On Consciousness

[Fudbucker]

No. It won't.

Only a model of a tornado, like ones in a tornado box, will do that.

A digital simulation of a tornado must be interpreted by an observer. It will not do what a tornado does. It will have no windspeed, for example, only an output which a properly built brain can interpret as a windspeed.

I agree with much of what you say, Piggy, but here's where we have a huge difference:

Functionally equivalent brains are all the same. That is to say, if we had a bunch of transistors that were functionally equivalent to a bunch of neurons, and some synthetic chemical that is functionally equivalent to Serotonin, and....eventually we have a mechanical brain that is functionally equivalent to an organic brain. This mechanical functionally equivalent brain would be conscious.

If that is true, than any functional equivalent brain would be conscious (Pixy suggested ropes one time- not a problem if it's functionally equivalent to an organic brain). Otherwise, you would have to posit some strange property that restricts consciousness to just organic brains.

 

[tsig]

It makes absolutely no difference to me whether or not you engage me directly, or indirectly, or at all.

You'll either deal with the topic or you won't.

If your attitude is tl;dr, so be it.

If you don't care if anyone reads them why post them?

 

[Belz...]

Well, let me repeat that I don't think it's necessary or advisable to insist on credentials in what should be a reasoned discussion. Any argument that relies on "I have read/am an expert" instead of standing on its own really isn't strong enough to be worth arguing over anyway.

Ooh, you don't want to tell him that !

 

[Piggy]

I agree with much of what you say, Piggy, but here's where we have a huge difference:

Functionally equivalent brains are all the same. That is to say, if we had a bunch of transistors that were functionally equivalent to a bunch of neurons, and some synthetic chemical that is functionally equivalent to Serotonin, and....eventually we have a mechanical brain that is functionally equivalent to an organic brain. This mechanical functionally equivalent brain would be conscious.

If that is true, than any functional equivalent brain would be conscious (Pixy suggested ropes one time- not a problem if it's functionally equivalent to an organic brain). Otherwise, you would have to posit some strange property that restricts consciousness to just organic brains.

Yes, a functionally equivalent machine would be conscious.

Can't do it with ropes, however... at least, it sure doesn't seem so, given the latest research.

 

[AlBell]

Thinking is just like crapping?

When thinking is used to supply communication, yes, too often.

 

[Belz...]

Yes, a functionally equivalent machine would be conscious.

Can't do it with ropes, however... at least, it sure doesn't seem so, given the latest research.

Well that sures throws my theory of rope sentience out the window !

 

[Mr. Scott]

Yes, a functionally equivalent machine would be conscious.

Can't do it with ropes, however... at least, it sure doesn't seem so, given the latest research.

I'll bite. Explain succinctly why it couldn't be done with ropes and provide a link to the latest research that makes that clear.

 

[Prometheus]

I've read some of the material Piggy posted above, and my understanding is now that conscious experience seems to only and always occur simultaneously with specific combinations of electrical activity in certain brain regions, and that these seem to be somewhat independent of whatever information processing happens to also be occuring in those regions. Whether these brainwave signatures are cause, effect, coincidence or by-product of consciois experience is not clear to me, though. I don't know enough about computation to have a strong opinion of whether or not this is the barrier to computer consciousness that Piggy thinks it is, however.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

I don't know enough about computation to have a strong opinion of whether or not this is the barrier to computer consciousness that Piggy thinks it is, however.

It isn't.

A quick elaboration on the experiments which produced the stuff you're reading:

EEG, or brain waves, are caused by neuron populations (generally inhibitory) all firing in sync. Most people figure it probably serves a similar purpose to a system clock: keeping the asynchronous neural circuits on a more or less synchronous schedule helps to facilitate information transfer. Otherwise cells might start receiving critical inputs when they're not in a state to process them. That sort of thing.

fMRI is a technique by which you can derive blood flow in the brain by measuring changing oxygen ratios, something called a BOLD signal. The cause of this was uncovered only a few years ago: astrocytes, a type of glial cell, monitor neural activity and open up more oxygen/nutrient-rich blood flow when the neurons start running low. By correlating this signal with behavior or stimuli, it tells us when and where neural activity changes to cause or respond to it, but unfortunately not what that activity is doing.

In terms of computer consciousness, note that neither of these effects are anything special in the sorcerous sprout sense. fMRI signalling is both predictable and several orders of magnitude slower than neural activity, and brainwaves are actually just that activity in aggregate.

If you have any other questions, I'd be happy to help.

 

[Prometheus]

It isn't.

A quick elaboration on the experiments which produced the stuff you're reading:

EEG, or brain waves, are caused by neuron populations (generally inhibitory) all firing in sync. Most people figure it probably serves a similar purpose to a system clock: keeping the asynchronous neural circuits on a more or less synchronous schedule helps to facilitate information transfer. Otherwise cells might start receiving critical inputs when they're not in a state to process them. That sort of thing.

fMRI is a technique by which you can derive blood flow in the brain by measuring changing oxygen ratios, something called a BOLD signal. The cause of this was uncovered only a few years ago: astrocytes, a type of glial cell, monitor neural activity and open up more oxygen/nutrient-rich blood flow when the neurons start running low. By correlating this signal with behavior or stimuli, it tells us when and where neural activity changes to cause or respond to it, but unfortunately not what that activity is doing.

In terms of computer consciousness, note that neither of these effects are anything special in the sorcerous sprout sense. fMRI signalling is both predictable and several orders of magnitude slower than neural activity, and brainwaves are actually just that activity in aggregate.

If you have any other questions, I'd be happy to help.

Thank you. So what do you think is going on regarding the signals mentioned in this study which Piggy linked? In particular, what would this mean in terms of computer programming?:

As the subjects became less responsive, distinct brain patterns appeared. Early on, when the subjects were just beginning to lose consciousness, the researchers detected an oscillation of brain activity in the low frequency (0.1 to 1 hertz) and alpha frequency (8 to 12 hertz) bands, in the frontal cortex. They also found a specific relationship between the oscillations in those two frequency bands: Alpha oscillations peaked as the low-frequency waves were at their lowest point.

When the brain reached a slightly deeper level of anesthesia, a marked transition occurred: The alpha oscillations flipped so their highest points occurred when the low frequency waves were also peaking.

The researchers believe that these alpha and low-frequency oscillations, which they also detected in last year's study, produce unconsciousness by disrupting normal communication between different brain regions. The oscillations appear to constrain the amount of information that can pass between the frontal cortex and the thalamus, which normally communicate with each other across a very broad frequency band to relay sensory information and control attention.

 

[Piggy]

I'll bite. Explain succinctly why it couldn't be done with ropes and provide a link to the latest research that makes that clear.

First I will have to ask you a question.

If you say that you can take a behavior performed by an animal body and recreate it with ropes, I'll first have to know what the behavior is that you intend to replicate.

If that behavior is digestion, I'll have to say that you're barking up the wrong tree. Ropes are simply not capable of breaking down organic material into constituent molecules, as far as I can tell.

If that behavior is maintaining a stable temperature, then maybe -- you could take advantage of the ropes' insulating properties, and perhaps use their ability to expand and contract in a very ingenious mesh structure to vary the amount of light and air that passes through your construction. Difficult, but perhaps not impossible.

So what is your understanding of the behavior that you would be attempting to replicate with ropes if your goal were to replicate consciousness?

Once we know that, and if that behavior is indeed what neurobiologists mean by "consciousness", then we have something to work with.

 

[Piggy]

Upthread, a definition of consciousness was requested.

I provided a rather lengthy, but useful, one earlier.

However, there is a very succinct and perfectly utile definition that can be summed up in a three-word sentence:

Consciousness is phenomenology.

That's really all there is to it.

If a body is producing, or performing, any sort of phenomenology, then that body is conscious at that moment, whether it's awake and alert or hallucinating or dreaming.

Of course, in everyday parlance we say that we're "unconscious" when we're asleep, whether we're dreaming or not, but everyday parlance won't suffice here. We're talking about the way the term is used in cognitive neurobiology.

This definition is useful and productive in the lab, and shouldn't be difficult to understand.

 

[Belz...]

Would someone mind forwarding to Piggy my questions, please ?

1) How do you define "Consciousness" ? This is crucial to the discussion.

2) If you want a machine that can digest food, then it needs to be able to ingest it, break it down, and use it as fuel or some other function, right ? What do you need to make a machine operate like a brain ? Process data ?

 

[Piggy]

It isn't.

A quick elaboration on the experiments which produced the stuff you're reading:

EEG, or brain waves, are caused by neuron populations (generally inhibitory) all firing in sync. Most people figure it probably serves a similar purpose to a system clock: keeping the asynchronous neural circuits on a more or less synchronous schedule helps to facilitate information transfer. Otherwise cells might start receiving critical inputs when they're not in a state to process them. That sort of thing.

fMRI is a technique by which you can derive blood flow in the brain by measuring changing oxygen ratios, something called a BOLD signal. The cause of this was uncovered only a few years ago: astrocytes, a type of glial cell, monitor neural activity and open up more oxygen/nutrient-rich blood flow when the neurons start running low. By correlating this signal with behavior or stimuli, it tells us when and where neural activity changes to cause or respond to it, but unfortunately not what that activity is doing.

In terms of computer consciousness, note that neither of these effects are anything special in the sorcerous sprout sense. fMRI signalling is both predictable and several orders of magnitude slower than neural activity, and brainwaves are actually just that activity in aggregate.

If you have any other questions, I'd be happy to help.

Just a favor to ask, because the rest of your post is excellent and helpful… can you please stop with the "sorcerous sprout" and "prestidigitating legume" stuff?

Our differences, as I see it, really have to do with what consciousness is. And the slurs don't contribute anything to the discussion.

We both agree that machine consciousness is, in theory at least, entirely plausible. Whether or not human beings ultimately will prove to have the wherewithal to actually get it off the ground is an open question, but for our purposes here, that's beside the point.

And believe it or not, I'm entirely open to being proven wrong on this point. In fact, if consciousness can be programmed, that would be a wonderful and amazing thing.

But please, let's be honest here… the folks who argue against programmable consciousness are not advocating for magic. All they (we) are saying is simply that consciousness is the result of physical processes, not symbolic ones.

So in order for us to try to establish some common ground, I would ask you what I have asked others -- what do you think consciousness is?

I've done that, for my part.

What's your take on it?

 

[PixyMisa]

Thank you. So what do you think is going on regarding the signals mentioned in this study which Piggy linked? In particular, what would this mean in terms of computer programming?:

Beelzebuddy can answer the first question better than me, but here goes:

The signals are simply the aggregate noise of the neural firings. My computer produces a hum at around 2.4GHz when it's busy processing data. That hum has no causal role at all, but it's the only thing you can detect from outside the computer. And applying an external 2.4GHz hum to the computer does nothing at all, unless you crank the power up so much that the case is too hot to touch.

The same goes for the brain. External fields that are far, far stronger than these signals have no effect at all. If you crank the current up enough, you can actually get an effect - maybe - but we're talking ludicrous speed power here.

Now, the cause of those signals is an oscillation in brain activity, apparently some sort of loop. There are a number of these functions in the brain, but they're all neural activity.

So, saying that the signal we detect has a causal role is nonsense. Saying that the oscillation in brain activity (that generates this signal) has a causal role is entirely reasonable, but that's all neural activity, so this is no surprise to anyone.

As for the second question, what does it mean for computer programming: Not much, to be honest. We're seeing regular loops of activity in the brain. We see the same thing in computer programs, though given the differences in architecture the loops tend to be much smaller and simpler and orders of magnitude faster.

 

[Piggy]

The signals are simply the aggregate noise of the neural firings.

It's amazing what evolution can do with noise.

Also, we have to keep in mind that this "aggregate noise" is nicely represented in the integrated phenomenology. In other words, in the phenomenology we observe that input from disparate areas of brain real estate is integrated in real time.

Funny, that.

 

[PixyMisa]

It's amazing what evolution can do with noise.

No.

Also, we have to keep in mind that this "aggregate noise" is nicely represented in the integrated phenomenology.

No.

In other words, in the phenomenology we observe that input from disparate areas of brain real estate is integrated in real time.

Yes, and we can see the waves of activity travel across the brain as the neurons do this. The noise is noise. It provably has no causal role, because adding more and stronger noise does nothing at all.

Funny, that.

No.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Thank you. So what do you think is going on regarding the signals mentioned in this study which Piggy linked? In particular, what would this mean in terms of computer programming?:

Who the hell knows? EEG tells you even less than fMRI does, and the things it does tell you tend to be pretty obvious in retrospect. Yeah, there's going to be some big changes in neural activity when you go from awake and behaving to anesthetized and back. That shouldn't surprise anyone. Any baseless speculation as to what might be the cause of the exact wave patterns seen shouldn't be interpreted as anything more than that.

From the article, it sounds like the study wasn't focusing on basic science at all, but concerned itself with identifying a better target for anesthesiologists to shoot for when gassing someone with one particular drug, as described in the "better anesthesia monitoring" section. This is a good thing, as anesthesia currently involves more guesswork and black magic than anyone likes to admit.

 

[Piggy]

Yes, and we can see the waves of activity travel across the brain as the neurons do this. The noise is noise. It provably has no causal role, because adding more and stronger noise does nothing at all.

Noise relative to what?

I'll ask you what I'm asking others.

If you propose that you can replicate a behavior performed by animal bodies in a machine, what behavior is it that you propose to replicate?

 

[Prometheus]

Beelzebuddy can answer the first question better than me, but here goes:

The signals are simply the aggregate noise of the neural firings. My computer produces a hum at around 2.4GHz when it's busy processing data. That hum has no causal role at all, but it's the only thing you can detect from outside the computer. And applying an external 2.4GHz hum to the computer does nothing at all, unless you crank the power up so much that the case is too hot to touch.

The same goes for the brain. External fields that are far, far stronger than these signals have no effect at all. If you crank the current up enough, you can actually get an effect - maybe - but we're talking ludicrous speed power here.

Now, the cause of those signals is an oscillation in brain activity, apparently some sort of loop. There are a number of these functions in the brain, but they're all neural activity.

So, saying that the signal we detect has a causal role is nonsense. Saying that the oscillation in brain activity (that generates this signal) has a causal role is entirely reasonable, but that's all neural activity, so this is no surprise to anyone.

As for the second question, what does it mean for computer programming: Not much, to be honest. We're seeing regular loops of activity in the brain. We see the same thing in computer programs, though given the differences in architecture the loops tend to be much smaller and simpler and orders of magnitude faster.

I understand that these signals are result from an aggregation of neural firings, but I've read in several places that there is not yet a consensus on whether or not they're thought to play a functional role within the brain, which would mean they're not "just noise". Beelzebuddy's above post which prompted my questions suggests that they may be something akin to a "system clock".

What I meant by asking what the results of that anesthesiology study would mean in programming terms was, what would be the equivalent in programming to a process that requires different subroutines to use different clockspeeds, and have different output depending on whether or not the two clocks are in or out of phase with each other?