Has consciousness been fully explained?

[Plat]

That is why I love reading Ramachandran's stuff, he certainly knows his stuff (dubbed the Marco Polo of neuroscience by Richard Dawkins) but he also admits that there is a lot more to be discovered and explained while being open minded.

 

[PixyMisa]

Also, things like Cotard's Syndrome are just wonderfully creepy.

 

[Piggy]

By the age of 12-13 children prety much are adults in the way they think; the last major change comes at the age of 10 to 12. They're just very young and inexperienced adults.

Not really. Their brains still have a lot of development left to do. Much of their higher-level judgment, impulse control, emotional control, and ability to think through consequences and consider long-term ramifications has not yet come online.

But it's only quite recently that brain studies have determined this. It seems obvious, of course, in a way, because we all know that teens are emotional, impulsive, and myopic, but it's only in the last few years really that we've had evidence that this isn't due to lack of experience or cultural influences, but rather due to a lack of brain development in critical areas.

 

[!Kaggen]

I can accept that computers can be conscious. My addition to this argument is that computers cannot be conscious in the same way that humans are conscious because of the relationship between structure and function.

Computers are structured differently and so they function differently. This doesn't mean that they can't potentially function very similarly to a human, but the things a brain can do and the things a computer can do can't be identical. They can only be closely analogous.

I'm splitting hairs.

Technically, what a feline eye can do and a human eye can do is not identical. They both are sensitive to light and translate luminous signal patterns into representations of the world, but neither of them do it in exactly the same way.

If a human was able to have cat eyes surgically implanted, would it radically change her? To be sure, it would change her, but I imagine she'd function approximately in the same way.

If a human was able to have computer eyes surgically implanted, would it radically change her? I bet the change would be about the same as with the cat eyes, but now imagine that the computer eyes don't just emulate human vision but also see infared. It's such a little change, but has a LOT of ramifications. Just think about how having infared vision would affect your dating experiences: you'd instantly be able to tell if a person was turned on or not.

Now think about all the little changes between a human and an SAI android built from a mix of organic and inorganic parts. That both a human and theoretical android can play chess or write a novel or understand a joke doesn't mean they're identical. Chimpanzees and human children can learn sign language, but that doesn't mean they're identical. All are conscious, but none are conscious in the same way, nor is there consciousness generated in the same way.

That's the key: if the consciousness is generated in a different way, it's essentially different, regardless of whether it can perform the same tasks.

Why discern between consciousnesses regardless of whether they can do the same things? Because to really understand something you have to understand it on its own terms. When you treat a child like an adult, because they're functionally so similar to adults, you often run into problems. But even within the same species at different stages of development you have different brain structures and therefore different functionality. The differences in funtionality may be unnoticeable, or seem meaningless, until you run up against it, such as in the case of trying to teach abstract ideas to pre-pubescents with immature frontal cortexes.

My girlfriend teaches 12 and 13 year olds and she's always running up against this problem and is forced to remember that they're not the same as adults.

Exactly

 

[Piggy]

I can accept that computers can be conscious. My addition to this argument is that computers cannot be conscious in the same way that humans are conscious because of the relationship between structure and function.

Computers are structured differently and so they function differently. This doesn't mean that they can't potentially function very similarly to a human, but the things a brain can do and the things a computer can do can't be identical. They can only be closely analogous.

This is not necessarily so.

When it comes to any particular function, identical structure is not a requirement. There is no reason to assume that a given function must be performed by only one structure, without specific evidence for such a claim.

Now, it's no secret that I disagree with PixyMixa and Rocket Dodger, for example, on certain points with regard to the similarities between (contemporary) computers and human brains, but I'm sure we would all agree that machines can be conscious.

Our differences essentially lie in a disagreement about what has or has not been proven with regard to how consciousness is created, and whether or not we have direct evidence of "felt experience". But nevertheless, even they and I would concur that there is no barrier at all to a machine (they would say "computer" but I -- at this point, anyway -- can only go so far as "machine") being conscious in exactly the way a human is conscious.

After all, human beings are just machines. Organic machines, but machines nonetheless.

And with regard to that question, it's really immaterial whether we already know how consciousness is generated (as Pixy and Dodger contend) or whether we don't yet know (as I contend) -- one way or the other, once it is known, then there is no barrier to creating human-like sentience in machines except for our own technical prowess.

 

[!Kaggen]

That does not constitute evidence.

Religion only developed in brains that produce consciousness.
Religion does not subscribe to logic and facts.

I could also add art as evidence since it is unique to brains that produce consciousness and is also not bound by the laws of logic and facts.

 

[!Kaggen]

Its rather revealing that strong AI supporters only discuss consciousness in terms of intelligence.
The human experience of consciousness however is much more than intelligence.
Is art a form of intelligence like mathematics?
Perhaps Pixy and his mates are right since they are only talking intelligence and a simple pocket calculator can do math.
What we need is a definition of consciousness which encompasses more than just intelligence.

 

[Piggy]

Its rather revealing that strong AI supporters only discuss consciousness in terms of intelligence.

Whoa, hoss!

I'm what you'd call a "strong AI supporter" and I don't define consciousness in terms of intelligence.

Here's the bottom line: People are organic machines and people are conscious; therefore, other types of machines, if properly designed, may also be intelligent.

That's pretty simple to understand.

 

[!Kaggen]

Whoa, hoss!

I'm what you'd call a "strong AI supporter" and I don't define consciousness in terms of intelligence.

Here's the bottom line: People are organic machines and people are conscious; therefore, other types of machines, if properly designed, may also be intelligent.

That's pretty simple to understand.

Sure all sorts of things may be intelligent, but is consciousness necessary for intelligence?

The fact that we are conscious does not mean there is necessarily a relationship between consciousness and intelligence.

 

[Piggy]

Sure all sorts of things may be intelligent, but is consciousness necessary for intelligence?

The fact that we are conscious does not mean there is necessarily a relationship between consciousness and intelligence.

Depends what you mean by intelligence.

I have come to the conclusion -- and now there are studies trending this way -- that consciousness most likely serves the purpose of making higher-level decisions when more specialized non-conscious modules are in conflict or are unable to handle the task alone.

If so, then conscious beings are necessarily going to have a particular type of intelligence which non-conscious entities do not possess.

But that does not mean that non-conscious beings have no sort of intelligence at all.

 

[PixyMisa]

Religion only developed in brains that produce consciousness.

True.

Religion does not subscribe to logic and facts.

True, though it claims to.

So?

I could also add art as evidence since it is unique to brains that produce consciousness and is also not bound by the laws of logic and facts.

Sorry, that's meaningless. Try again.

 

[PixyMisa]

Sure all sorts of things may be intelligent, but is consciousness necessary for intelligence?

What do you mean by intelligence here? If you simply mean the capacity for symoblic manipulation and decision-making, then it is certainly possible to be intelligent but not conscious.

 

[PixyMisa]

Depends what you mean by intelligence.

I have come to the conclusion -- and now there are studies trending this way -- that consciousness most likely serves the purpose of making higher-level decisions when more specialized non-conscious modules are in conflict or are unable to handle the task alone.

If so, then conscious beings are necessarily going to have a particular type of intelligence which non-conscious entities do not possess.

Agree again, and this is perfectly in accordance with the self-reference model. With self-reference you can perform computational operations that are simply not practical by other means. That is, consciousness likely arose because it is the most efficient mechanism for complex decision-making - a clear evolutionary advantage.

 

[Piggy]

Agree again, and this is perfectly in accordance with the self-reference model. With self-reference you can perform computational operations that are simply not practical by other means. That is, consciousness likely arose because it is the most efficient mechanism for complex decision-making - a clear evolutionary advantage.

Agreed as well. And btw, despite the impression I may have given before, I don't disagree with you regarding SRIP. I think, at the moment, you and I only appear to disagree on the issue of sufficiency when it comes to that -- iow, is SRIP sufficient or merely necessary.

 

[westprog]

Here was my stab at definitions before when the question was asked as to the physical definition of a computation:

physical process: a deterministic or a random process where each state's measurement does not necessarily have a precise symbolic representation

computation: a deterministic process where each state's measurement can have a precise symbolic representation.​

So give an example of a physical process where a state cannot have a symbolic representation.

 

[PixyMisa]

Agreed as well. And btw, despite the impression I may have given before, I don't disagree with you regarding SRIP. I think, at the moment, you and I only appear to disagree on the issue of sufficiency when it comes to that -- iow, is SRIP sufficient or merely necessary.

Okay!

That makes much more sense, but I think it's probably more of a semantic issue than anything else.

For example, upthread bluskool suggest that anticipation is a necessary part of what we call consciousness. Self-referential systems don't necessarily anticipate - that's the necessary-but-not-sufficient thing right there.

So it comes down to if we only call something conscious if it can consider its own thought process and anticipate future events, then self-reference is not enough; we need something more.

I think anticipation is not an unreasonable thing to include in a definition of consciousness, but I'm not convinced it's a necessary thing.

That's why I define consciousness as self-referential information processing. It gives us a clear, precise, fixed basis upon which to build. Maybe it will turn out that it doesn't accord with common usage. If a behaviour that we consider part of consciousness requires something more - like a sense of time, in this example - then we would need to expand the definition.

 

[PixyMisa]

Not really. Their brains still have a lot of development left to do. Much of their higher-level judgment, impulse control, emotional control, and ability to think through consequences and consider long-term ramifications has not yet come online.

Well, yes, they're immature. The same is true of many adults!

However, the types of abstract symbolic thought that distinguish adults from children do develop at that age range. Teenagers don't behave like adults, but children under the age of about 10 don't think like adults. If you try to present abstract concepts to a child under that age, often it just doesn't work, and changing the way you represent it doesn't help.

Tweens aren't just a target for evil marketing companies, but a distinct stage of cognitive development.

But it's only quite recently that brain studies have determined this. It seems obvious, of course, in a way, because we all know that teens are emotional, impulsive, and myopic, but it's only in the last few years really that we've had evidence that this isn't due to lack of experience or cultural influences, but rather due to a lack of brain development in critical areas.

Yep, agreed. We're just talking about different aspects of brain development.

 

[Robin]

So give an example of a physical process where a state cannot have a symbolic representation.

Note that my wording was "each state's measurement can have a precise symbolic representation"

A hurricane is an example of a physical process where each state's measurement cannot have a precise symbolic representation.

 

[westprog]

This is not necessarily so.

When it comes to any particular function, identical structure is not a requirement. There is no reason to assume that a given function must be performed by only one structure, without specific evidence for such a claim.

Now, it's no secret that I disagree with PixyMixa and Rocket Dodger, for example, on certain points with regard to the similarities between (contemporary) computers and human brains, but I'm sure we would all agree that machines can be conscious.

Our differences essentially lie in a disagreement about what has or has not been proven with regard to how consciousness is created, and whether or not we have direct evidence of "felt experience". But nevertheless, even they and I would concur that there is no barrier at all to a machine (they would say "computer" but I -- at this point, anyway -- can only go so far as "machine") being conscious in exactly the way a human is conscious.

After all, human beings are just machines. Organic machines, but machines nonetheless.

And with regard to that question, it's really immaterial whether we already know how consciousness is generated (as Pixy and Dodger contend) or whether we don't yet know (as I contend) -- one way or the other, once it is known, then there is no barrier to creating human-like sentience in machines except for our own technical prowess.

I don't think that anyone is arguing that consciousness is definitely not produced by some kind of physical process in the brain. The argument seems to be between the computationalists (I've referred to them as Strong AI proponents) who claim that the execution of an algorithm is both necessary and sufficient to create the conscious experience.

 

[westprog]

Note that my wording was "each state's measurement can have a precise symbolic representation"

A hurricane is an example of a physical process where each state's measurement cannot have a precise symbolic representation.

I've seen weather charts, and different states of hurricanes have been represented symbolically. Properties of hurricanes can be measured.