On Consciousness

[quarky]

If you're running any sort of modern, general purpose computer, some of the programs on it are conscious. See my definition; reflective programming constitutes consciousness and is widely used. That you don't recognise this doesn't constitute an argument.

no

 

[Modified]

You are overgeneralizing. Programmers as a class aren't any better at the problem,as far as I can tell from a small sample.

I studied computer science when it was still computer science, which meant that you took at least several computational theory courses (I took all that were available). For anyone who's used to doing proofs, the correct answer is instinctual. Now though, they teach "software engineering", and the theory courses and other math-heavy courses have dried up, as well as much of the math and theory that used to be included in other courses like compilers and machine learning.

 

[quarky]

I've got one in my cranium, and so do you.



This is weird, equating these things. Let's instead go with this: do you agree that consciousness appears, and indeed can only be, computational in nature ?



Are we in a Hollywood movie, now ? Science has always played god, in that sense, because it always gives us new ways to manipulate the laws of nature to our advantage. But, how is that a bad thing, unless you think people who work on the sabbath should be killed, and all that ?



Maybe you would prefer not to see it because sentient computers would ruin your worldview, which includes the idea that human consciousness is "special" ?

The rest of your post is just snark.

Yes, I resorted to snark. Sorry about that. I blame the snark that I'm blasted with via bogus hypotheticals.

The irony in this, for me, is that I'm utterly not hung-up on specialness of human consciousness.
I've argued for the possibly superior consciousness of ant colonies.

To see our machines as conscious entities is actually more of the old human superiority, crown of creation crapola.
Unless other species are also capable of making conscious, inorganic life forms.

My 'world view' is utterly non anthropocentric.

Assuming that machines are conscious, at least some of them, is it fair to say that they are also 'alive'?

 

[Jeff Corey]

I studied computer science when it was still computer science, which meant that you took at least several computational theory courses (I took all that were available). For anyone who's used to doing proofs, the correct answer is instinctual. Now though, they teach "software engineering", and the theory courses and other math-heavy courses have dried up, as well as much of the math and theory that used to be included in other courses like compilers and machine learning.

Besides the fact that you are using the term "instinctual" in a way that would never occur to biological scientist, what is the correct answer?

 

[dlorde]

That is a hard question to answer for this reason- It's damned difficult for a snail to imagine human intelligence. It may be as difficult for us to imagine hyper intelligence.
We have some idea of the limits of brains. (ion channel sizes seem to set performance limits and there's always the cooling problem)- but having bypassed evolutionary constraints in the design of computers, do we know what limits they may have?

Hmm... you ask if computers could do what would seem like 'real magic' for a human; I ask for an example; you say you don't know.

So I could answer 'yes' or 'no' to your original question, and you would be none the wiser; I'm not sure what you hope to achieve by asking.

To me, 'real magic', means some action achieved in contradiction to known physical laws (i.e. doing the 'impossible'). I would also accept demonstrably repeatable instances of the possible but extremely unlikely. Does that provide a useful context?

 

[dlorde]

Good point. Most computer programmers aren't any good at computer programming.

Sad, but true. Fortunately, there are some that are.

 

[dlorde]

To see our machines as conscious entities is actually more of the old human superiority, crown of creation crapola.
Unless other species are also capable of making conscious, inorganic life forms.

Huh? That reads like a total non-sequitur to me. Are you saying we can't make conscious machines unless other species can?

But doesn't it depend on the definition of consciousness anyhow, rather than any idealistic view of human superiority?

Assuming that machines are conscious, at least some of them, is it fair to say that they are also 'alive'?

Interesting point; does consciousness imply life?

Most coherent definitions of 'alive' refer to essential biological functions, such as metabolism, homeostasis, growth, and reproduction, that may not be obviously relevant to machines.

Is 'life' just a convenient label for a complex of interacting processes, or does it have some ethical implications? Does the attribution of consciousness confer some ethical responsibilities?

There hasn't really been any pragmatic need to consider such ideas in the past, but perhaps we should consider whether the definition of life should be extended.

 

[quarky]

Huh? That reads like a total non-sequitur to me. Are you saying we can't make conscious machines unless other species can?

But doesn't it depend on the definition of consciousness anyhow, rather than any idealistic view of human superiority?


Interesting point; does consciousness imply life?

Most coherent definitions of 'alive' refer to essential biological functions, such as metabolism, homeostasis, growth, and reproduction, that may not be obviously relevant to machines.

Is 'life' just a convenient label for a complex of interacting processes, or does it have some ethical implications? Does the attribution of consciousness confer some ethical responsibilities?

There hasn't really been any pragmatic need to consider such ideas in the past, but perhaps we should consider whether the definition of life should be extended.

I wasn't aware that we had defined consciousness. It worries me that some of the half-baked definitions are wrapped in human wishful thinking and special pleading. I don't see ethics coming into play here. Ethics is morality, which is self-serving and contradictory for the most part. Life (and consciousness) could be completely evil; that doesn't seem to be the issue.
Atheists often argue that there can't be a god, because evil happens. That is a horrible argument for atheism. God could be a lying bag of evil crap.
I don't care about that.

Ultimately, these 60 pages are a semantics argument, and little else.
Which is why they should be in R&P.

Either that, or Pixy happens to know what consciousness is and isn't. And I clearly don't. Which is what I doubt, big-time.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Hmm... you ask if computers could do what would seem like 'real magic' for a human; I ask for an example; you say you don't know.

So I could answer 'yes' or 'no' to your original question, and you would be none the wiser; I'm not sure what you hope to achieve by asking.

To me, 'real magic', means some action achieved in contradiction to known physical laws (i.e. doing the 'impossible'). I would also accept demonstrably repeatable instances of the possible but extremely unlikely. Does that provide a useful context?

By "real magic" in the context of this discussion, I mean properties of mind qualitatively alien to organic minds. Perhaps the kind of thing we might term paranormal if seen in a human.

There is something wrong with the view that conscious awareness is a predictable developmental property of brains. Brains have existed for a long time. Where is the fossil evidence that a single species developed it before?
Anywhere. In the whole universe.
Anyone?
I find this odd.

It seems to me that if , say 450 million or so years ago , god (whom I invoke as a detached , inorganic and inhuman witness, to minimise the paradox of a world without an intelligent observer) had looked at a protofish brain, he might have made extrapolations about how said brain would develop, what abilities it might have and , given time and evolution, what abilities it might acquire. Note that whatever organising system god uses may be very different from conscious awareness.

It is my opinion that "conscious awareness" would not have been on the list, any more than it was on the desired functionality list of early computer designers. There seems no reason why ability to respond to environmental changes requires conscious awareness - at least not of the reflective sort possessed by humans. Sharp senses and fast reflexes would have probably been god's bet.
In fact, shoving a conscious brain into the fight / flight loop is a recipe for disaster as any topline sportsman can tell you. If the ID crowd had latched onto that as evidence of Intelligent Design I might have actually listened to them, though it was likely a tad self referential for their liking.
Conscious awareness is useless unless it's working 100%. Half an awareness is as much use as half an engine.

So, presumably it's something that kicks in suddenly, as a byproduct of something else entirely, like exceeding a certain density of neural synapses.
-----
The ability to write- even think- the sort of half-baked stuff I'm writing now would not have been on god's design criteria list. (I can get a lot weirder, but it takes more wine).

But I can think of such things (just), because that's apparently what happens when you leave fish to their own devices for half a billion years. They develop the ability to think, sometimes about speculative or counter-factual concepts.

It may also happen if you leave computers alone for the same sort of time, but not, I think, unless some sort of computer sex is also involved.

My bet is that human intelligence is largely a result of runaway sexual selection and that it happened very recently indeed. If it was an actual inevitable result of neural evolution by natural selection, it should have happened long ago and repeatedly. (It may have, but that is another story.)

But that's all speculation. My question really is what else was left off the design criteria list? I understand that minds are not "really" magical. I firmly believe they have mechanical causes, just like acceleration and devaluation and bad vibes, man.
BUT.
Minds are wonderful. Maybe they are no more unusual than acceleration, or spacetime curvature, though that is still pretty damn weird. But is it weird enough?

If natural selection of fish brains can produce something this weird, can it produce things even weirder?

What do I mean? I don't know, because maybe my mind just can't go there.
There are people in this thread a lot smarter than I am. Perhaps they have suggestions? ("Don't post while drinking", obviously, but maybe just a little speculation wouldn't hurt?)

 

[quarky]

Ah, Soapy Sam.

That was a way cool post, imho. I'd nom it, but it might embarrass you later. I've had that happen.

All of this reminds me of a basic tenant that Einstein postulated:

You can't solve a problem from within the mind-set that created it.

This is the crux of my issue with various pragmatists attempting to describe the most obscure and subtle aspects of reality.

Is consciousness computational?

**** no. Not even close. Or at least, not even close to any of the computations illuminated in this thread. Its more of the usual nonsense. Its even lamer than cold fusion. Arrogance doesn't translate well as knowledge. Yet it tries and tries.
Too bad it chooses to not actually study consciousness.

I've studied it. I'm not sure what it is. I'm sure what it isn't.

 

[dlorde]

I wasn't aware that we had defined consciousness.

I thought we could take it to be whatever you meant when you used the word in the post I responded to...

But never mind; thread's almost dead.

 

[quarky]

Christ, let's hope so.

 

[Modified]

Besides the fact that you are using the term "instinctual" in a way that would never occur to biological scientist, what is the correct answer?

"automatic" if you prefer then.

 

[dlorde]

By "real magic" in the context of this discussion, I mean properties of mind qualitatively alien to organic minds. Perhaps the kind of thing we might term paranormal if seen in a human.

Such as?

There is something wrong with the view that conscious awareness is a predictable developmental property of brains.

Who says conscious awareness is a predictable developmental property?

Where is the fossil evidence that a single species developed it before?
Anywhere. In the whole universe.
Anyone?
I find this odd.

In the whole universe? - have you looked?
Fossil evidence of conscious awareness? how would that work?

If you want a left-field potential candidate for conscious awareness, the octopus has some interesting behaviours that suggest some aspects. As a cephalopod mollusc, it has a very different neural architecture than mammals - but it is organic, there's no denying.

Conscious awareness is useless unless it's working 100%. Half an awareness is as much use as half an engine.

Ah, this could be the problem. Sounds like the old anti-evolutionary canard, 'what use is half a xxx?' [insert feature of choice]

Do you think that as children grow, their developing conscious awareness is useless until it is 'working 100%'? what do you even mean by 'conscious awareness working 100%'? are we humans now 100% consciously aware, have we attained maximum conscious awareness? conscious to the max?

So, presumably it's something that kicks in suddenly, as a byproduct of something else entirely, like exceeding a certain density of neural synapses.

Unsupported argument from ignorance (no offence). That you can't see how something working less than '100%' can have a selective advantage says more about you than the property in question.

But I can think of such things (just), because that's apparently what happens when you leave fish to their own devices for half a billion years. They develop the ability to think, sometimes about speculative or counter-factual concepts.

They certainly did.

My bet is that human intelligence is largely a result of runaway sexual selection and that it happened very recently indeed.

You seem to be either equating or confusing intelligence and conscious awareness, I'm not sure which.

My question really is what else was left off the design criteria list?

There is (was) no design criteria.

There are people in this thread a lot smarter than I am. Perhaps they have suggestions? ("Don't post while drinking", obviously, but maybe just a little speculation wouldn't hurt?)

OK, now I get the picture.

 

[Frank Newgent]

By "real magic" in the context of this discussion, I mean properties of mind qualitatively alien to organic minds. Perhaps the kind of thing we might term paranormal if seen in a human.

There is something wrong with the view that conscious awareness is a predictable developmental property of brains. Brains have existed for a long time. Where is the fossil evidence that a single species developed it before?
Anywhere. In the whole universe.
Anyone?
I find this odd.

It seems to me that if , say 450 million or so years ago , god (whom I invoke as a detached , inorganic and inhuman witness, to minimise the paradox of a world without an intelligent observer) had looked at a protofish brain, he might have made extrapolations about how said brain would develop, what abilities it might have and , given time and evolution, what abilities it might acquire. Note that whatever organising system god uses may be very different from conscious awareness.

It is my opinion that "conscious awareness" would not have been on the list, any more than it was on the desired functionality list of early computer designers. There seems no reason why ability to respond to environmental changes requires conscious awareness - at least not of the reflective sort possessed by humans. Sharp senses and fast reflexes would have probably been god's bet.
In fact, shoving a conscious brain into the fight / flight loop is a recipe for disaster as any topline sportsman can tell you. If the ID crowd had latched onto that as evidence of Intelligent Design I might have actually listened to them, though it was likely a tad self referential for their liking.
Conscious awareness is useless unless it's working 100%. Half an awareness is as much use as half an engine.

So, presumably it's something that kicks in suddenly, as a byproduct of something else entirely, like exceeding a certain density of neural synapses.
-----
The ability to write- even think- the sort of half-baked stuff I'm writing now would not have been on god's design criteria list. (I can get a lot weirder, but it takes more wine).

But I can think of such things (just), because that's apparently what happens when you leave fish to their own devices for half a billion years. They develop the ability to think, sometimes about speculative or counter-factual concepts.

It may also happen if you leave computers alone for the same sort of time, but not, I think, unless some sort of computer sex is also involved.

My bet is that human intelligence is largely a result of runaway sexual selection and that it happened very recently indeed. If it was an actual inevitable result of neural evolution by natural selection, it should have happened long ago and repeatedly. (It may have, but that is another story.)

But that's all speculation. My question really is what else was left off the design criteria list? I understand that minds are not "really" magical. I firmly believe they have mechanical causes, just like acceleration and devaluation and bad vibes, man.
BUT.
Minds are wonderful. Maybe they are no more unusual than acceleration, or spacetime curvature, though that is still pretty damn weird. But is it weird enough?

If natural selection of fish brains can produce something this weird, can it produce things even weirder?

What do I mean? I don't know, because maybe my mind just can't go there.
There are people in this thread a lot smarter than I am. Perhaps they have suggestions? ("Don't post while drinking", obviously, but maybe just a little speculation wouldn't hurt?)

I would speculate but it may not be safe to say too much as I'm still on the run for once having been involved in the political bombing of a self-referencing anemometer lab. A researcher was struck and killed by a ping-pong ball.

 

[Jeff Corey]

"automatic" if you prefer then.

So, what is the answer? Or are you like other computer experts who merely assert that is simple because of their vast experience so that they claim they instantly comprehended the problem and immediately knew the answer without reading the question?
I call BS.

 

[quarky]

Huh? That reads like a total non-sequitur to me. Are you saying we can't make conscious machines unless other species can?

But doesn't it depend on the definition of consciousness anyhow, rather than any idealistic view of human superiority?


Interesting point; does consciousness imply life?

Most coherent definitions of 'alive' refer to essential biological functions, such as metabolism, homeostasis, growth, and reproduction, that may not be obviously relevant to machines.

Is 'life' just a convenient label for a complex of interacting processes, or does it have some ethical implications? Does the attribution of consciousness confer some ethical responsibilities?

There hasn't really been any pragmatic need to consider such ideas in the past, but perhaps we should consider whether the definition of life should be extended.

Yes. Life extension.

I'm in the 3% range.
The only thing not alive and conscious in this universe is my Mr. Coffee, and the a-holes that think it is conscious, even though they only recently allowed that blacks are human.

 

[Mr. Scott]

How would one program a computer that is reflective on its perception of its own qualia?

What does that mean?

You know, program a computer that would honestly wonder why red has that quality of redness, above and beyond the mere fact that it's a particular wavelength of light reaching its sensor. The subjective impression we get that gives us that nagging dualist leaning. If you have a computer that attains the level of human consciousness, wouldn't it, because of its intense subjective experiences, argue for dualism?

 

[Jeff Corey]

How so? please elaborate.

 

[quarky]

Are you really retarded?
This thread is starting to feel like a spoof.

You hot-shots can't possibly be this stupid, can you?

Well,
blessings on you all.
I'm off to explore.