Has consciousness been fully explained?

[Earthborn]

It is cricital to understand that the level of detail of the simulation doesn't matter. (snip) And it will have gobs of programming for actually running the physical plant, which the sim programming will lack.

On the one hand you are saying that the level of detail doesn't matter, on the other you are saying that it can't work because it would be missing certain details.

It is not a given that the simulation of a power plant lacks the programming for running the power plant. If it is a highly detailed simulation, it will might well have a simulation of the control systems that run the simulated plant. The more detailed the simulation is, the more the programming for the control systems needs to be similar to the programming for the control systems in the physical plant.

Please note that while you claim the power plant simulation will lack the programming for the control systems that run the plant, you argument is basically similar to claiming that a simulation of a human will lack a brain. Since my argument is about a simulation of the brain, your argument should have been about a simulation of the control systems that actually run the plant. It makes no sense to talk about a simulation of a control system, and then claim that it wouldn't work because it obviously the control system was lacking from the simulation.

Your example is also poorly chosen, because the main control system for a power plant is very likely a computer. It is trivial to replace it with a computer simulation. Just replace the computer with another (probably more powerful) computer, hook it up in the same way as the original computer, and have it run all the programming of the original computer in an emulator. Voilà, the whole power plant is now being run by a computer simulation.

On the other hand, the sim will have programming that the on-site computers lack, such as information about qualities of the walls.

If the on-site computers don't need this information, there is no reason to assume the simulation needs it either.

It's exactly the same as a computer simulation of a leg or a transistor -- you can't substitute it for the real thing.

I've played with computer simulated analogue sound synthesisers. A computer simulation of a transistor does whatever the real thing does, though how well it does depends on the detail of the simulation. Of course it also requires a whole bunch of transistors to simulate one, but that whole bunch of transistors running the simulated transistor can substitute for one real one.

 

[Earthborn]

The important point is that contrary to what has been alleged, it is not possible for a Turing program to carry out the function of the brain

There is some controversy about that. According to people who call themselves digital physicists, the whole universe is basically a Turing machine. If that is true, then a Turing machine can carry out the function of the brain, and not just one but a whole lot of them. It would also mean that consciousness and "Sofia" can be the result of a Turing program, but not necessarily without bodies.

If the universe is not like that, then it may be that consciousness is the result of some strange quantum effects working their way up to macroscopic scale. Then we enter "dualism" or "idealism" territory.

 

[PixyMisa]

If the universe is not like that, then it may be that consciousness is the result of some strange quantum effects working their way up to macroscopic scale. Then we enter "dualism" or "idealism" territory.

Actually, no. Even then a Turing machine can represent those behaviours to an arbitrary accuracy and precision. So even were that the case, Westprog, Piggy et al. would still be wrong.

 

[westprog]

There is some controversy about that. According to people who call themselves digital physicists, the whole universe is basically a Turing machine. If that is true, then a Turing machine can carry out the function of the brain, and not just one but a whole lot of them. It would also mean that consciousness and "Sofia" can be the result of a Turing program, but not necessarily without bodies.

If the universe is not like that, then it may be that consciousness is the result of some strange quantum effects working their way up to macroscopic scale. Then we enter "dualism" or "idealism" territory.

It might turn out that the universe is a huge Turing machine, but there's very little evidence of it thus far. If that did turn out to be true, then all physical activity is Turing activity, and the brain is not doing anything particularly unique.

 

[AlBell]

Actually, no. Even then a Turing machine can represent those behaviours to an arbitrary accuracy and precision.

Actually, theoretically elegant, but unproven.

So even were that the case, Westprog, Piggy et al. would still be wrong.

Perhaps.

Of course dualism implies 'magic', and idealism may too, although that might just be pointing at mis-understandings of what our current interpretation of physics is telling us about reality.

 

[Meed]

Hi. Universe, this is cornsail. cornsail, this is the Universe. I understand that you two have never met.

That's no Universe, buddy. It's just a mechanical box and some tape.

 

[Meed]

Of course dualism implies 'magic', and idealism may too, although that might just be pointing at mis-understandings of what our current interpretation of physics is telling us about reality.

Depends how you define "magic".

 

[Earthborn]

Actually, no. Even then a Turing machine can represent those behaviours to an arbitrary accuracy and precision. So even were that the case, Westprog, Piggy et al. would still be wrong.

If "consciousness" or "Sofia events" require hypercomputation then a Turing machine may represent them to arbitrary accuracy and precision, but it would always be missing out on their fundamental nature.

It might turn out that the universe is a huge Turing machine, but there's very little evidence of it thus far.

There is also very little evidence against it and lots of very intelligent theoretical physicists favour this hypothesis because the alternative is even crazier.

If that did turn out to be true, then all physical activity is Turing activity, and the brain is not doing anything particularly unique.

Exactly!

 

[westprog]

On the one hand you are saying that the level of detail doesn't matter, on the other you are saying that it can't work because it would be missing certain details.

It is not a given that the simulation of a power plant lacks the programming for running the power plant. If it is a highly detailed simulation, it will might well have a simulation of the control systems that run the simulated plant. The more detailed the simulation is, the more the programming for the control systems needs to be similar to the programming for the control systems in the physical plant.

Please note that while you claim the power plant simulation will lack the programming for the control systems that run the plant, you argument is basically similar to claiming that a simulation of a human will lack a brain. Since my argument is about a simulation of the brain, your argument should have been about a simulation of the control systems that actually run the plant. It makes no sense to talk about a simulation of a control system, and then claim that it wouldn't work because it obviously the control system was lacking from the simulation.

Your example is also poorly chosen, because the main control system for a power plant is very likely a computer. It is trivial to replace it with a computer simulation. Just replace the computer with another (probably more powerful) computer, hook it up in the same way as the original computer, and have it run all the programming of the original computer in an emulator. Voilà, the whole power plant is now being run by a computer simulation.

If the on-site computers don't need this information, there is no reason to assume the simulation needs it either.

I've played with computer simulated analogue sound synthesisers. A computer simulation of a transistor does whatever the real thing does, though how well it does depends on the detail of the simulation. Of course it also requires a whole bunch of transistors to simulate one, but that whole bunch of transistors running the simulated transistor can substitute for one real one.

You cannot assume that that simulated control system would be able to run a real power plant, just because it can run a simulated power plant. In general, the only way that you can drop a simulation into the real system and use it for control is when it's designed to do that. That's not what simulations are for - they are intended to demonstrate how systems work in a compact and controllable fashion. If the control portion of a simulation happens to work in a real system, that's a lucky piece of good fortune, but it's quite rare.

 

[westprog]

I

Exactly!

A point I've been making repeatedly.

 

[Piggy]

Yeah. That's the dualism fail that we're stuck on. The answer is apparently "because", and we're not allowed to ask "because why?"

No, the answer has been given pretty clearly, from a number of vantage points.

And this has absolutely nothing to do with dualism.

If you'd care to explain how the result of a calculation can be a bodily function, I'd love to hear it.

 

[Piggy]

"Sofia" is just another word for "because". Apparently if you're going to reinvent dualism you're required to invent new words to hide the fact.

Sofia is just a quick term we can use to refer to a phenomenon we're all familiar with.

It's got nothing to do with dualism, since this phenomenon has a physical cause.

 

[Piggy]

Surely there would still be sensory information and control signals passing back and forth, though? Otherwise alarm clocks wouldn't work.

Yes, exactly. The alarm clock passes the threshold and you wake up. But certainly there are times when we are dreaming and no bodily/sensory info gets thru intact, because it doesn't need to.

 

[Piggy]

While I agree we can happily be conscious without a definition, surely a reasonably sound, mutually agreed definition is required before we can sensibly discuss whether it's been explained. If we don't have that we'll just end up with a 28 page thread of people talking past each other.

Oh wait, sorry....

I'll go back to lurking.

Well, it's already been offered.

I think what WP and I are tired of is the demand for some strict scientific definition, when we know that we don't yet have one.

But we don't need one. We can "point to the cat" on this one.

 

[Piggy]

True, the input is still there and being scanned at some level aside SOFIA, otherwise alarm clocks would be worthless. Even during SOFIA much input is ignored or not attended to.

Well, yes and no.

The majority of what the brain is dealing with is never routed over to the areas which make some things available to Sofia.

But once it's part of Sofia, then by definition it's been attended to in some way. The stuff we ignore never gets through.

 

[Piggy]

On the one hand you are saying that the level of detail doesn't matter, on the other you are saying that it can't work because it would be missing certain details.

Are you serious?

1. The level of detail of the sim makes no difference, because it doesn't change what the machine is doing in real spacetime.

2. The programs which control simulations and the programs which control physical systems are not identical. If you want to call that "missing certain details" that's ok, but it has nothing to do with point #1.

 

[Piggy]

It is not a given that the simulation of a power plant lacks the programming for running the power plant. If it is a highly detailed simulation, it will might well have a simulation of the control systems that run the simulated plant.

Think about it.

A computer can either carry out the task of producing a simulation of a power plant, or it can carry out the task of controlling the physical apparatus that runs a power plant.

 

[Piggy]

Please note that while you claim the power plant simulation will lack the programming for the control systems that run the plant, you argument is basically similar to claiming that a simulation of a human will lack a brain. Since my argument is about a simulation of the brain, your argument should have been about a simulation of the control systems that actually run the plant. It makes no sense to talk about a simulation of a control system, and then claim that it wouldn't work because it obviously the control system was lacking from the simulation.

No, these situations are not similar, because a human brain is a chunk of matter.

If you want to claim that computers and brains are entirely functionally equivalent, then you're going to have to support that claim. So far, it has failed.

 

[Piggy]

Actually, no. Even then a Turing machine can represent those behaviours to an arbitrary accuracy and precision. So even were that the case, Westprog, Piggy et al. would still be wrong.

The trouble here is that a Turing machine can't send brain waves across a field of neurons.

Look, you've already had your claims about Turing machines destroyed. Why are you still on about this?

If you want to claim that you can create consciousness by "running the logic", then you're going to have to explain how you get a bodily function as the solution to a calculation.

Got any ideas?

 

[PixyMisa]

If "consciousness" or "Sofia events" require hypercomputation then a Turing machine may represent them to arbitrary accuracy and precision, but it would always be missing out on their fundamental nature.

Well, two problems there.

First, hypercomputation is physically impossible, so this doesn't change anything.

Second, we know that isn't the case, or none of us would be able to sustain consciousness given the variability of our biochemistry and environment.