• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Has consciousness been fully explained?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think I'm done with this merry-go-round.

As soon as I have time, I'm going to start a thread in the science forum for discussion of research on consciousness from a biological perspective, and put my efforts there.

That thread will explicitly NOT be about computer science, information science, philosophy, or imaginary conscious machines. After all, the cranks have plenty of room to roam here in the philo forum.

Take care, y'all.
 
Piggy said:
I think I'm done with this merry-go-round.

As soon as I have time, I'm going to start a thread in the science forum for discussion of research on consciousness from a biological perspective, and put my efforts there.

That thread will explicitly NOT be about computer science, information science, philosophy, or imaginary conscious machines. After all, the cranks have plenty of room to roam here in the philo forum.

Take care, y'all.
Click to expand...

There is a reason that the computationalists keep their theory of consciousness going in R&P. It's called confirmation bias. They have yet to propose a scientific test which might negate their theory. All they have is evidence which confirms their theory and like all human beliefs their epistemology is no better than anyone else's. The question is whether it's an interesting story they are telling or not and so far it's rather boring.
 
westprog said:
Why on Earth would I believe that there's anything there in the simulation to have a consciousness? That's a massive leap of faith.
Click to expand...

I just pointed out that any distinction is arbitrary ind invalid. You can't tell whether you're in a simulation or not. It's hypocritical to label a hypothetical programmed consciousness as different in any way that matters from your own.
 
Piggy said:
Yes, I do, because you do not seem to be making the connection that you need to be talking about matter.

It makes no sense to say that the building blocks can be programmed. They can't.

That last sentence of yours there also makes no sense, and this is what I'm trying to get across. Apparently without success.

You can represent a system built out of matter, but that's irrelevant.
Click to expand...

How is that irrelevant? When I'm talking about programming neurons, I mean writing a computer program that behaves like a neuron, obviously. I'm not talking about a program that "drives" an actual neuron. That's a huge misunderstanding at best and a massive strawman at worst.
 
Piggy said:
A meaningless statement, if your frame of reference is reality, if you're talking about what it would take to make a computer conscious.
Click to expand...

Meaningless? The frame of reference of a simulated consciousness would also be its own reality. Just like it's yours. It would also have no reason to collapse into solipsism, just as you don't. It would have to assume that everything is real and act accordingly.

Piggy said:
I mean, within the emulated world of Winnie-the-Pooh illustrations, teddy bears have conversations with kangaroos in a hundred-acre wood in England. But this has no bearing on reality.

In a digitally simulated world, you can do whatever you please. What is real "within the emulated world" is not actually real within our world, which is the only one we know of that truly exists.
Click to expand...

See above. The simulated world would be the only one a simulated consciousness would know to truly exist. It would have no way to gather information about the outside world. How is that different from us existing in a causally closed universe?
 
laca said:
How is that irrelevant? When I'm talking about programming neurons, I mean writing a computer program that behaves like a neuron, obviously. I'm not talking about a program that "drives" an actual neuron. That's a huge misunderstanding at best and a massive strawman at worst.
Click to expand...

It's irrelevant for the same reason that writing a computer program that represents a leg is irrelevant to the question of whether artificial legs can be produced by programming alone.
 
laca said:
Meaningless? The frame of reference of a simulated consciousness would also be its own reality.
Click to expand...

No, it would not, because simulations exist only in the minds of those perceiving them. They have no independent existence whatsoever. The only thing independently existing is the machine running the sim, which does not behave in any way like the system being simulated, unless you are redundantly simulating a simulator.

There is no "world of the simulation" outside of the mind of the interpreter.
 
laca said:
The simulated world would be the only one a simulated consciousness would know to truly exist. It would have no way to gather information about the outside world. How is that different from us existing in a causally closed universe?
Click to expand...

The simulated mind knows nothing, just as the simulated power plant produces no electricity.

ETA: Keep in mind that the people actually producing such a simulation agree with me, not you.
 
Piggy said:
There is nothing worth talking about other than "real-life consciousness". Fictional consciousness is beside the point.
Click to expand...

No, consciousness running in a simulation has no use for real legs. It can get by with a simulated leg.
 
Piggy said:
This is like saying that I don't need to build a house to live in, I only need to draw the blueprint. After all, the essential information and relationships are preserved -- what more do you want?
Click to expand...

Yes, Piggy, if you are a simulation, you don't need a real house to live in. Why is that so hard to get?
 
Piggy said:
The analogy is spot on.
Click to expand...

Nope.

Piggy said:
The question at hand (hijack tho it may be) is what it would take to create a conscious machine.
Click to expand...

Why, yes. Let's see... Consciousness happens in the brain. The brain is made up of neurons, most of which we understand enough to program their behavior. Therefore, we can (or will be able to) program (in theory) the behavior of the brain. Consciousness is a subset of that behavior.
 
Piggy said:
The neurons will not be programmable. Representations of the neurons will be programmable.

The difference is crucial, yet consistently ignored by the computationalists around here.
Click to expand...

The difference is purely because of your misunderstanding or a strawman.
 
laca said:
Yes, Piggy, if you are a simulation, you don't need a real house to live in. Why is that so hard to get?
Click to expand...
Because he is still treating consciousness as a substance rather than a behaviour. He's been stuck on that point the entire time.
 
Piggy said:
Ya wooshed me. I don't understand those questions at all, or see how they relate to my earlier posts.
Click to expand...

You said the brain of a newborn was only a few hours old. You even confirmed after me asking. I just wanted to know what you meant by the brain of a newborn being only a few hours old. You could not have meant that it actually formed at childbirth, because that's provably false. So what did you mean by it?

Piggy said:
No, I don't (thank you Jesus) but I do have animals, nieces and nephews.
Click to expand...

OK. Do you think a newborn human is "more conscious" than a newborn puppy? How about an earthworm?
 
PixyMisa said:
Because he is still treating consciousness as a substance rather than a behaviour. He's been stuck on that point the entire time.
Click to expand...

In fact, I have never made that claim, not even once. In fact, I've been perfectly consistent in describing consciousness as behavior.
 
laca said:
You said the brain of a newborn was only a few hours old. You even confirmed after me asking. I just wanted to know what you meant by the brain of a newborn being only a few hours old.
Click to expand...

Oh, Jesus, is that what you meant?

Sorry, but I was using plain English.

Good God almighty.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom