Has consciousness been fully explained?

[AlBell]

What is 'real time' ? Didn't Einstein put that one to bed?

For our purposes, looking at the clock on the wall will be ok. The same time we'd use to determine how rapidly our computer was performing operations.

That's why it has to be a thought experiment - it seems unlikely that even quantum computing could do the job.



Abstraction. Thought experiments allow us to reason about things we can never do in practice. Ask Einstein about Special Relativity

Which was not what the thread was originally contemplating. We now appear to have reached the angels-on-pins level of unprovable flights of fancy.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Getting personal sure helps your case

So you won't actually answer the question? You were the one trying to squirm out of it. If you want to call that getting personal, go right ahead.

You can either answer the question or not.

 

[!Kaggen]

That's how thought experiments work.

The useless ones, sure.

It's nothing to do with religion. It's rational speculation that might give us a different perspective on things.

It is religion when you confuse the abstractions with reality.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

The idea of a Turing test is to test whether a simulation is equivalent to reality. If the claim is that reality is a simulation, well then the Turing test is useless. If the claim is we will never know whether reality is a simulation, then its religion.

Evolve has a very specific meaning in the Theory of Evolution. Using the same concept out of context to get your idea across is word games.

No, I'm afraid that is not the idea of the Turing test. The Turing test was devised as a way of determining if a machine can demonstrate intelligence; we have expanded it for this thread to discuss if a machine can demonstrate consciousness. It has nothing to do with whether or not a simulation is equivalent to reality; and it doesn't matter one whit if 'reality' is a simulation as far as the testing is concerned.

There is nothing in the Theory of Evolution that precludes the ideas being used in this sort of discussion. That is simply wrong. If you think there is a serious problem in talking about computer simulations being involved with evolution and evolutionary theory there are a few researchers at Michigan State who probably need to speak to you.

 

[!Kaggen]

So you won't actually answer the question? You were the one trying to squirm out of it. If you want to call that getting personal, go right ahead.

You can either answer the question or not.

So calling someone a wimp is not getting personal.
Time you left the abstractions alone for a while and interacted with real people.

 

[dlorde]

I practice consciousness all the time that I am awake, no need for thought experiments with this one.

Practice makes perfect, eh?

But seriously, if we want to investigate exactly what we mean by consciousness (surely necessary before establishing the subject of the topic?), we should use any reasonable and acceptable technique that seems appropriate. Thought experiments are a reasonable and well-established technique for rational consideration of abstruse ideas. You are welcome to argue their assumptions, and you are welcome argue their rationale.

 

[dlorde]

For our purposes, looking at the clock on the wall will be ok. The same time we'd use to determine how rapidly our computer was performing operations.

Your comments suggest you don't understand thought experiments. The quality of the arguments you have previously displayed suggests you do... but I'll try again:

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that time was not a problem - that we had the technology to run such simulations, and that we could accumulate and interpret the results, however long it might take.

Can you visualise this situation? If so, what do you make of the arguments proposed?

Which was not what the thread was originally contemplating. We now appear to have reached the angels-on-pins level of unprovable flights of fancy.

FLights of fancy, perhaps; but with a rational point. The idea is that thought experiments allow you to rationalise about experiments you can't physically perform. This is relevant to the OP because it provides a way to consider the problem in the absence of the complicating factors that are present in other ways of looking at it.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

So calling someone a wimp is not getting personal.
Time you left the abstractions alone for a while and interacted with real people.

If you accept the term wimp as applying to you, then you have decided to worm out of the question. I said you can act like a wimp (not that you are one) if you so choose and worm out of the question, which is what you have apparently decided to do. Or you could man up and answer the question instead of trying to apply a technicality that exists in your mind alone.

It is entirely up to you. You decide your own actions.

So I will ask again, does the simulated organism evolve?

We can't say, for instance, that a simulated ball 'rolls'? I mean rolling is defined in terms of balls made of matter isn't it?

 

[!Kaggen]

No, I'm afraid that is not the idea of the Turing test. The Turing test was devised as a way of determining if a machine can demonstrate intelligence; we have expanded it for this thread to discuss if a machine can demonstrate consciousness. It has nothing to do with whether or not a simulation is equivalent to reality; and it doesn't matter one whit if 'reality' is a simulation as far as the testing is concerned.

The TT is not just about whether a machine is intelligent, its about whether the human judge, judges it so. This matters a lot, since the Test does not specify a specific human, its any human. So you might pass the machine off as intelligent, but how will you predict how others will judge the machine? So from within our world we can make no predictions of how the human judge will behave. This is very different to the simulations and further simulations within these simulations we create in this world which are by definition predictable. What you are doing is claiming that the starting point of the abstraction process is irrelevant, but that is not true.

There is nothing in the Theory of Evolution that precludes the ideas being used in this sort of discussion. That is simply wrong. If you think there is a serious problem in talking about computer simulations being involved with evolution and evolutionary theory there are a few researchers at Michigan State who probably need to speak to you.

Using models for studying evolution is not about seeing evolution, its about organizing our thoughts as to how evolution might have happened so that we know where to look for physical evidence to support these thoughts.

 

[!Kaggen]

No, because even if what we consider reality is a simulation, applying the Turing test to a simulated mind would be a comparison of two different simulations.

The starting point of your abstraction process is within our reality were the human judge's response in the Turing Test is unpredictable.
So by calling the human judge's reality a simulation does not make it conceptually equivalent to a simulation created within that reality.
But then again you like to define things into boxes so you can stack them up nice and neatly like a good mathematician.
That is why I like soil, its a mess.

 

[dlorde]

The useless ones, sure.

I must have missed the post where you explained how it was useless. Care to post a link, or an argument?

It is religion when you confuse the abstractions with reality.

Part of the point of the thought experiment is to question what 'reality' means from the point of view of the simulated entity. The abstractions are not being confused with reality, the meaning of reality is being questioned for the purpose of the argument.

If you're not comfortable discussing the topic in this way, is there some other way of approaching it that you'd prefer?

 

[!Kaggen]

If you accept the term wimp as applying to you, then you have decided to worm out of the question. I said you can act like a wimp (not that you are one) if you so choose and worm out of the question, which is what you have apparently decided to do. Or you could man up and answer the question instead of trying to apply a technicality that exists in your mind alone.

You like these word games I see.

So I will ask again, does the simulated organism evolve?

We can't say, for instance, that a simulated ball 'rolls'? I mean rolling is defined in terms of balls made of matter isn't it?

and I am not playing.

See my answer in a previous post about using models in the study of evolution.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

The TT is not just about whether a machine is intelligent, its about whether the human judge, judges it so. This matters a lot, since the Test does not specify a specific human, its any human. So you might pass the machine off as intelligent, but how will you predict how others will judge the machine? So from within our world we can make no predictions of how the human judge will behave. This is very different to the simulations and further simulations within these simulations we create in this world which are by definition predictable. What you are doing is claiming that the starting point of the abstraction process is irrelevant, but that is not true.

I think, once again, that we have a basic misunderstanding. The simulation we are discussing is as predictable as the world in which we live in right now. It is supposed to be an exact replica; it would be predictable only to a god or in a god-like way.

We are talking about a thought experiment here, not a real simulation that we could create tomorrow. There is simply no more predictability to it than to anything else. If you think there is, then you are not thinking about it the way it was proposed.

Using models for studying evolution is not about seeing evolution, its about organizing our thoughts as to how evolution might have happened so that we know where to look for physical evidence to support these thoughts.

There are many ways to model evolution. The form I am speaking about is a way of showing evolution. It has already been done; the 'organisms' within the simulation evolve. There is one that uses basically DNA and others that use 'organisms'. They are used to check out different aspects of evolution, but there is no question that the simulations do evolve. If they did not then the models would be useless for examining evolution.

Your evasion is duly noted.

 

[Meed]

No, that's exactly my point. You can't distinguish between reality and a simulation.

I was asking what rocketdodger's point was regarding a specific statement, so whether that is exactly your point is irrelevant to the question.

 

[Clive]

One interesting aspect to simulations of our own universe or own brain (plus sufficient environmental context) is that there always appears to be at least one "god" from the perspective of the entities within the simulation, even if they cannot detect it. On the other hand many claim that the "real universe" definitely has no god. Does this not imply that those same people are 100% sure our universe is not a simulation?

Or, can the entities in a simulated universe eliminate the necessary existence of at least one "god" by postulating that the simulation they exist within is merely an accident of some kind - perhaps the result of enough monkeys playing with enough pebbles on a large enough beach for a fairly long time? If so, does it matter if neither the monkeys nor any other entity at that level or higher have the ability to recognise the encoding used in the pebbles-on-a-beach-accidental-simulation?

If it's something like the monkeys playing on the beach, then when does the simulation universe actually exist or change. Is it when a pebble is first placed in a "correct position", must the pebbles always be placed in some particular order?

Let's get really fanciful now, say the moneys accidentally create a pattern of rocks similar to that in the XKCD cartoon strip but with a few errors here and there. Then along comes some "intelligent" stick figure fella who happens to be be familiar with Wolfram's rule 110. Stick figure fella recognises the pattern as being close to a production of rule 110 so (perhaps being some kind of savant) he then wanders up and down all the rows making all changes required to produce the correct pattern. Is a universe being simulated even though neither the monkeys nor the stick figure has any idea of what the encoding is or represents?

 

[dlorde]

... This is very different to the simulations and further simulations within these simulations we create in this world which are by definition predictable...

Not necessarily - a sufficiently accurate simulation would obviously have to include the same degree of randomness of the environment it is simulating. No problem in a thought experiment. As it happens, true random number generators are also available in what we call the real world

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

One interesting aspect to simulations of our own universe or own brain (plus sufficient environmental context) is that there always appears to be at least one "god" from the perspective of the entities within the simulation, even if they cannot detect it. On the other hand many claim that the "real universe" definitely has no god. Does this not imply that those same people are 100% sure our universe is not a simulation?

Or, can the entities in a simulated universe eliminate the necessary existence of at least one "god" by postulating that the simulation they exist within is merely an accident of some kind - perhaps the result of enough monkeys playing with enough pebbles on a large enough beach for a fairly long time? If so, does it matter if neither the monkeys nor any other entity at that level or higher have the ability to recognise the encoding used in the pebbles-on-a-beach-accidental-simulation?

If it's something like the monkeys playing on the beach, then when does the simulation universe actually exist or change. Is it when a pebble is first placed in a "correct position", must the pebbles always be placed in some particular order?

Let's get really fanciful now, say the moneys accidentally create a pattern of rocks similar to that in the XKCD cartoon strip but with a few errors here and there. Then along comes some "intelligent" stick figure fella who happens to be be familiar with Wolfram's rule 110. Stick figure fella recognises the pattern as being close to a production of rule 110 so (perhaps being some kind of savant) he then wanders up and down all the rows making all changes required to produce the correct pattern. Is a universe being simulated even though neither the monkeys nor the stick figure has any idea of what the encoding is or represents?

For there to be a god that one has access to or not one has to assume that the denizens of the simulation actually know that they are in a simulation. No one knows that; we think we are in 'reality'. The metaphysical point that I have been making -- that we do not know if we are in the same situation -- is an attempt to help people see things as they should have in the first place if they actually took the simulation seriously.

But, if we are a part of a simulation, then, yes, there is some god-like creature that created it. That does not, however, imply dualism, as has been suggested. It could very easily mean that we do not understand the nature of our reality, which in that situation would consist in the action of computer parts.

As to monkeys placing rocks, it would be in the action that a simulation takes place; and, yes, it would have to follow a very specific sequence to create meaning. Not any sequence of actions can create a particular type of meaning.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Sorry, I missed your post.

One might say it's monistic, but you have changed the basic stuff (from the pov of the simulating world: from physical "strings", assuming they are basic, to cyber-strings, which are data packets programmed to behave exactly the same).

I'm afraid I'm not following. How has the basic stuff changed? Stay in the 'real world' and we see 'stuff' -- possibly physical strings -- and in the simulation there is action (from our perspective). In the simulation the denizens see their world as begin composed of the same things we call physical strings. That we know they are wrong can be confusing if we lose sight of what we are discussing, but there is no dualism involved.

There is no change in basic stuff.

Part of the argument is there is no dualism because there is no undefined interaction between two different, basic stuffs.

The resistance to the simulation argument seems to be there needs to be an underlying physics -- that of the computer switch sequences which are the uninterpreted data packets (plus the rules for interpretation, which are... interesting, ontologically; hard to categorize, especially from the pov of the simulated world: metaphysical? irrelevant?) -- beneath the simulated world which isn't necessarily there in the simulating world. Physical changes in the simulating world are logically interpreted (in the simulating world) as a simulation: as physical changes in the simulated world.

So there is a one-to-one correspondence between logical changes in the interpreted switch sequences and 'physical' changes in the basic stuff in the simulated world.

The question is: is that one-to-one correspondence sufficient for a "real" world, as we experience reality? If not, why not?

It's a headscratcher, alright (or a simulation of one).

Could we do it? Who knows? Does it matter? I don't think so. It is a thought experiment after all; Pixy and RD originally proposed it as a reductio ad absurdum to show that resistance to it demonstrates folks' underlying dualism.

 

[dlorde]

One interesting aspect to simulations of our own universe or own brain (plus sufficient environmental context) is that there always appears to be at least one "god" from the perspective of the entities within the simulation, even if they cannot detect it. On the other hand many claim that the "real universe" definitely has no god. Does this not imply that those same people are 100% sure our universe is not a simulation?

No. The idea that our universe could be a simulation doesn't mandate a belief that it is. Even if we could, in principle, determine that we were simulated (and I don't see how we could), we'd have no basis to assume we were, unless we detected a significant anomaly in our observations.

ISTM that when most people say "there is definitely no God", they are simply asserting that (as they see it) there is no evidence for God and no reason to believe there might be. It's a kind of shorthand. I suspect there is a minority of atheists who believe there is no God for irrational reasons, but <shrug>.

Or, can the entities in a simulated universe eliminate the necessary existence of at least one "god" by postulating that the simulation they exist within is merely an accident of some kind - perhaps the result of enough monkeys playing with enough pebbles on a large enough beach for a fairly long time? If so, does it matter if neither the monkeys nor any other entity at that level or higher have the ability to recognise the encoding used in the pebbles-on-a-beach-accidental-simulation?

Don't forget that an accurate simulation would have to involve a simulation of whatever evidence of God that would be available to those involved...

Let's get really fanciful now, say the moneys accidentally create a pattern of rocks similar to that in the XKCD cartoon strip but with a few errors here and there. Then along comes some "intelligent" stick figure fella who happens to be be familiar with Wolfram's rule 110. Stick figure fella recognises the pattern as being close to a production of rule 110 so (perhaps being some kind of savant) he then wanders up and down all the rows making all changes required to produce the correct pattern. Is a universe being simulated even though neither the monkeys nor the stick figure has any idea of what the encoding is or represents?

Wow! Great question! The surprising answer, is that yes, a universe is being simulated. It doesn't matter who understands what, or if there is any consciousness behind the activity, but as long as there is activity that accurately simulates what happens in the (speculatively simulated) universe, that universe is being simulated, and that means that the simulated universe is functional.

 

[AlBell]

It is a thought experiment after all;

It is now.

Pixy and RD originally proposed it as a reductio ad absurdum to show that resistance to it demonstrates folks' underlying dualism.

Perhaps. I don't agree.

I of course may be wrong, but await Pixy/RD clarification.