objectively real.

In either case, when you look at the elements that make up the system, you can neither see nor predict the activity of the whole system; the truly interesting behaviours are not the activities of the elements but the higher level abstractions of those activities.

A system that is the result of at least a hundred million years of development and refinement by trial and error has, in a few tens of years, developed remarkable machines - that already outperform many of its capabilities.

We are only just starting to tackle machine intelligence and we already have IBM's Watson - which can answer questions better than the world champions - questions thought to be the sole province of the highest intelligence and consciousness, without having either - it wasn't designed to have either. Nobody really thought it would beat world champions after only a few years development, and it couldn't have been made ten (maybe even five) years earlier because the technology just wasn't available. Machines like it are going to change our lives. It seems to me that if the same effort is put into developing some form of recognisable consciousness, the technology will soon become available, and it will happen. Whether a serious effort will be made, who knows.

People can make mocking reference to science-fiction, but I've lived it; given the choice between a Startrek communicator and my smartphone, I know which one I'd choose. Most of the everyday technology we have now was science-fiction (or not even dreamt of) when I was at school.