Explain consciousness to the layman.

[westprog]

However, when he grew up I had to correct his operational definition so that he might eventually manage to reproduce one day.

I commend your zeal for accuracy. However, the trick with teenage boys is usually giving them sufficient information to avoid reproducing.

Sorry, derail, carry on.

 

[Leumas]

I'm not a computationalist or anti-computationalist afaik. I'm not sure what either of these terms really means and I'm not going to waste time worrying over it. My main issue is that stating that a system is purely physical is not enough to know that it can be recreated. I also don't think you can separate form from function.

It seems to me that posters like PixyMisa are arguing for a sort of metaphysical essence of information. Because if information isn't physical, then what is it? I think information is physical. Data has mass after all. And this leads me to the conclusion that you can't recreate a system without recreating replicating/emulating a system. As for receivers that confuse different data as providing the same information - well, that's just fish taking the bait.

I agree...

 

[westprog]

I agree...

From Mitch Kapor, the man behind Lotus 1-2-3:

Kapor... thinks the whole project of "strong artificial intelligence", the attempt from the 1950's to the present to replicate human intelligence in silicon and code, remains a folly. ...Kapor wrote that the entire enterprise has misapprehended and underestimated human intelligence.

• We are embedded creatures; our physicality grounds us and defines our existence in a myriad of ways.
• We are all intimately connected to and with the environment around us; perception of and interaction with the environment is the equal partner of cognition in the shaping experience.
• Emotion is as or more basic than cognition; feelings, gross and subtle, bound and shape the envelope of what is thinkable.
• We are conscious beings, capable of reflection and self-awareness; the realm of the spiritual or trans-personal (to use a less loaded word) is something we can be part of and which is part of us.

Came across that quite by accident last night.

 

[Leumas]

I commend your zeal for accuracy. However, the trick with teenage boys is usually giving them sufficient information to avoid reproducing.

Sorry, derail, carry on.

But seriously... correctly understanding something enables one to more effectively utilize its advantages while avoiding its pitfalls.

 

[dlorde]

I understand your bending over backwards to defend your tribal member.

You are, of course, free to believe whatever you wish.

Might I suggest you pay a little more attention to your handling of the quote facility? You seem to have got a little mixed up

 

[Leumas]

You are, of course, free to believe whatever you wish.

Might I suggest you pay a little more attention to your handling of the quote facility? You seem to have got a little mixed up

Oops.... yes I see that.... some of the quotes were supposed to be yours not Pixy's... cutting and pasting gone awry ....thanks for the heads up.



Here is the post with the quotes corrected..... are you going to respond to the questions?

-----------------------------------------

As far as I am concerned, I recognise Pixy's definition as a generalization of the idea of the essential and fundamental role of self-reference or self-representation in biological consciousness (e.g. Hofstadter and Dennett) to all information processing systems.

I differ in that I would qualify it as defining the essence or basis of consciousness, rather than consciousness as generally recognised. This is really just a question of where one considers the level of recognisable consciousness to begin, which, for now, is an arbitrary judgement of preference.

For example, for a biological creature with a relatively simple CNS, if it could be demonstrated that it had operational self-reference or self-representation, I would acknowledge that it had a simple form of consciousness; and I see no reason why I should not make the same acknowledgement of an artificial system with operational self-reference or self-representation. However, it is likely that neither would appear to operate at a level that most people would recognise as consciousness.

This is why I accept the definition with the qualification that I don't see it as practically useful in a general discussion of consciousness as most people recognise it, beyond the initial distinction that an entity should not be considered conscious without it.

I understand your bending over backwards to defend your tribal member. It is amazing how tribalism can lead to so much mental gymnastics and warping and wrangling of words to defend one's tribe despite that nagging cognitive dissonance.

But the fact remains that PixyMisa’s “not practical” SRIP operational definition of consciousness has lead him to conclude that

at least some of the applications typically found on a modern computer are conscious.

And that

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

And he concludes using this “not practical” SRIP operational definition that achieving consciousness in a computer is NOT

in any way remarkable

Consider if person X were to state that

Carbon is the cause of life…. I have created living things in my basement because I used carbon to create them…. Life is not remarkable it is just carbon based matter.​

And then Z comes along and defends X’s assertions with the following (please…read this carefully)

As far as I am concerned, I recognise X’s definition as a generalization of the idea of the essential and fundamental role of CARBON in biological life in all living systems.

I differ in that I would qualify it as defining the essence or basis of life, rather than LIFE as generally recognised. This is really just a question of where one considers the level of recognisable life to begin, which, for now, is an arbitrary judgement of preference.

For example, for something, if it could be demonstrated that it had carbon, I would acknowledge that it had a simple form of life; and I see no reason why I should not make the same acknowledgement of an artificial system with carbon. However, it is likely that neither would appear to operate at a level that most people would recognise as living.

This is why I accept the definition with the qualification that I don't see it as practically useful in a general discussion of life as most people recognise it, beyond the initial distinction that an entity should not be considered living without it.
​

Do you agree with Z’s statements? Is it not ridiculous of Z to agree with the operational definition that Carbon is the cause of life and despite being not a practical definition it is still useful in at least eliminating none-life if it does not have carbon?

Cockroaches have SRIP and indeed an air-conditioning system (with a thermostat) has SRIP too. Thus according to the notion that SRIP is the “essence or basis of consciousness” we would be forced to conclude that air-conditioning systems are conscious. Accordingly, using the same illogic one may also then argue that A PENCIL is on some level ALIVE.

A definition of consciousness that renders air-conditioners conscious is indeed “not a practical definition” to say the least…. I would go so far to also agree that it is “monumentally simplistic”. But I would go further and say that it is also USELESS and MEANINGLESS and OF NO VALUE and wrong….. just as I am sure you would conclude about X’s claim that carbon is the cause of life which leads him to conclude that pencils are alive.

If a definition of LIFE leads one to conclude that charcoal is alive then it is not a definition that IS OF ANY VALUE whether practical or not…… do you agree?

Please answer the following question

Do you agree that a definition of the cause of life that renders pencils as possibly alive is an utterly useless and simplistic definition?​

You have evaded the questions before but now that you are trying to

clarifies my position.

you ought to be forthcoming

if only for the lurkers

Can you answer the following questions without any

Colourful hyperbole, ridicule, mockery, scorn, cherry-picking, misquoting, misinterpretation, misrepresentation, and straw-manning

If as it seems you are so concerned with "the lurkers" why did you not contradict the assertion made by PixyMisa when he said

at least some of the applications typically found on a modern computer are conscious.

Or do you perhaps agree with his assertion? Do you too think that there are typical modern computers that are currently going about being conscious?

Have you achieved what PixyMisa claims to have achieved when he said

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

And if you did not, then have you tried the "common programming technique" he claims he used to create conscious computers? Have you had any success yet?

If you did not post any objection to the above claims, could one construe that as a tacit agreement with the assertions since you have been a very active participant to the thread which aims at explaining consciousness to the layman?

Don’t you think that a layman who reads that any programmer can make any computer become conscious would be quite misguided by the assertions?

Since you are so interested in clarifying your position to the lurkers don't you think that you owe it to the readers of this thread and to the contributors who oppose the assertions to either support the assertions or deny them.

Do you not think that consciousness in a typical modern computer is in any way a remarkable? How would you respond to this question

do you think computer consciousness is in any way remarkable?

And if you do think that it is a remarkable achievement given the fact that neither you nor anyone else has so far achieved it, why did you not offer a response to Pixy's question? Especially in the light of the fact that you are so concerned with the lurkers and are interested in clarifying your position.

If you do not think that computers are already conscious due to common programming techniques then why have you not posted a response to the effect?

I now put the questions to you again just in case you might have missed them before and that is why you have not offered a response:

Do you think that there are currently “typical modern computers that are conscious” due to running programs that are utilizing “a common programming technique” that any programmer can code? If not.... then why have you not said so in response to the claims of Pixy Misa?

Do you think that such an achievement would set a “remarkable” milestone in the field of Artificial Intelligence (AI) at the very least? If yes.... then why have you not said so in response to the claims of Pixy Misa? If not....then why not?

Do you agree that a definition of the cause of life that renders pencils as possibly alive is an utterly useless and simplistic definition?

Do you agree that a definition of the cause of consciousness that renders air-conditioners as conscious is an utterly useless and simplistic definition?
​

Please answer the above questions without any

Colourful hyperbole, ridicule, mockery, scorn, cherry-picking, misquoting, misinterpretation, misrepresentation, and straw-manning

if only for the lurkers

 

[Leumas]

From Mitch Kapor, the man behind Lotus 1-2-3:



Came across that quite by accident last night.

Fascinating....


You reminded me of good old Lotus 1-2-3...

 

[tsig]

Humans did not MAKE consciousness. I was not talking about the metaphorical use of the word "idol" rather I was referring to the CONSTRUCTED physical idols. No one ever constructed consciousness.

People who think that their consciousness is more powerful than them and people who think that computers they constructed out of silicon and programmed are more intelligent than them are BOTH equally absurd much like the people who worship idols they constructed from clay.

A person who CONSTRUCTS something and then starts attributing to it anthropomorphic attributes is a SELF-DELUDING FOOL.....ah and before you say it.... a person who thinks he constructed his progeny is a fool too. I am glad we agree.... you are right... both groups are equally absurd.

Odd, that never entered my mind.

You're real free with the use of the word 'fool'. I'd say a fool is someone who thinks another poster agrees with them when they don't.

 

[Leumas]

Odd, that never entered my mind.

You're real free with the use of the word 'fool'. I'd say a fool is someone who thinks another poster agrees with them when they don't.

What do you call a person who consistently seems to not grasp the notion of sarcasm whatsoever?

 

[dlorde]

... are you going to respond to the questions?

No. Life's too short. Somewhere in this topic is an interesting discussion about consciousness and that isn't it.

 

[Leumas]

No. Life's too short.

Ah.... now you are no longer concerned with "the lurkers".

So when your TRIBE is the one that is consistently employing “colourful hyperbole, ridicule, mockery, scorn, cherry-picking, misquoting, misinterpretation, misrepresentation, and straw-manning” you do not feel that it is “necessary to challenge or correct them, if only for the lurkers”.

But there is no need for you to respond….. by not responding you have revealed loads.

A carelessness silence that tells its own story.

It is amazing how tribalism manages to pull down its members to the lowest common denominator of irrationality even among so called skeptics.

 

[dlorde]

Ah.... now you are no longer concerned with "the lurkers".

So when your TRIBE is the one that is consistently employing “colourful hyperbole, ridicule, mockery, scorn, cherry-picking, misquoting, misinterpretation, misrepresentation, and straw-manning” you do not feel that it is “necessary to challenge or correct them, if only for the lurkers”.

But there is no need for you to respond….. by not responding you have revealed loads.

It is amazing how tribalism manages to pull down its members to the lowest common denominator of irrationality even among so called skeptics.

 

[Leumas]

Somewhere in this topic is an interesting discussion about consciousness and that isn't it.

Oh you are absolutely right. I think it is not a very scintillating conversation when one defends a "monumentally simplistic" and "not practical definition" which leads a person to conclude that there are currently “typical modern computers that are conscious” due to running programs that are utilizing “a common programming technique” that any programmer can code and that such an achievement is not “remarkable” in the least.

It is a tiresome conversation indeed that advocates an utterly useless and simplistic definition of consciousness that leads one to conclude that air-conditioners are conscious and that virtual reality characters in a video game are real and conscious and may even be more intelligent than their very programmers.

But the ultimate in banality is when the conversation leads to tribal polarization and partisanship while pretending to be objective and scientific in the defense of wishful thinking and conjectures and speculations about science fiction.

 

[Brainache]

Oh you are absolutely right. I think it is not a very scintillating conversation when one defends a "monumentally simplistic" and "not practical definition" which leads a person to conclude that there are currently “typical modern computers that are conscious” due to running programs that are utilizing “a common programming technique” that any programmer can code and that such an achievement is not “remarkable” in the least.

It is a tiresome conversation indeed that advocates an utterly useless and simplistic definition of consciousness that leads one to conclude that air-conditioners are conscious and that virtual reality characters in a video game are real and conscious and may even be more intelligent than their very programmers.

But the ultimate in banality is when the conversation leads to tribal polarization and partisanship while pretending to be objective and scientific in the defense of wishful thinking and conjectures and speculations about science fiction.

If I had an irony meter it would be well and truly destroyed by now. Can you not see that it is you perpetuating this tribalism that you accuse others of?

Some of us are trying to have a discussion while you keep dredging up quotes and ridiculing people about them. Please stop.

Personally I think the whole thing boils down to this:

SRIP; How the **** does that work?

 

[dlorde]

Personally I think the whole thing boils down to this:

SRIP; How the **** does that work?

Yes, that's one question... not sure how to tackle it, though.

I was quite interested in trying to find the boundaries between the computational and non-computational views. ISTR at one point it was generally agreed that an emulation of a human brain could be conscious, and that you could, in principle, do this by replacing each neuron by an artificial neuron that emulated the substantive function of the original. In the discussion with Piggy, we got to the point where certain subsystems of neurons with well-defined functions could be replaced by 'black boxes' that emulated the substantive function of the neural subsystem. At this point, the discussion foundered, and we didn't get to find the edges of the arguments - it seemed to me the (optional, simplifying) black boxes could be computational, and the remaining artificial neurons could also be computational, but the discussion got a bit messy.

 

[tsig]

Oh you are absolutely right. I think it is not a very scintillating conversation when one defends a "monumentally simplistic" and "not practical definition" which leads a person to conclude that there are currently “typical modern computers that are conscious” due to running programs that are utilizing “a common programming technique” that any programmer can code and that such an achievement is not “remarkable” in the least.

It is a tiresome conversation indeed that advocates an utterly useless and simplistic definition of consciousness that leads one to conclude that air-conditioners are conscious and that virtual reality characters in a video game are real and conscious and may even be more intelligent than their very programmers.

But the ultimate in banality is when the conversation leads to tribal polarization and partisanship while pretending to be objective and scientific in the defense of wishful thinking and conjectures and speculations about science fiction.

Your posts are becoming more and more disjointed. You seem to be having a fight with someone about something but I'm not sure who or what except you think there's some tribes involved.

Have you mistaken this thread for a review of "Survivor"?

 

[westprog]

Yes, that's one question... not sure how to tackle it, though.

I was quite interested in trying to find the boundaries between the computational and non-computational views. ISTR at one point it was generally agreed that an emulation of a human brain could be conscious, and that you could, in principle, do this by replacing each neuron by an artificial neuron that emulated the substantive function of the original. In the discussion with Piggy, we got to the point where certain subsystems of neurons with well-defined functions could be replaced by 'black boxes' that emulated the substantive function of the neural subsystem. At this point, the discussion foundered, and we didn't get to find the edges of the arguments - it seemed to me the (optional, simplifying) black boxes could be computational, and the remaining artificial neurons could also be computational, but the discussion got a bit messy.

It did. I think an important first step is to consider what is meant by "computational".

I consider that interaction with the environment - the actual, unsimulated environment - is potentially an important element of consciousness.

I'm always happy to go back to first principles.

 

[punshhh]

Can you have a spirit without a mind?

That depends on the use of the word spirit.

I guess when you are making stuff up you can have whatever you want.

These ancient folk where referring to something when they attributed a spirit to it.

This essentially boils down to a ritualised psychology showing reverence to their evolutionary niche. Also implying the fact of humanity having stepped out of its evolutionary niche due to the development of mind and might upset the evolutionary balance of the ecosystem.

But what a bizarre thought.

Outside of science, the word mind can have a broader and deeper meaning.

 

[dlorde]

It did. I think an important first step is to consider what is meant by "computational".

I suggest that, unless otherwise specified, we should take it as referring to the computational theory of mind, where the brain is said to function as a symbol manipulator "taking input from the natural world to create outputs in the form of further mental or physical states. A computation is the process of taking input and following a step by step algorithm to get a specific output. The computational theory of mind claims that there are certain aspects of the mind that follow step by step processes to compute representations of the world". A difficulty with a definition like this, for people unfamiliar with the field, is the way layers of computational abstraction can obscure the underlying stepwise algorithmic nature of the process. For example, one can create a neural net that appears not to behave in a stepwise algorithmic way, by connecting a number of neural processors that individually operate in a stepwise algorithmic way.

I consider that interaction with the environment - the actual, unsimulated environment - is potentially an important element of consciousness.

It's no coincidence that many, if not most, AI and artificial consciousness research projects use robotic interfaces to the environment. Perhaps we skipped ahead too quickly in the thread to talking about simulated environments when it really isn't necessary to the discussion (although it's interesting that control systems for practical robots, such as Boston Dynamics' 'Big Dog', tend to be developed with the simple physics of virtual environments and then tested in the real world).

 

[tsig]

It did. I think an important first step is to consider what is meant by "computational".

I consider that interaction with the environment - the actual, unsimulated environment - is potentially an important element of consciousness.

I'm always happy to go back to first principles.

That depends on the use of the word spirit. These ancient folk where referring to something when they attributed a spirit to it.

This essentially boils down to a ritualised psychology showing reverence to their evolutionary niche. Also implying the fact of humanity having stepped out of its evolutionary niche due to the development of mind and might upset the evolutionary balance of the ecosystem.



Outside of science, the word mind can have a broader and deeper meaning.

Do we all get to pick our own dictionary?