Has consciousness been fully explained?

[quixotecoyote]

The brain is a massively parallel information processing system. It uses neurons to create patterns by adding and deleting the connections between them. A neurobiologist could go into great detail about synaptic learning and how the axons in the neuron can vary the connection to create different kinds of patterns and signal flow.

However, the bottom line is that it is, in principle, an organic computer. The program (eta: well, one program) this organic computer is running either produces or is called consciousness, depending on viewpoint.

If you can simulate that on another kind of computer, if you emulate the organic computer and run the same program, it is only to be expected that the program once again either produces or is conscious.

 

[Drachasor]

What you're saying here is that a machine which runs a digital simulation of a physical system will itself begin behaving like that physical system.

Which isn't true. It can't, because then it will stop being an apparatus that can run simulations, which will then end the process you claim allows it to behave like the simulated system.

In order to run the simulation, the apparatus must be an apparatus that runs simulations.

So if that's what it's doing, then that's what it's doing.

I am saying it will behave like that physical system within the simulation.

That means a brain, given proper avenues for input and output, will simulate learning, friendship, love, thought, creativity, etc. Give it a connection to the internet, for instance, and it could take in what people right, simulate a biological brain's reaction to them, post those reactions, and so forth. It could interact with people, simulating how humans form friendships with others, and it would simulate the feeling of loss if a friend died or disappeared. Given the same stimuli, it would produce the same reactions as a normal human brain due to the accuracy of the simulation.

How would this not be conscious?

 

[Malerin]

It depends on the rules used to write the 1s and 0s. Randomly writing down 1s and 0s? No. If the rules were sufficiently complicated, involved input from an environment of some sort, and what one person wrote down affected what other people wrote...then you could have some sort of extremely slow consciousness, I believe.

This is no different than saying you could create an intelligence by having a few billion people each act like one brain or nerve cell, and carry out what that cell would do including receiving and transmitting information to other cells, forming new connections, and receiving sensory information from the environment.

A random process, carried out long enough, will eventually replicate any set of rules. But that's beside the point.

What is the mechanism by which consciousness arises from people writing down 1's and 0's? And what becomes conscious? The paper?

 

[Malerin]

It will cause the simulated universe to stop work.

A simulation that is an accurate representation of the big bang will start a simulated universe to start working.A simulation that is an accurate representation of a mechanic cypher will encode information.

A simulation that is an accurate representation of a PS1 will run playstation games (that are on simulated CDs, of course...or real CDs if you have it translate information from your CD drive).

A simulation that is an accurate representation of a brain with input and output will take in stimulus along simulated nerves and output stimulus along simulated nerves. Feed it an education and Shakespeare via the inputs and it will simulate a changing and learning brain, and simulate emotions and feelings regarding the Bard. It would be able to simulate the creation of a term paper and simulate a real brain's reaction to emotional events. It could simulate falling in love. How would this not be conscious?

I think we're headed down the it's-real-within-the-simulation path again, which I can't see as anything other than dualism (not that I'm opposed to dualism, but I'm quite the minority here).

 

[Drachasor]

A random process, carried out long enough, will eventually replicate any set of rules. But that's beside the point.

What is the mechanism by which consciousness arises from people writing down 1's and 0's? And what becomes conscious? The paper?

The system becomes conscious, just like with the Chinese Room, no one person understand Chinese, but the SYSTEM does.

And momentarily replicating a set of rules isn't the same as following them. A group of insects randomly flying around will produce pictures in the air if they fly long enough. That doesn't make them artists. Might come across as spooky or something though.

 

[westprog]

If you want to claim that running a sim which you and I interpret (in our imaginations) to be a human body somehow changes what the machine is doing physically so that it, too, exhibits the behavior of a human body, please, provide an explanation of how that occurs.

It's interesting that the Turing test has been devised in such a way that it's necessary to allow us to converse with the artificial intelligences. (Incidentally, the Turing test was not, of course, designed to test for consciousness - that's a later interpretation). One wonders why this is necessary? If we could see the simulated beings interacting with each other, in a similar way to the way in which human beings interact, wouldn't that be sufficient evidence that they are conscious?

The reason that this isn't a test for anything in particular is that we already have simulations that allow us to watch simulated humans interacting, speaking, reproducing, dying and so on. They do so on DVD's, though in Turing's era, it was necessary to visit a cinema.

So when we buy a box set of Sex In The City, or Lost, we can say "Yes, the people on the DVD aren't eating and sleeping in the real world, but they are in their simulated world. Those are simulated cars and houses, and the simulated people live in them. And they have simulated consciousness." We don't say that, and we don't believe it. But if someone finally hacks together some scripts that can carry out a five minute conversation, we're supposed to believe there's a conscious entity there? Why?

 

[Drachasor]

I think we're headed down the it's-real-within-the-simulation path, which I can't see as anything other than dualism (not that I'm opposed to dualism, but I'm quite the minority here).

No, my point is that for something like consciousness, "real within the simulation" isn't any different from "real." If you can't tell the difference in behavior when you hook it up to the outside world, interact with it, or whatever, then it is really conscious.

 

[quixotecoyote]

The system becomes conscious, just like with the Chinese Room, no one person understand Chinese, but the SYSTEM does.

Rather depends on how the thought experiment is described, but it's an arguable interpretation.

 

[Drachasor]

It's interesting that the Turing test has been devised in such a way that it's necessary to allow us to converse with the artificial intelligences. (Incidentally, the Turing test was not, of course, designed to test for consciousness - that's a later interpretation). One wonders why this is necessary? If we could see the simulated beings interacting with each other, in a similar way to the way in which human beings interact, wouldn't that be sufficient evidence that they are conscious?

The reason that this isn't a test for anything in particular is that we already have simulations that allow us to watch simulated humans interacting, speaking, reproducing, dying and so on. They do so on DVD's, though in Turing's era, it was necessary to visit a cinema.

So when we buy a box set of Sex In The City, or Lost, we can say "Yes, the people on the DVD aren't eating and sleeping in the real world, but they are in their simulated world. Those are simulated cars and houses, and the simulated people live in them. And they have simulated consciousness." We don't say that, and we don't believe it. But if someone finally hacks together some scripts that can carry out a five minute conversation, we're supposed to believe there's a conscious entity there? Why?

I'd argue a 5 minute duration would just be a momentary similarity, like an illusion. Doing it 24/7 for years however...how could one argue with that?

And movies are fundamentally different from a simulation, since they have a set script and a simulation does not.

Rather depends on how the thought experiment is described, but it's an arguable interpretation.

Good point.

 

[Malerin]

The system becomes conscious, just like with the Chinese Room, no one person understand Chinese, but the SYSTEM does.

How does the system become conscious? A part of the system is already conscious, so does that part become meta-conscious? Why does one pattern of numbers cause consciousness while another pattern doesn't? What parts of the system are necessary for consciousness?

And momentarily replicating a set of rules isn't the same as following them. A group of insects randomly flying around will produce pictures in the air if they fly long enough. That doesn't make them artists. Might come across as spooky or something though.

A random process would produce a conscious moment, just as insects flying randomly can produce a momentary image. If the random process went on long enough, it would produce many conscious moments, spread out over a long length of time. It follows then that monkeys randomly flipping switches (or writing down numbers) would eventually create a stream of consciousness.

 

[Malerin]

No, my point is that for something like consciousness, "real within the simulation" isn't any different from "real."

Why is consciousness special? For any other property/action/thing, there's a big difference between "real within the simulation" and "real".

If you can't tell the difference in behavior when you hook it up to the outside world, interact with it, or whatever, then it is really conscious.

How does that follow? We can be fooled by something that appears to be conscious, but isn't.

 

[Drachasor]

Why is consciousness special? For any other property/action/thing, there's a big difference between "real within the simulation" and "real".

I've explicitly stated it isn't some unique flower. I've pointed out cyphers, game systems, and other kinds of information processing. It's not unique at all.

How does that follow? We can be fooled by something that appears to be conscious, but isn't.

Really? Name an example that holds together for a sustained duration.

 

[Meed]

Sure, it isn't the same as duplicating real objects. Replacing a mechanical phone line routing system with an electrical one is also not duplicating the mechanical device. That doesn't mean it doesn't do the same job.

It's creating a functional equivalent. Simulating the phone line with a symbol manipulator and roll of tape or by writing 1s and 0s down on a piece of paper wouldn't do the same job.

And that's relevant how? We don't need an exact duplicate, only one that copies the essential behavior of the original.

Well, a simulator can't duplicate the essential behavior of a phone line.

Does a quadriplegic not qualify as human? Are they sub-human if they are also blind? You overstate the need for a body a bit. We all agree they'd need some sort of input from an environment, and the ability to interact with that environment. But saying it needs to be "just like a human body" is silly. You'd seem to be dismissing people like Helen Keller.

You said we could interact with it just like we interact with humans. We interact with humans by interacting with their bodies. Obviously I can't interact with Helen Keller or Terry Shiavo the same way I can interact with an average person. That just means "you can interact with it the same way you can interact with a human" is a vague claim. But regardless of the fact that human bodies vary from person to person, the body is still the only means by which we can interact with a person.

Are muscles required to be conscious? I think not, and you'd need a pretty good argument to claim otherwise.

I didn't say they are. I was just pointing out that you can't interact with something "the same way as you interact with a human" if there is no body involved.

 

[Drachasor]

How does the system become conscious? A part of the system is already conscious, so does that part become meta-conscious? Why does one pattern of numbers cause consciousness while another pattern doesn't? What parts of the system are necessary for consciousness?

I will grant I can't precisely say how it will become conscious, because we don't know exactly how humans become conscious. We DO know how the brain works on small scales. We know that somehow these interactions in a large network lead to consciousness. Precisely how this is so, we aren't sure. Then again, we aren't sure precisely how the neurons that processing visual information give rise to the exact processing we see, but that doesn't mean that if you simulated that bit of neural machinery it wouldn't do the same job.

Likewise, I can't precisely detail all the parts of the brain that could be removed and still leave you with consciousness. I can point to some parts, of course, because we have examples of people with brain damage who still function, but I can't point them all out because while we do not know all the parts of the brain that are necessary and sufficient to produce consciousness. This is why I have talked about simulating the entire brain, rather than just a part.

A random process would produce a conscious moment, just as insects flying randomly can produce a momentary image. If the random process went on long enough, it would produce many conscious moments, spread out over a long length of time. It follows then that monkeys randomly flipping switches (or writing down numbers) would eventually create a stream of consciousness.

I agree, probably in much the same matter that if you break enough eggs on the floor, then they'll eventually unbreak themselves and jump back into your hand. It's NOT physically impossible after all, just insanely unlikely that the random motions of the particles will result in that.

 

[Drachasor]

It's creating a functional equivalent. Simulating the phone line with a symbol manipulator and roll of tape or by writing 1s and 0s down on a piece of paper wouldn't do the same job.

Attaching an input and output to that would, if you can write fast enough. If the signal isn't very time dependent, this is even easier.

Again, no one is proposing a brain not connected to an outside world.

Well, a simulator can't duplicate the essential behavior of a phone line.

With input and output it can most certainly do this.

You said we could interact with it just like we interact with humans. We interact with humans by interacting with their bodies. Obviously I can't interact with Helen Keller or Terry Shiavo the same way I can interact with an average person. That just means "you can interact with it the same way you can interact with a human" is a vague claim. But regardless of the fact that human bodies vary from person to person, the body is still the only means by which we can interact with a person.

You could talk to it, you could text it, you could call it on the phone. You could debate philosophy. You could fall in love with it and it with you. Etc, etc. That better? It isn't like a simulation doesn't have a body. The body is a computer. You could pat it on the "head" if you want.

My point is that you could interact with it in all the ways that are important as far as consciousness are concerned.

 

[Malerin]

Why is consciousness special? For any other property/action/thing, there's a big difference between "real within the simulation" and "real".

I've explicitly stated it isn't some unique flower. I've pointed out cyphers, game systems, and other kinds of information processing. It's not unique at all.

So consciousness is just information processing?

How does that follow? We can be fooled by something that appears to be conscious, but isn't.

Really? Name an example that holds together for a sustained duration.

Pokerbot.We have by far the most sophisticated, undetectable and accurate poker bot for online Texas Hold'em that's available on the Internet.

I'm sure I've been fooled by poker bots more than once (and for a sustained duration, although I'm not sure why the duration of how long we're fooled into thinking something is conscious has any relevance. I think you're moving the goalposts on that).

 

[Malerin]

I will grant I can't precisely say how it will become conscious, because we don't know exactly how humans become conscious. We DO know how the brain works on small scales. We know that somehow these interactions in a large network lead to consciousness. Precisely how this is so, we aren't sure. Then again, we aren't sure precisely how the neurons that processing visual information give rise to the exact processing we see, but that doesn't mean that if you simulated that bit of neural machinery it wouldn't do the same job.

Likewise, I can't precisely detail all the parts of the brain that could be removed and still leave you with consciousness. I can point to some parts, of course, because we have examples of people with brain damage who still function, but I can't point them all out because while we do not know all the parts of the brain that are necessary and sufficient to produce consciousness. This is why I have talked about simulating the entire brain, rather than just a part.



I agree, probably in much the same matter that if you break enough eggs on the floor, then they'll eventually unbreak themselves and jump back into your hand. It's NOT physically impossible after all, just insanely unlikely that the random motions of the particles will result in that.

What would your answer be to the title of the thread?

 

[Drachasor]

So consciousness is just information processing?

All evidence indicates this is the case.

Pokerbot.We have by far the most sophisticated, undetectable and accurate poker bot for online Texas Hold'em that's available on the Internet.

I'm sure I've been fooled by poker bots more than once (and for a sustained duration, although I'm not sure why the duration of how long we're fooled into thinking something is conscious has any relevance. I think you're moving the goalposts on that).

That's some sort of joke, right? You think online poker is something that requires consciousness to play? Are you going to say the same about Chess too? Picking an example where interaction is minimized is a bit silly.

You don't think duration has nothing to do with it? People can see a corpse and think it is alive, does that mean it is alive? No. People can make mistakes and errors in judgment. That's why I say "a sustained duration" because that is relevant in eliminating such errors. I do think that when we have a better understanding of exactly how consciousness emerges we'll probably have better ways to detect it. For right now, sustained and involved interaction seems like the best tool we have.

 

[Drachasor]

What would your answer be to the title of the thread?

"No."

It most definitely hasn't been fully explained. We have a good understanding of what is involved in humans, however. We know where to look and what parts are involved.

 

[rocketdodger]

It would depend on what was used to model the water, which would depend on your purposes.

For some purposes, one would use a liquid, but I can imagine that for other purposes a liquid would not be necessary.

It would depend entirely on what characteristics were necessary to the model.

Why do you ask?

Cause you keep asking if simulated water would be wet, and you think a "model" is somehow better than a "simulation." So I was wondering if "model" water can be wet.