Explain consciousness to the layman.

[Beelzebuddy]

I guess you haven’t been following this thread too long. If you go back a couple dozen pages you’ll arrive at a quote that appears to represent the current consensus in the international cog sci community (remember Geraint Rees …it comes directly from his bunch). I’ll summarize it for you: ‘ We don’t know what consciousness is and we don’t know how the brain creates it.’ Pretty much their words exactly.

Wrong word in hilite. The one you wanted is "if." "Consciousness has not yet become a scientific term that can be defined in this way," their exact words, does not mean "we don't know what consciousness is," but rather "people aren't even talking about the same thing here."

We don't know what gravity is, or where it comes from, exactly. But when we talk about gravity, we're talking about the same thing. It's a scientific term that can be defined by its effects. Consciousness can't be defined except in terms useless to anyone who doesn't already know what we call consciousness. Look at your next few paragraphs. I'll summarize them: "C'mooooon you guys, consciousness is totally a thing, we all experience it." And we do. And any one person's definition could probably be approached scientifically.

But your definition isn't mine. It isn't Piggy's. It isn't Pixy's. All of us, when we hear "consciousness," are thinking of drastically different and mutually incompatible things. And there's no way of telling a person that their definition is wrong because it's all subjective. So any decent scientist would rather write the whole thing off. It can't be defined scientifically. You come up with an empirical test of consciousness that everyone will agree on, then we'll talk.

Scares me?!?!…it doesn’t ‘scare’ me. It’s academic until it isn’t. What is amazing is just how amazingly simplistic the perspectives on this issue often are (it reminds me of the debates that often surround such issues as euthanasia). The uncertainty level goes right off the charts….on every available social and psychological metric. ‘ In a manner “we” would understand’?!?!?!? Which ‘we’ are you talking about? You…me…Justin Beiber …Bill Gates…the president…? What if it occurred as a result of some unexpected anomaly (has science ever progressed in such ways before…no, of course not). All of a sudden there exists this ‘thing’ that has the capacity to conclude that it has the capacity to reach conclusions of its own. What if “we” don’t understand it (hell, we don’t even remotely understand ourselves, why this blind faith automatic assumption that some fictional ‘we’ would ‘understand’ something on that order of sophistication). It could (and almost inevitably would) conceivably create its own paradigms of behavior which would mean…what? You function as a result of massive intuitive assumptions about the coherence and robustness of your conceptual framework. If these frameworks are suddenly challenged by a fundamentally different one, which will prevail (just how disorienting can disorienting be?)? You may suddenly discover just how fragile you actually are when another paradigm asserts its own conditions of being (maybe ‘they’ would decide that people like you wouldn’t be allowed anywhere near ‘it’ for that very reason…would it still be amazing then?). But all of this is rampant speculation. But no, it isn’t. This is what we are…what the cog sci community is currently attempting to adjudicate the reality of…and there does exist…on some perhaps distant horizon…an HLMI (and it’s currently being reverse-engineered through AI so it’s hardly irrelevant). What ‘it’ will do, or be, nobody knows…partly because nobody (?) is yet clear about what we can do, or be.

Well, you sure sound scared, is the thing.

 

[westprog]

That should be a strong indicator that we're not.

The "if you can't define it it isn't important fallacy". Which crops up on a regular basis.

We know what's different about being human and alive. Being able to define it doesn't matter.

 

[keyfeatures]

Things that are different from other things are special. Well by that definition, everything is special.

Yes. Everything that has a distinction that can be drawn from another thing is, by definition, 'special'.

There's nothing special about being special.

 

[rocketdodger]

What would make us special?

Just quickly off the top of my head:

I am special compared to a rock because I can use cascades of computations to alter my behavior, allowing me to continue to survive in this world in a certain form for longer than I would otherwise. All of life is special like this.

I am special compared to a paramecium because my neurons allow for much more organized repeated computation than the kind of less directed concentration/diffusion/equilibrium dependent molecular switching that intra-cellular control cascades rely upon. Many animals are special like this, for instance earthworms.

I am special compared to an earthworm because the topography of my neural networks is highly recurrent and that gives me the ability to, among other things, internally model sequences of possible future actions and select the one that best satisfies some criteria. All vertebrates are special like this, for instance dogs.

I am special compared to a dog because I can learn the syntax of language, allowing me to communicate in much more complex ways with other members of my species. Only a few mammals are special like this, for instance apes.

I am special compared to a chimpanzee because I can formulate a theory of mind, allowing me to better predict the behavior of any other entity of equal or lesser mental complexity than my own. We don't know of any entity that can do this besides human beings.

Need I go on?

 

[keyfeatures]

However, you can either draw a distinction that makes you other than another thing, or 'within' another thing. Two separate circles, or a circle within a circle.

We assume that humans are contained within the circle of reality but we can only perceive reality as it is contained within our circle. As anything we can't perceive can for all intents and purposes be considered not to exist, reality is perception. Human perception will always be 'special' because for humans it's the circle that contains everything else.

 

[rocketdodger]

So how, exactly, does this represent 'one of the most dishonest examples of quote mining I've ever seen'?

In the same way I mentioned in a separate post.

Let me put it in terms you might understand better.

A preacher says "God works in mysterious ways." Am I correct then to go around telling religious people that everything the church currently knows is invalid, including the nature of God himself, just because the consensus of preachers is that he works in mysterious ways?

No, I am not correct to do so. Because I understand that the meaning of that statement, as the preacher said it, is simply "sometimes things happen that you can't figure out why God would do them, but trust that he knows best." I understand that it does NOT mean "we don't know anything about God" because obviously the church thinks it knows a great deal about God -- otherwise there would be no church. In particular, they know that God is nice, is properly referred to by "he" not "it," and a bunch of other baloney.

In our context, it is pretty obvious that if someone wrote a book called "consciousness explained" and they make a quote "consciousness is the last great mystery" I think a rational human -- with no agenda -- would conclude that they mean "there is still much to learn about consciousness" rather than "we know literally nothing about consciousness."

 

[rocketdodger]

However, you can either draw a distinction that makes you other than another thing, or 'within' another thing. Two separate circles, or a circle within a circle.

We assume that humans are contained within the circle of reality but we can only perceive reality as it is contained within our circle. As anything we can't perceive can for all intents and purposes be considered not to exist, reality is perception. Human perception will always be 'special' because for humans it's the circle that contains everything else.

Ok, but that is a type of special I don't particularly care about.

Rocks are special in that way. I don't care.

 

[dlorde]

It may just be me, but I have the impression that there have been two meanings of 'special' in the thread that are being confused - 'special' as in a 'top-of-the-range' primate, the same basic features and capabilities, but significantly enhanced; and 'special' as in having some additional (possibly mysterious) features or capabilities that set us apart from other animals.

 

[keyfeatures]

Just quickly off the top of my head:

I am special compared to a rock because I can use cascades of computations to alter my behavior, allowing me to continue to survive in this world in a certain form for longer than I would otherwise. All of life is special like this.

The cascades are based on the action/reaction of 'rocks'. A lot of rocks outlive life. So you might say the actions actually prevent survival over rocks. Hydra live indefinitely without too much 'behaviour'. But maybe not as long rocks. Still...

 

[rocketdodger]

The cascades are based on the action/reaction of 'rocks'. A lot of rocks outlive life. So you might say the actions actually prevent survival over rocks. Hydra live indefinitely without too much 'behaviour'. But maybe not as long rocks. Still...

No, there is in fact a huge difference.

Rocks exist in a given form because they are in an energy minima. As soon as anything changes that, rocks change. They get crushed by other rocks, they melt, they get eroded by wind, they chemically react to become a different rock, etc. They do nothing to keep themselves in a metastable state.

A lifeform exists in a given form because of behavior that keeps it away from an energy minima. The energy minima form of a living creature is a dead creature. A lifeform is constantly acting to keep itself in that metastable state with high potential energy, precisely so it can make use of that potential energy to continue living.

There isn't anything inherently "magical" about this, it is just pure statistics. A group of chemicals came together into a system that can increase its chances of continued existence using energy -- life was born. From then on out it is just building upon that basic functionality.

Rocks don't do this. I dunno how many times I have to explain it in clear language. Rocks. Do. Not. Do. This.

 

[keyfeatures]

No, there is in fact a huge difference.

Rocks exist in a given form because they are in an energy minima. As soon as anything changes that, rocks change. They get crushed by other rocks, they melt, they get eroded by wind, they chemically react to become a different rock, etc. They do nothing to keep themselves in a metastable state.

A lifeform exists in a given form because of behavior that keeps it away from an energy minima. The energy minima form of a living creature is a dead creature. A lifeform is constantly acting to keep itself in that metastable state with high potential energy, precisely so it can make use of that potential energy to continue living.

There isn't anything inherently "magical" about this, it is just pure statistics. A group of chemicals came together into a system that can increase its chances of continued existence using energy -- life was born. From then on out it is just building upon that basic functionality.

Rocks don't do this. I dunno how many times I have to explain it in clear language. Rocks. Do. Not. Do. This.

Are you saying humans don't get crushed by rocks? React to chemicals? We are, after all, made from rocks. Rocks have the advantage of not having to do anything to continue to exist. Life has to act to maintain life. It's not really a survival benefit. It's just a level of more complex action.

 

[annnnoid]

Here Beelzebudy…figure this one out.

If a human designs a machine with equal or greater intelligence (assuming we can decide what that is) to a human, and that machine commits an action that kills a person, where does the responsibility for that action lie?

Or here’s another one: Assuming the ability to design such machines does occur (machines with ‘intelligence’), who decides if they will be built (not to mention who decides the meaning of ‘intelligence’ and how does that impact human jurisprudence), and who decides what varieties and degrees of ‘intelligence’ should be introduced into what areas of society? Do we have a vote (…like dlorde suggested…trust the general population…or was that what he suggested since there seems to be no small amount of ambiguity in dlordes opinions of ‘the general population’… on the one hand, they can be trusted, on the other, their understanding of AI seems to be massively out of whack from that of the research community). Do we trust el-presidente? Do we not care? Does it matter?

I seriously get the impression that many in the AI community find these sorts of issues plain inconvenient...if not downright annoying. Like Dodger, they seem to have some kind of fanciful dream of downloading 'me' (how 'me' would react to such a thing is anybodies guess), or of a world swarming with little benevolent R2D2's. Perhaps the dimensions of the issues are lost on much of the general population (cognitive biases etc.), but that does not mean that the so-called experts are necessarily better equipped to adjudicate the matter. With regard to AI, the ability to build the thing and the ability to understand what should be built may be very distinct issues (that's why the biomed community often has ethical oversight...I'm still waiting to hear if there is any equivalent procedure in place with regard to AI...or if anyone thinks there should be, or not).

How close are we to this situation (ever heard of cars that can drive themselves [park themselves]? …currently fictional…but what if ‘Herbie’ inadvertently [or even intentionally] drives over your little girl?...do you sue Herbie…or Volkswagen? [and if 'Herbie' can successfully 'argue' that it's 'ethical paradigm' permits such behavior...is 'it' vindicated?])? Based on some of the papers in that link from Dodger (and that was 7 years ago)…it certainly doesn’t seem that distant (try digesting some of the legal papers and see how well you sleep). So tell me…is there any cause for concern? A little, none, a lot…? Or do we just assume that Intel and Apple will do what’s best for you and me and the rest of the human race (…I think I’ll go out on a limb here and ‘name’ the next big thing from Apple…the IMe [comes with its own birth certificate and social security number…if they aren’t big already, they sure will be with that one!][maybe Apple is the antichrist and Steve Jobs will reincarnate within IMe #1])? We don’t know what makes a human a human (normative?)…but we either can or are within a stones throw of creating things that aren’t…or are…or are ‘something else’ (what the ‘something else’ actually is has yet to be understood [...' It's A Thing That Can Do "This"'...so we'll create a new category of thing...the IATTCDT']). I imagine the disabled communities (for one) will follow these developments closely (both in regard to potential new treatments...and in regard to redefinitions of what makes a 'legitimate / capable' entity).

What potential for…what (..chaos, enlightenment, human emancipation …what!?!?!?) …does all this have? But sure…your equanimity is perfectly understandable. Who cares. It is, by definition, the most significant development in the history of history (I guess there’s a first time for everything) but there’s no possible way it will make any difference to you. Maybe you could just pretend that your blender has a name and go from there.

This debate certainly echo’s many that occur in the biomed community (I wonder who will hit formally defined functional AI first…them or the computationlists…they certainly seem to have some catching up to do…maybe we’ll then see battles between bio-AI and computer-based-AI with different paradigms competing for recognition and superiority…how appealing! [sounds like it might make a good movie though]). As I said…I wonder if computer science curriculums currently mandate ethics studies. Yes…no? Does it matter? Feel free to insert your usual ‘it’s irrelevant’ comment Beelzebuddy.



…you make a couple of good points, and a couple of lousy ones (you’re totally off-base with the Pixy thing, for one), but I’ll have to get to them later. I have to engage my ‘I have a life’ programming and see if it works.

 

[westprog]

It may just be me, but I have the impression that there have been two meanings of 'special' in the thread that are being confused - 'special' as in a 'top-of-the-range' primate, the same basic features and capabilities, but significantly enhanced; and 'special' as in having some additional (possibly mysterious) features or capabilities that set us apart from other animals.

I was under the impression that the "special" quality possessed by humans was to be considered in contrast to computers, rocks, planets, oceans etc. The degree to which this quality was possessed by animals of various kinds was a grey area. The status of man among the animals is less of a topic here than the status of the animate among the inanimate.

 

[!Kaggen]

For the record.

Owen Barfields book Saving the Appearances: A Study in Idolatry
^WP is an interesting introduction to the idea that consciousness has evolved through human history and continues to evolve. He argues consciousness is a evolutionary biological process which is fundamentally connected to human ecology and is best understood through the history of semantics.

The connection between this book and Nassim Taleb's ideas on education (http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/education.pdf) relates to the fact that education, using Owen Barfields approach to consciousness, is about preparing a child's consciousness for evolutionary success. This entails the realization that a childs consciousness interacts with the real world where important events are unpredictable and the ability to adapt to these events leads to the survival value of a child with a consciousness with a non-fragile consciousness with plasticity to adapt.

Therefore a consciousness based on predictable algorithms (as proposed by computationalists) modeled on past empirical evidence(which is by definition not unpredictable evidence) is not only a fallacious educational approach to be avoided it is a non-starter approach to artificial consciousness modeled on real consciousness. Real consciousness being a biological process selected for its survival value in an unpredictable world.


This is why I called the computationalists approach of using empirical evidence to define a biological process such as consciousness, which was selected based on its survival value relating to our ability to deal with unpredictable reality, as another ludic fallacy^WP .

 

[rocketdodger]

Therefore a consciousness based on predictable algorithms (as proposed by computationalists) modeled on past empirical evidence(which is by definition not unpredictable evidence) is not only a fallacious educational approach to be avoided it is a non-starter approach to artificial consciousness modeled on real consciousness. Real consciousness being a biological process selected for its survival value in an unpredictable world.

Lol.

The world is predictable dude. If you fall off a ledge, you get hurt. That kind of thing.

 

[rocketdodger]

Are you saying humans don't get crushed by rocks?

Not if we can help it.

React to chemicals?

Not if we can help it.

We are, after all, made from rocks.

No, both rocks and us are made from the same underlying stuff. But we are certainly not made from rocks.

Rocks have the advantage of not having to do anything to continue to exist.

That is only a benefit when inaction is the optimal course of action.

Life has to act to maintain life. It's not really a survival benefit. It's just a level of more complex action.

Yes, which is why I said it is just due to statistics.

We behave very differently from rocks, and there is a good reason for that. The reason is simply that if we did not, we would no longer be alive and able to behave differently from rocks. It is a self-sustaining configuration.

This isn't an issue until you try to find a reason for why our different behavior is somehow "better" than that of rocks. I don't think it is. Not everyone agrees with me.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Here Beelzebudy…figure this one out.

If a human designs a machine with equal or greater intelligence (assuming we can decide what that is) to a human, and that machine commits an action that kills a person, where does the responsibility for that action lie?

If a human hires a person for a job and that person commits an action that kills his wife, where does the responsibility for that action lie?

Or here’s another one: Assuming the ability to have children, who decides if they will have them, and who decides what varieties and degrees of children should be available for what areas of society?


You're making a mountain out of a molehill, and taking a very long time to do so as well. We already have plenty of regulations which cover the actions of general intelligent agents. That these agents are machines doesn't mean we throw out all case law and ethical constructs because herp derp artificial intelligence. There'll be more than enough novel moral questions (like, is it murder to put an AI in sleep mode and never wake it up? Is it assault to suspend it without consent?) to worry about the obvious crap.

This debate certainly echo’s many that occur in the biomed community (I wonder who will hit formally defined functional AI first…them or the computationlists…they certainly seem to have some catching up to do…maybe we’ll then see battles between bio-AI and computer-based-AI with different paradigms competing for recognition and superiority…how appealing! [sounds like it might make a good movie though]). As I said…I wonder if computer science curriculums currently mandate ethics studies. Yes…no? Does it matter? Feel free to insert your usual ‘it’s irrelevant’ comment Beelzebuddy.

Now, I'm just puzzled and curious. What the hell are you talking about? The "biomed community" is building '"bio-AIs?" What? Wouldn't that just be Is?

 

[keyfeatures]

Not if we can help it.

If a large boulder lands on your head there is not a lot you can do. We have limited observation skills, reaction speeds and movement.

Not if we can help it.

Again, not a lot you can do if a load of acid gets chucked over you. Not all life is even able to see or move. And we are also limited in our ability to detect poisons. Mostly it's just inductive association and that's pretty useless when faced with an apple laced with cyanide. A lot of living things can't even move from the location they are in.

No, both rocks and us are made from the same underlying stuff. But we are certainly not made from rocks.

Carbonbased lifeform.

That is only a benefit when inaction is the optimal course of action.

Well, how would you know? Optimal for what? The most inactive things seems to last longest.

Yes, which is why I said it is just due to statistics.

We behave very differently from rocks, and there is a good reason for that. The reason is simply that if we did not, we would no longer be alive and able to behave differently from rocks. It is a self-sustaining configuration.

This isn't an issue until you try to find a reason for why our different behavior is somehow "better" than that of rocks. I don't think it is. Not everyone agrees with me.

Well 'better' is just a value judgement. Rocks don't do 'better'. Objectively, better does not exist. Morality can only ever be subjective opinion. It can't computed.

 

[!Kaggen]

Lol.

The world is predictable dude. If you fall off a ledge, you get hurt. That kind of thing.

Nice try, but you missed out a few important details in the real sequence of events.

Try predicting when you might stumble and fall off a ledge.

Try predicting the serious injuries you might sustain if you fall off the ledge.

Try predicting whether you might die falling off a ledge.

The consequences of the just one fall even if very remotely possible are potentially devastating.

Try predicting whether you will be able to avoid ledges.

Your predictions are useless in this example if they are not 100% accurate.

This is the problem with spending too much time studying reality through computers and not enough time studying reality. You end up with a skewed confidence in your prediction abilities.

 

[Mr. Scott]

My interpretation of the "special" thing has to do with the reaction we have to learning that, when our abilities are duplicated, surpassed, or explained as machinery, we feel less special.

For example, it was believed that no machine could beat a grand champion at chess, because our intelligence was "special" and could not be mechanized. It came down to our egos. When the machine won, we accepted it (or rationalized) and moved on.

The same thing happened with Jeopardy. We thought a computer could never beat humans, because our brain's information processing was "special" and beyond a mere machine. When we were beat, someone said he would not be impressed until a machine the size and power consumption of the brain beats us, thus dismissing the machine's accomplishment and retaining the feeling of specialness.

We react emotionally to the idea that a machine can best us in any skill we hold precious. This emotional response in no way addresses an issue like whether or not consciousness is a mechanical process we can duplicate in a machine.

Maybe some day a machine will EXCEED the powers of human consciousness, and we, with our seemingly magical brains, would be that machine's creator.

"Ain't no machine made can beat a man, once a man's got a mind he can BEAT that machine." (John Henry and the Inky Poo - 1946)

The line is at 3:15. I apologize if some see this film as racist. I just love the way it tugs at the heart.