On Consciousness

[Farsight]

You have described a replica brain, fine I agree it may be conscious. A simulation is not a replica of a brain, it is a projected image on a screen, which can be interpreted by a viewer. The projection may be of a replica brain, but that brain would be in another box or a different part of the box from the simulation projector, not on the screen.

OK, but simulation is a bit ambiguous. A flight simulator isn't the same as flying for real, but if I "simulate" your neurons using NAND gates on silicon chips, it's more than just some image on a screen.

There's something I vaguely recall about replacing one single brain cell with a single microchip. Your conscious mind still functions, and you are still you. Only then I replace another, and another, and another. You're still you, you're still conscious. But then I keep going, all the way. And all the way you're still you, and you're still conscious. Even though you end up being made of silicon.

It was maybe just some science fiction story, but it stuck with me, and I ended up thinking what's the difference?

 

[Leumas]

In a strict sense, someone who holds that consciousness is not based on computation.

In a weaker sense, someone who holds that consciousness is not based entirely on computation.

I consider the latter a "weaker" sense because fundamentally it isn't possible for consciousness to be only partially based on computation, meaning people that think so just don't quite fully understand what computation entails. I don't know that there are many people with this position so it doesn't matter much, but I wanted to be clear.

Perhaps you can enlighten us.... maybe by describing the algorithms and calculations that went on in the brain of Douglas Adams when he produced this work.

Please give detailed pseudo code and mathematical equations.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

Maybe Rocketdodger has a better definition

Personally, I would not consider that however to be a meaningful way of describing consciousness or as an argument for the existence for “the output of consciousness”, especially given the sugar/photosynthesis analogy (which started my curiosity).

Just to give my opinion here first (since it seems to be kind of difficult to get a straight answer here): I don't think there's such a thing as "output of consciousness"; or at least it’s not a meaningful approach when trying to understand consciousness.

What Pinocchio is able to produce this "output"?

What toddler (or any other animal species) is able to comprehend or produce what Kipling did? Yet I think most toddlers are conscious.

Thus, again, I don't think it's useful to go about explaining consciousness in such a way.

 

[Leumas]

Personally, I would not consider that however to be a meaningful way of describing consciousness or as an argument for the existence for “the output of consciousness”, especially given the sugar/photosynthesis analogy (which started my curiosity).

Just to give my opinion here first (since it seems to be kind of difficult to get a straight answer here): I don't think there's such a thing as "output of consciousness"; or at least it’s not a meaningful approach when trying to understand consciousness.

What toddler (or any other animal species) is able to comprehend or produce what Kipling did? Yet I think most toddlers are conscious.

Thus, again, I don't think it's useful to go about explaining consciousness in such a way.

Children under 18 months old failed the The Mirror Test. Even fully grown people cannot produce (or even comprehend) that stuff either.


Consequently I agree with you .... there is A LOT more to it than any definitions we currently have. This all goes to illustrate how little we in fact know and how difficult and more complex it is of a topic than some simple minds think it to be.

Accordingly I hope you can appreciate how frustratingly laughable it is when some simpletons come along and decide that it is a matter of COMPUTATION and that's it and anyone who disagrees must be a believer in metaphysics and a woo bagger while they arrogantly cite science FICTION and their programming abilities as qualifying justifications for their FAITH in their laptop replicating the "output" of even the human brain not to mention them thinking that they have already achieved nuclear fusion inside it too.

 

[rocketdodger]

Perhaps you can enlighten us.... maybe by describing the algorithms and calculations that went on in the brain of Douglas Adams when he produced this work.

Please give detailed pseudo code and mathematical equations.

That isn't an instance of failing to fully understand computation, and it isn't what I am talking about.

A good example of what I am talking about is when people say things like "the brain may function by computing, but it isn't exclusively computation because input is needed as well," as if "input" is somehow not part of computation.

This is easy to show to be incorrect, for instance at the point when a photon hits a retinal neuron and the neuron fires, the "input" just as much "pure computation" as everything else in the system. Meaning, if the retinal neuron fired "as if" there was a photon, the results would be identical as far as the brain can tell.

 

[case#46cw39]

No programmers are simpletons (given the whole set of humanity).

No programmers have simple minds (given the whole set of humanity).

Only a simpleton would believe that.

 

[punshhh]

So just to be clear: do you think there is any such thing as "output of consciousness" or not?

I would say the output of consciousness is experience, as consciousness is necessary for experience.

 

[Leumas]

That isn't an instance of failing to fully understand computation, and it isn't what I am talking about.

A good example of what I am talking about is when people say things like "the brain may function by computing, but it isn't exclusively computation because input is needed as well," as if "input" is somehow not part of computation.

This is easy to show to be incorrect, for instance at the point when a photon hits a retinal neuron and the neuron fires, the "input" just as much "pure computation" as everything else in the system. Meaning, if the retinal neuron fired "as if" there was a photon, the results would be identical as far as the brain can tell.

Ok.... so I then take it that you agree that Douglas Adams' brain was not doing mere calculations and running algorithms when he created his fiction and the brain is not a mere computer...right?

If you think the brain is a mere computer and that all of its "output" can be simulated on a laptop running some clever programs....then please explain the algorithms and mathematical calculations that went on in Douglas Adams’ brain while producing his monumental trilogy in 5 parts.

Now that Adams has tragically passed away too soon maybe we can program a computer to give us the REST of the unfinished Salmon Of Doubt story or even the sequel to Dirk Gently's adventures....who needs Adams' brain if we can just program a laptop to do the same...right... it is after all just calculations...no?

 

[Leumas]

No programmers are simpletons (given the whole set of humanity).

No programmers have simple minds (given the whole set of humanity).

Only a simpleton would believe that.

I am a programmer and I have personally known and managed numerous simpleton programmers and I guarantee you they were simpletons despite being programmers.... I know because I managed them (or fired them in many cases)

So here is a programmer who thinks that there are simpleton programmers....

According to your assertion only a simpleton would think that there are simpleton programmers since according to you there are NO simpleton programmers.

Thus I must be a simpleton.

But then you state that there are no simpleton programmers and I am a programmer and thus I cannot be a simpleton.

Can you see the paradox your illogic is producing?.... or is it perhaps just simplistic illogic?

 

[quarky]

Leumas, you baffle me.
I think I'm on the same team, though only as a debate tool. Yet, you evidently reject my conjectures on the subject.

Perhaps if I use your language?

There are 'simpleton' organisms that display consciousness.

 

[case#46cw39]

Simplistic logic is:

Only things that can write like Kipling are conscious. (dis-proven by children, by lupas_in_Fabula in above post and completely overlooked/missed by you.)

Machines can't write like Kipling.

Thus machines can never be conscious.


Talk about simplistic.

 

[AlBell]

...

There's something I vaguely recall about replacing one single brain cell with a single microchip. Your conscious mind still functions, and you are still you. Only then I replace another, and another, and another. You're still you, you're still conscious. But then I keep going, all the way. And all the way you're still you, and you're still conscious. Even though you end up being made of silicon.

It was maybe just some science fiction story, but it stuck with me, and I ended up thinking what's the difference?

Note that you've described an emulation, not a simulation, so sure it should be conscious.

I've not voted. I really don't know at what level the computationalists envision; 4-forces? single neuron? If either I'd say no, you won't arrive at a simulation that is conscious.

If we ever can get a definition at the symbol level, which might be a single neuron but presumably many many neurons, then I'd suspect a simulation could become conscious, iff the "I=self=me" definition can be provided either by coding or by further training.

 

[Leumas]

No programmers are simpletons (given the whole set of humanity).

No programmers have simple minds (given the whole set of humanity).

Only a simpleton would believe that.

I congratulate you on a vivid display of hotheaded partisanship….

Logically.... all I have to do is produce ONE programmer who is a simpleton to disprove your statements.

Other than myself of course who is paradoxically a simpleton according to your illogic, let me tell you a story about a programmer colleague of mine long ago.

He was a very good programmer and produced some really good work.

One day in a party we were both attending the topic of religion came up. He made the statement that the Quran is all about violence and killing while the Bible is all about peace and love and god never orders anyone to kill anyone in it.

This able programmer had never even opened a Quran according to his own admission and obviously from his statement about the Bible he never read it despite his claims to the contrary.

Yet this very capable programmer felt himself to be logically qualified to make the above statements about the Quran and the Bible.

I of course had to rebut and told him that in the Bible god actually orders people to genocide entire villages and to kill women and children but to keep the virgin little girls for sexual pleasures. He even orders people to kill their own children and kin etc. etc.

He violently denied my assertions. In the place we were there was no bible. So when I went back home that night I researched my Bible and wrote out almost three A4 pages with just references, no verse content, just the verse references to where god orders people to kill and genocide and enslave.

Next morning I TRIED to hand him the papers. He REFUSED to take the papers or even to look at them. He utterly refused to even take the papers and throw them in the trash....he would not touch them as if they were poisonous.

He said that he would never accept my testimony on the Bible since I am an Atheist. I pointed out that they were verse references and he could look them up in whatever bible he wanted and verify their veracity for himself.... he still refused to even glance at the papers.

Did his programming abilities endow him with logical thinking? Did his programming ability induce him to think rationally in regards to the above? Obviously, just because he was a programmer and a good one at that, it did not mean that he was a logical or rational thinker in ALL aspects of his thinking.

So here is an example for you that shows that programmers (even good ones) are capable of being as stupid and irrational as any member of the "whole set of humanity".

Do you think it is simplistic and irrational to make adamant statements about the contents of books one has never read? Would anything other than a simpleton refuse to even look at evidence that might modify his beliefs regarding these books that he never read by actually giving him page numbers from the very book he is sure does not contain the words he denies are in it despite having never read the book while claiming he did?

If not.... then .... oh well.

If yes…. then I hope you can see that being a programmer and even a good one does not exonerate one from being a simpleton when it comes to matters of FAITH in something one wants so badly to be true and cognitive dissonance sets in.

 

[Leumas]

Leumas, you baffle me.
I think I'm on the same team, though only as a debate tool. Yet, you evidently reject my conjectures on the subject.

Perhaps if I use your language?

There are 'simpleton' organisms that display consciousness.

I fully agree.... there are plenty of proofs of that.

 

[case#46cw39]

I disagree. You missed the point. I think you are overstating your case.

simpleton
noun /ˈsɪm.pl ̩.tən/ [C]

Definition
a person without the usual ability to reason and understand
(Definition of simpleton noun from the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary & Thesaurus © Cambridge University Press)
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/simpleton


No programmer does not have "the usual ability to reason and understanding".

Thus, No programmer is a "simpleton."

Your turn.

 

[dlorde]

The unconscious machine was evolution.

Huh? what unconscious machine?

In any case, evolution is a process, not a machine; I suppose you could call the environment an evolution machine...

 

[Leumas]

Simplistic logic is:

Only things that can write like Kipling are conscious. (dis-proven by children, by lupas_in_Fabula in above post and completely overlooked/missed by you.)

So what do you call this post then (also see below)? Which in fact you seem to have read already since you were responding to it earlier?

How could you say I “missed/overlooked” the post that I have actually responded to and agreed with and you already saw that as evinced by your objection to the simpleton part of it?

Did you perhaps “miss/overlook” the highlighted part in your zeal to defend your tribe..... of which I am a member by the way....but I do not let my partisanship blind me to the faults of the party.... I do not allow my tribalism to take over my reason.


So yes let's

Talk about simplistic.

Maybe you should read the highlighted bit AGAIN because it looks like you may have “missed/overlooked” it.

Children under 18 months old failed the The Mirror Test. Even fully grown people cannot produce (or even comprehend) that stuff either.


Consequently I agree with you .... there is A LOT more to it than any definitions we currently have. This all goes to illustrate how little we in fact know and how difficult and more complex it is of a topic than some simple minds think it to be.
Accordingly I hope you can appreciate how frustratingly laughable it is when some simpletons come along and decide that it is a matter of COMPUTATION and that's it and anyone who disagrees must be a believer in metaphysics and a woo bagger while they arrogantly cite science FICTION and their programming abilities as qualifying justifications for their FAITH in their laptop replicating the "output" of even the human brain not to mention them thinking that they have already achieved nuclear fusion inside it too.

Is it honest to put words in my mouth and misrepresent my position? I never said

Machines can't write like Kipling.
Thus machines can never be conscious.

As evidenced by the highlighted bit above….. make sure you read it and understand it.

If you are able to follow the depth of the conversation… the Kipling part was in response to Rocketdodger’s definition of the “output of consciousness”

Perhaps things like the drawings, paintings, and literature you referenced in a previous post?

Which I was conjecturing might be correct (in this post), but then I agreed with Lupas as shown in my quoted post highlighted above, that it is not so simple as that…..make sure you read that part carefully so that you can understand it.


And the whole thing started with this question

Is there something else the brain outputs that machines could not?

So yes….there are plenty of things the brain "outputs" that a machine cannot….one of them is Kipling’s poetry to say the least….but also see this post.

 
And by the way... I have already stated my position about the possibility of machine consciousness in another thread that I know you have participated in on various occasions.

But you may have “missed/overlooked” this

I personally believe one day we will be able to EMULATE the human brain in a machine....... but not by programming it..... sure some parts may be programmed to do control of certain physical processes... but just like controlling a lathe.... we need the lathe’s mechanical parts to perform the lathing no matter how much programming there is.

I think something akin to a neural network that can emulate the PHYSICS of the brain will have a very good chance. But actual physics not simulated physics....

 

[Roboramma]

And where is the complex intelligence? on the screen, in an attached camera lens or in a component attached somewhere round the back of the simulator marked "replica brain"?
Does it somehow dwell in all three?
Or is it located in a virtual world which is in no exact location in the physical world?

The complex intelligence is the interaction of the parts that make up the replica brain. That can change over time, just as a wave on the ocean is the interaction of the water molecules that make it up, even though which water molecules make up the wave can change over time.

This is true of our brains: my intelligence is not located in my foot, but my foot (or at least the nerves in it) is a part of that intelligence, in so much as the signals it sends are a part of that complex interaction.
The atoms that make up my brain are replaced over time, but at any particular moment there are particular atoms interacting in a particular way and we can say that is the physical location of my intelligence. Where else would it be?

I find this discussion odd: whatever it is that brains do, they are made up of fundamental particles. It's the interactions of those fundamental particles that defines the system. If we can find another way to create interactions that do the same thing, then we'll have reproduced what brains do, and consciousness is a part of that.
Just as you can have different bridges made to different designs with different materials both capable of supporting traffic over a river, there's no reason that two brains couldn't be made of different materials with different designs.

That doesn't suggest, of course, that we know how to design such a thing now, but that's an engineering problem, not a fundamental theory problem.

 

[case#46cw39]

It just didn't seem that you acknowledged that that argument was bogus, which he and everybody else saw and thought you may be implying.

And simpleton is over-stating your case.

That's all.

But let's say you win.

 

[Leumas]

But let's say you win.

Thanks....

And simpleton is over-stating your case.

That's all.

Ok.... I will change it to monumentally simplistic.... is that ok?