On Consciousness

[Piggy]

I'm simply too busy right now to get into another go-round with the computeristas, so for the moment I'd like to put forth a simple list of very fundamental and inter-related errors that group is making, which lead to all sorts of surface-level errors in their thinking and conclusions:

1. Incorrect, unworkable definition of consciousness

2. Confusion between consciousness and intelligence, and between conscious and non-conscious systems in the brain

3. Failure to keep up with advances in cognitive neurobiology

4. Incorrect belief that the brain in all its functionality is acting as a Turing machine

5. Belief in the existence of a "world of the simulation" independent of both the machine and the observer (a truly jaw-dropping error, but they make it nonetheless)

6. Belief that real world events can be caused by programming and only enough hardware to support the programming, but lacking any other hardware to cause any other real-world activity

7. Conflation of systems which consist of a machine by itself, and systems which must include a machine and an observer capable of interpreting the output of the machine

If anyone wants to ask me about any of those core errors, that's fine, but there's no point wrangling about the myriad surface-level errors which they cause.

In any case, I'm here to discuss consciousness, which at this moment exists only in animal brains, not in any currently designed machines.

Speculation about conscious machines can be interesting -- as long as you're not making basic errors like those above -- but it is superfluous.

I'll restrict my comments to the biology of consciousness.

The computerist speculators no longer interest me.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

You can keep spouting walls of text about prestidigitating legumes until you're blue in the face. It still doesn't mean your assertions are true.

I'm sorry you seem to have such a poor understanding of Turing completeness's implications. Earlier in the thread, I did try.

 

[Belz...]

Piggy, Are you still arguing with made-up people ? What's computerists ? People who disagree with you ? Because you seem very eager to label your opponents in many threads, and it's surely not helping any discussion.

 

[Piggy]

You can keep spouting walls of text about prestidigitating legumes until you're blue in the face. It still doesn't mean your assertions are true.

I'm sorry you seem to have such a poor understanding of Turing completeness's implications. Earlier in the thread, I did try.

I find the topic of consciousness fascinating.

Right now, the only objects in the universe which we know of which can be conscious are animal brains.

That's it.

Currently, not enough is known about how animal brains perform consciousness for anyone to design, much less build, any kind of conscious machine.

Period.

Therefore, speculation about possible conscious machines, while perhaps interesting to some, is moot.

Of course, it's much easier to speculate about hypothetical and currently imaginary things than it is to actually understand the current state of the most difficult question in biology.

So I'm going to continue to discuss real-world consciousness.

Others may choose to build castles in the air by drawing conclusions about machines nobody knows how to design. That's their time to waste.

But for me, I'm actually going to discuss consciousness.

 

[Belz...]

Right now, the only objects in the universe which we know of which can be conscious are animal brains.

That's it.

They key word of your sentence is "know". Also, since we have so much trouble defining "consciousness" in a way that seems to make sense to everyone, it seems a bit hasty to flat-out claim how it can or cannot be replicated, don't you think ?

 

[PixyMisa]

You've said this before, and you were wrong then, and you're wrong now.

Wrong.

There is nothing in the camera that produces a truly unitary point of view, or truly integrated information.

What's the difference between integrated information and "truly" integrated information, Piggy? Please show the exact mathematical relations involved.

 

[PixyMisa]

Yes, computers work in the real world.

But if you want to see what a computer is doing in the real world, open it up and look.

Same goes for brains, of course.

What you're doing -- as always -- is confusing the system which includes a computer and a knowledgable interpreter of its action with a system including the computer alone.

Nope.

As has been established, consciousness is a real process in spacetime. It has location and extension in space and time. The hologram-like-thing being produced inside my skull by my body isn't being produced a hundred years from now in Paris, but rather inside my skull right now.

And exactly the same applies to computer programs.

The hologram-like-thing which is the mind, which is consciousness, which is the phenomenology, is no different. It requires direct and real physical causes, not virtual ones.

And exactly the same applies to computer programs.

A virtual simulation of a tornado isn't a real tornado in spacetime. You can inspect the actual material and energy apparatus of the computer and you will find no real tornado.

What's the difference between a poem and a simulated poem, Piggy?

And if you want a hologram, you can't program a general purpose computer and dispense with all other hardware except what's needed to run a program.

Given the semantic dismemberment you've lavished upon the word "hologram", it is impossible to discern what you might be trying to say here.

The laws of physics demand this, without exception.

So?

That includes all bodily functions, without exception.

So?

If you want real digestion to occur in the real world, if you want a real pulse in the real world, and if you want real consciousness in the real world, a programming-only solution is simply impossible.

So?

What you're doing is changing horses in mid-stream.

No.

You say that the computer can produce a real-world effect

No. Computers can't not produce a real-world effect.

but when I say, OK, examine the real-world computer and show me, you then pull a switcheroo and move your frame of reference away from the physical world and into a virtual world which has no independent reality but which depends on an interpretation by a 3rd party observer.

No interpretation is required. The computer knows that it is conscious just as much as you do.

You are the one trying to move the goalposts, Piggy. This has always been the case. And sorry, we're not buying your nonsense.

Obviously, neither your phenomenology nor mine is dependent on someone else observing our brains.

However, we can observe your brain and find out what's going on.

That's why you continue to be 100% wrong about this point.

Sorry, Piggy; your argument is hopelessly incoherent from beginning to end, and always has been.

 

[Piggy]

What's the difference between integrated information and "truly" integrated information, Piggy? Please show the exact mathematical relations involved.

If you want to demonstrate some mechanism, then do. Short of that, you're not saying anything.

 

[Piggy]

You are the one trying to move the goalposts, Piggy.

It has always slightly amused, but greatly annoyed me that every thread about consciousness immediately gets hijacked and clogged up by people rattling on about imaginary conscious machines, who don't care to discuss the only conscious objects we know of -- animal brains.

It's not my forum, so I can't stop that, but I can stop contributing to the problem.

Want to talk about conscious objects, which is to say animal brains?

Great, we have something to talk about.

Otherwise, find someone else to talk to, because I have no interest in moot speculations based on a lack of understanding of biology.

 

[Belz...]

It has always slightly amused, but greatly annoyed me that every thread about consciousness immediately gets hijacked and clogged up by people rattling on about imaginary conscious machines, who don't care to discuss the only conscious objects we know of -- animal brains.

Answer my simple question, then: what is consciousness ? Once you define it, we'll be able to know what's conscious or not, and begin setting criteria for detecting it.

 

[Prometheus]

Answer my simple question, then: what is consciousness ? Once you define it, we'll be able to know what's conscious or not, and begin setting criteria for detecting it.

That's a good point. We actually do need a formal definition before we can even approach the question of synthesizing an artifical consciousness. The phenomenon we need a definition of is currently only known to exist in animal brains. Whether or not it actually is or becomes possible for machines to be conscious, we will never have any way of actually investigating the possibility without a much better understanding of the neurobiology first. I'm as interested as anyone here in the prospect, and I'm frankly thrilled by the notion that we might one day figure out how to build conscious machines, but Piggy is right that it's a complete waste of time to jump the gun at this point.

As a side note, I think it's important to keep in mind the distinction between a program, and an active instance of the same.

OTOH, the recent batch of Edge responses includes this one, which makes me wonder if Google may soon be among our first candidates for artificial consciousness.

 

[Mr. Scott]

I'm simply too busy right now to get into another go-round with the computeristas, so for the moment I'd like to put forth a simple list of very fundamental and inter-related errors that group is making, which lead to all sorts of surface-level errors in their thinking and conclusions:

1. Incorrect, unworkable definition of consciousness

2. Confusion between consciousness and intelligence, and between conscious and non-conscious systems in the brain

3. Failure to keep up with advances in cognitive neurobiology

4. Incorrect belief that the brain in all its functionality is acting as a Turing machine

5. Belief in the existence of a "world of the simulation" independent of both the machine and the observer (a truly jaw-dropping error, but they make it nonetheless)

6. Belief that real world events can be caused by programming and only enough hardware to support the programming, but lacking any other hardware to cause any other real-world activity

7. Conflation of systems which consist of a machine by itself, and systems which must include a machine and an observer capable of interpreting the output of the machine

If anyone wants to ask me about any of those core errors, that's fine, but there's no point wrangling about the myriad surface-level errors which they cause.

In any case, I'm here to discuss consciousness, which at this moment exists only in animal brains, not in any currently designed machines.

Speculation about conscious machines can be interesting -- as long as you're not making basic errors like those above -- but it is superfluous.

I'll restrict my comments to the biology of consciousness.

The computerist speculators no longer interest me.

I'm surprised by how much of what you say I disagree with. I'll just pick the cherries.

#4 I don't think anyone has said the brain acts as a Turing Machine. I'm calling straw man. What's said is a Turing Machine can act as any other data processing machine, including a brain.

#6 I don't think anyone has said that real world events can be caused by programming only. Straw man again.

How is consciousness a real world event?

 

[Piggy]

I'm surprised by how much of what you say I disagree with. I'll just pick the cherries.

#4 I don't think anyone has said the brain acts as a Turing Machine. I'm calling straw man. What's said is a Turing Machine can act as any other data processing machine, including a brain.

#6 I don't think anyone has said that real world events can be caused by programming only. Straw man again.

How is consciousness a real world event?

OK, #4 there is hilarious. I think that speaks for itself and requires no response.

As for #6, if you're saying conscious experience can be caused by programming alone, then you're saying you can program a real-world event.

As for the last bit, it would be interesting to know where you believe consciousness takes place if not in the real world.

 

[Prometheus]

I'm surprised by how much of what you say I disagree with. I'll just pick the cherries.

#4 I don't think anyone has said the brain acts as a Turing Machine. I'm calling straw man. What's said is a Turing Machine can act as any other data processing machine, including a brain.

#6 I don't think anyone has said that real world events can be caused by programming only. Straw man again.

How is consciousness a real world event?

A Turing machine is a theoretical construct, not an actual device. There aren't any Turing machines in the real world, but feel free to provide an explanation of how to actually build one. Be sure to include explicit instructions for the manufacture of an infinite tape.

 

[Belz...]

That's a good point. We actually do need a formal definition before we can even approach the question of synthesizing an artifical consciousness. The phenomenon we need a definition of is currently only known to exist in animal brains. Whether or not it actually is or becomes possible for machines to be conscious, we will never have any way of actually investigating the possibility without a much better understanding of the neurobiology first.

A small addition: depending on the definition, we may find that some thing we thought were conscious aren't, and vice-versa.

Or we may find that we're not as conscious as we thought we were, or that consciousness is a lot simpler than we initially considered. Or vice-versa.

 

[Belz...]

#4 I don't think anyone has said the brain acts as a Turing Machine. I'm calling straw man. What's said is a Turing Machine can act as any other data processing machine, including a brain.

I'm pretty sure Pixy said it, and if he did, I kinda agree with him.

ETA: Sorry, I mean Turing complete.

#6 I don't think anyone has said that real world events can be caused by programming only. Straw man again.

How is consciousness a real world event?

Isn't everything a real-world event ?

 

[Mr. Scott]

I'm pretty sure Pixy said it, and if he did, I kinda agree with him.

ETA: Sorry, I mean Turing complete.





Isn't everything a real-world event ?

I just didn't communicate everything that was in my mind and expected y'all to be charitable and fill in the gaps. My mistake.

It's been said that a computer, perfectly simulating every function of the brain, could not be conscious because consciousness is a "performance" or "real world event" that a functioning computer isn't doing. In fact, a computer running a program is, indeed, performing a real world event. E.g. a computer game in self play mode with the screen and speakers off and no one touching the controls is performing the game, and this performance is real world, since the computer's switches are functioning in the real world. Now, explain to me how a brain, in a paralyzed body in sensory deprivation but still conscious, is "performing a real world event" that is more than a computer game in self play with IO off.

 

[steenkh]

It has always slightly amused, but greatly annoyed me that every thread about consciousness immediately gets hijacked and clogged up by people rattling on about imaginary conscious machines, who don't care to discuss the only conscious objects we know of -- animal brains.

The OP asks for a dialogue on the nature and computability of consciousness, so imaginary conscious machines would seem to be OK to discuss here, along with discussions of the only conscious objects we can agree on -- animal brains.

 

[Mr. Scott]

#4 I don't think anyone has said the brain acts as a Turing Machine. I'm calling straw man. What's said is a Turing Machine can act as any other data processing machine, including a brain.

OK, #4 there is hilarious. I think that speaks for itself and requires no response.

OK. There are simulators, and there are the things they simulate. It's not symmetrical. A "Universal Turing Machine," which is what all modern computers actually are (though optimized and with IO), has been shown to be able to simulate anything. The things it simulates, though, cannot necessarily simulate a simulator.

E.g. a driving simulator can be made to simulate any car. A car is not made to simulate a driving simulator.

Maybe Pixy called the brain a Turing Machine. I might agree with him in the context of how he was saying it. But, the brain is not a Turing Machine in the strict sense. That a Turning Machine can simulate a Tornado does not imply that a Tornado IS a Turing Machine.

That's what I'm trying to say about the brain. If you program a computer to simulate every neuron in a brain and all the interconnections, and run that simulation, why wouldn't it be "performing consciousness?" The performance of a computer program is in the real world.

 

[PixyMisa]

It's been said that a computer, perfectly simulating every function of the brain, could not be conscious because consciousness is a "performance" or "real world event" that a functioning computer isn't doing.

Right. Which is dualism, at best.