On Consciousness

[Zeuzzz]

There has been a breakthrough in robots simulating the reproductive aspect of human consciousness.

A Future Where All Robots Have Penises - Onion Talks

 

[Zeuzzz]

Compare the number of us who compose musical masterpieces with those who live out their lives in mental institutions.

Huh?

Why are you comparing musical intelligence to mental illness?

I have both, apparently.

Guess I'm just gifted in that regard.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Why are you so sure a machine could not duplicate fish consciousness?

Because fish have taken billions of years to evolve via natural selection and adaptation to change to reach where they are now.

To presume we could accurately recreate one based on a few hundred years of scientific deductions and modelling of nature is naive at best. Nature still wins in terms of complexity.

By all means try to achieve fish consciousness, its a respectable scientific thing to try to replicate. But we are far from actually doing it, even if the goal is just a noble idea at this point. I will need to see evidence of it to believe it.

 

[quarky]

Wait.

We have mental capacity?



(Wan to see my robotic penis?)

 

[Mr. Scott]

Again, you misunderstand, Zeuzzz

Huh?

Why are you comparing musical intelligence to mental illness?

I have both, apparently.

Guess I'm just gifted in that regard.

Did I express myself that unclearly, or are you really that eager to misunderstand me? Maybe if you read my entire post you would have a chance of understanding what I'm actually saying, instead of just the noises in your brain.

I'm comparing the numbers of people in two groups, not the abilities themselves. Interestingly, you personalized it. The universe does not revolve around you, Zeuzzz.

My point is that the ratio of brains that composed musical masterpieces to those that functioned so poorly their bodies got sent to mental institutions must me something like one to one million.

You, and many others, argue that because computers cannot presently produce musical masterpieces, the mind is non-computational and machines will never be conscious. If you haven't produced a musical masterpiece, then by your own argument, you aren't conscious.

We will succeed in making machines with human consciousness when, for every one that produces a musical masterpiece, one million others go insane and need to be shut off and thrown into a scrap heap.

The human brain does many, many things extremely poorly. It's not the ultimate intelligent machine. It's a mess, and by experimenting with psychedelics, you're just messing yours up even more.

I'm sorry to hear you say you are mentally ill. I have a policy of not arguing with irrational people.

 

[Zeuzzz]

If you haven't produced a musical masterpiece, then by your own argument, you aren't conscious.

I have. Want a listen?

 

[Zeuzzz]

What are the main facets of human consciousness then you want to be programmable? If creative musical ability or mental illness do not meet your criterion for human consciousness then what does?

 

[dlorde]

I highly expect certain vegetation on the ground somewhere along our evolutionary path rapidly catalyzed our consciousness to evolve in drastically different directions than our common 'set in their way' minded ancestors and other primates.

A trippy plant caused us to evolve greater intelligence?

Riiiiiight...

 

[quarky]

Ceremonial activities surely are a feature of human evolution.
We got smart enough to afford such extravagance.

Which came first?
Or is it a co-evolution?

Intoxication is a nearly universal aspect of the human groove-thing.

My guess is that certain plants took advantage of us. Much like they've exploited bees and wasps.

 

[Mr. Scott]

I have. Want a listen?

First, let me build a machine that composes music, then declares its composition a masterpiece, since it will be the best judge of that.

 

[quarky]

Now I'm confused.

(Not trying to sound conscious, or human, particularly.)

 

[Mr. Scott]

Ceremonial activities surely are a feature of human evolution.
We got smart enough to afford such extravagance.

Which came first?
Or is it a co-evolution?

Intoxication is a nearly universal aspect of the human groove-thing.

My guess is that certain plants took advantage of us. Much like they've exploited bees and wasps.

The brain evolved modules that, on balance, had advantages that outweighed their disadvantages.

e.g.:

Music appreciation is in part a side effect of language processing (misfiring of modules responsible for language). Many talking birds really enjoy music, a good example of convergent evolution. I had a parakeet who loved listening to The Beatles, and Snowball, a famous Cockatoo on youtube, dances to The Backstreet Boys.

What kinds of ceremonial activities, quarky?

Some plants hack our brain machinery by producing chemicals that make it malfunction. They can use this in defense, or to enslave us into cultivating them by overstimulating our pleasure centers.

All of that we were unconscious of until science discovered it. Our consciousness does a lousy job of understanding itself.

 

[PixyMisa]

I don't believe we know enough about fish consciousness to say anything authoritative about duplicating it.

Garbage. We know that it is created by a machine. We know that is its routinely duplicated.

We might be able to get something to reproduce all their actions and life cycles on a screen. Or a robot that could fit in with a shoal. But it's still not conscious like the other fish. Even if the other fish could not tell, we always should be able to.

How?

 

[quarky]

As I pretend to get smarter, is one of the normal side effects that you all start to seem a lot stupider?

Is that what this consciousness thing is all about?

Because it's starting to work.

(I may even apply for overtime pay.)

 

[Zeuzzz]

It's becoming slightly amusing at times for sure

A trippy plant caused us to evolve greater intelligence?

Riiiiiight...

I'm not so sure of the veracity of the theory but I can still see how it would work theoretically.

The reason being that physically in terms of evolution there is no food that readily drastically alters your brain / mind / consciousness or physiology like psychedelics do, apart from maybe toxins or poisons.

If for example we were talking about the possible evolution of our ability to run then a food in our diet that we found which doubled blood flow to you legs would have provided a tremendous advantage for natural selection. Or if talking about the evolution of art and language then altered states of consciousness would have provided a tremendous advantage in terms of natural selection. If talking about foods with an effect on gene expression then populations that ingested the food that randomly increased genes relating to brain size would be more likely to survive in terms of mental capacity evolutionarily.

The one thing that has profound effects on consciousness totally across the board are these primitive psychedelics. Our brains are wired for them, you could even argue that the consciousness altering states and wiring has evolved in part due to us evolving with them. Receptors definitely came about first. They have endogenous ligands, so there's no reason to believe that an exogenous substance would be needed to cause their development, especially seeing as how a good deal of neurotransmitters (serotonin, GABA, dopamine, etc) are almost ubiquitous among mammals. For example the endocannabinoid system regulates, among other things, appetite and the sensation of pain. Its endogenous ligands include anandamide, 2-AG, and NADA.

GHB is actually a naturally occurring substance in the CNS; it's produced in the brain via the reduction of succinic semialdehyde. If a drug doesn't interact with existing neurotransmitters in any way, then no effects are elicited, and as such, there's no reason for the user to continue consuming the substance. DMT is another neurotransmitter already in our brains, there are many others, and mushrooms are simply 4-HO-DMT.

Now the reason why mushrooms in particular are good candidates for this is that at low threshold dosages they drastically increase visual acuity (Fischer, Roland; Hill, Richard (1970). "Psilocybin-Induced Contraction of Nearby Visual Space". Agents and Actions 1 (4): 190–197). For a species of tree dwelling primates and hunter gatherers this would provide a tremendous advantage in hunting for food and climbing trees. And they would have to come down out of the trees out of their comfort zone to do this, as the only place this miracle hunting food grew was on the floor of the forest, thus starting the human evolutionary process.

I can see very little way round the fact that one of the greatest things to influence the evolution of consciousness would have been one of the things that most drastically alters it. Mckenna called this the stoned ape theory of human consciousness.

 

[Mijin]

Garbage. We know that it is created by a machine. We know that is its routinely duplicated.

We don't even know that fish are conscious. I would personally bet a lot of money that they are not. But I do not claim to know that they are not.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Cephalopod intelligence^WP and consciousness is a fascinating area.

The mimic octopus being a prime example.

Metamorphosing machines thanks to their unique consciousness.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

We don't even know that fish are conscious. I would personally bet a lot of money that they are not. But I do not claim to know that they are not.

They can be both awake and behaving. That's conscious.

If you're thinking of another definition, please specify it.

 

[Mr. Scott]

We don't even know that fish are conscious. I would personally bet a lot of money that they are not. But I do not claim to know that they are not.

There was a study done to attempt to answer the question of whether or not fish feel pain when, for example, their mouths are pierced with a fish hook. After carefully comparing what their brains did with those of higher mammals, they found there was enough of a match to assert that they did, indeed, feel pain. They just lack the facial expressions to show it. Since qualia such as pain are often touted as essential attributes of consciousness, then the natural conclusion is that fish have some of the same consciousness that we have.

My suspicion is that fish brains keep track of sensory inputs and behaviors, and when in pain, connect recent inputs and behaviors to the pain, and code them into long term memory. For their future that means A) Recalling the pain when similar inputs are sensed and initiating avoidance maneuvers, and B) Changing wiring to make it less likely to repeat actions performed just before the pain. If a memory of the painful event is recalled in the cases of A or B, then it would be hard to argue that fish were not conscious.

They can be both awake and behaving. That's conscious.

If you're thinking of another definition, please specify it.

Yea, there is more than one definition. There's A) "not unconscious" and there's B) "not a zombie."

My thermostat is conscious by definition A (it's aware of the temperature) but not by B (it's an unthinking zombie).

This thread is about B: zombie, or not zombie.

 

[Zeuzzz]

My guess is that certain plants took advantage of us. Much like they've exploited bees and wasps.

Can't agree with this more.

I think that art rather than syntax or language can explain this point more succinctly.