On Consciousness

[PixyMisa]

The point I was making is that the ECU is only as useful with respect to SRIP as the hardware it was designed to run. The ECU adds the possibility of SRIP to the vehicle, but this SRIP is dependent on the hardware of the vehicle(engine and its peripheries). If you change the hardware the SRIP is useless.

If you change the hardware too much, yes. Though that's not an issue with SRIP in itself; it's an issue with the parameters and information supplied to it.

What we see with the brain is that even when we change the hardware the brain is not useless. It can even use hardware for one application to perform another.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=device-lets-blind-see-with-tongues

That's a weird one; hearing vision and seeing sound are generally more practical.

So what we need is an ECU that can be plugged into any car that will allow one to drive it from A to B even without wheels.

They built one, but all it did for the first twelve months was scream and make a mess...

Oh and the ECU's do crash. Though not as often as the vehicles.

Yeah.

We do change the goals by expanding the parameters within which the algorithm works. But the algorithm is not designed for every possible change in hardware. It was developed through many hours of testing using the standard hardware.

Modern race factory teams (F1 and WRC) certainly do produce many algorithms for each car set-up and using huge budgets for relentless track testing.

Right.

I look forward to the day when F1 teams have to develop ECU's which are then pooled, mixed up and then randomly handed out to teams to use in their vehicles just before a race.

Also, surface-to-surface missiles.

 

[Belz...]

I suspect you know nothing about consciousness.

Ironic, considering your whole strategy of "introspection" has been tried time and again in history, with predictable results.

 

[quarky]

My car agrees with me.

 

[Belz...]

I'm not the one who said cars are conscious. Take it up with Pixy.

Would you mind, in the mean time, addressing my point about introspection ? I did ask you a question about it or two:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8479163#post8479163

 

[annnnoid]

I have shown conclusively that computers can be conscious.

"We have no idea how consciousness emerges from the physical activity of the brain and we do not know whether consciousness can emerge from non-biological systems, such as computers... At this point the reader will expect to find a careful and precise definition of consciousness. You will be disappointed. Consciousness has not yet become a scientific term that can be defined in this way. Currently we all use the term consciousness in many different and often ambiguous ways. Precise definitions of different aspects of consciousness will emerge ... but to make precise definitions at this stage is premature."

…just a reminder for those who like to think we have already achieved computer nirvana.

And in case you’ve forgotten…that quote was reviewed barely a couple of months ago by it’s authors as well as quite a number of their colleagues at the University College London Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience and confirmed as being an accurate representation of the current consensus in the cog sci community.

There are also statistics that show that it is far from unanimous in the AI community that human consciousness can be instantiated in computers. Certain complex behaviors yes, but human consciousness is acknowledged to be unique….aka: SPECIAL! I have presented these statistics before for anyone with the burning desire to confirm them.

Perhaps we should endeavor to make some distinction between varieties of behavior and consciousness...to the degree that is possible.

I have shown that self-referential information processing is what we you mean when we you talk about consciousness.

FTFY

I have shown that this is widespread in computers right now.

SRIP is widespread in computers right now. Is computer “consciousness” the equivalent of human consciousness? According to the opinions of the nerds at UCL you are just wrong.

I have explained exactly why and how the brain is a computer.

Brain = srip

Srip = computer

Computer = brain

Thermostat = computer

Brain = thermostat

Brain = conscious

Thermostat = conscious

Pixy logic. Yes…..no?

All of these make it clear that consciousness is computational.

And it is also clear that this is a theory. Aka: metaphysics. It will be science when it is falsifiable.

You have... What? Stamped your foot, if that?

…am predicting we will now witness evidence of Pixy’s ability to stamp his (simulated) foot.

Yep. Awareness is reference; self-awareness is (quite logically) self-reference.


Self is the thing that is doing the thing that is being done. Or to put it a little more concretely, if a given process is aware of something, and then that process also becomes aware of its own processing state, then it is self-referential and self-aware.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflection_(computer_programming)

"The use of anthropomorphic terminology when dealing with computing systems is a symptom of professional immaturity." Ew Dijkstra

…wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that reference is awareness therefore self-reference is self awareness. And the thing is the self that is being the thing that is being doing. Or to put it a little more incoherently…if a given awareness is processing a something, and that then awareness also aware’s become of its state of processing own, the it is self aware and self referential.

What if the ‘thing that is being done’ IS self?

Here we have JuQUEEN. JuQUEEN does weather simulations (among other things). Therefore JuQUEEN is a weather simulation. But does JuQUEEN ‘know’ that ‘it’ ‘is’ ‘a’ ‘weather’ ‘simulation’ ‘?’

…hang on…got that wrong. JuQUEEN is the ‘thing that is doing the thing that is being done’. Hmmmmmmmmmmm???? The ‘thing that is being done’ (sounds rather…Kantian) would be….what?...on’s and off’s? 1’s and 0’s? A weather simulation? If I penetrate to the ‘heart’ of JuQUEEN at any particular moment, what will I find? A ‘self’? A piece of code? A subroutine? A raindrop? A simulation of a raindrop? What is a weather simulation "aware" of anyway? …being a weather simulation? Being a program? Being a computer? Being anything? What exists where / how (and according to who / what) in any computer that is the equivalent of a ‘self’? Does ‘computer consciousness’ exist when a computer is on but doing nothing?

 

[Frank Newgent]

Pixy has claimed before that the computer program SHRDLU is conscious.

Fun with that:

Read the conversation and try again.

OK fine.

This will be my third attempt to double-check your link author's experiment.

C:\Users\Frank\Documents\consoleshrdlu[1]>clisp -M lispinit.mem -i loader
i i i i i i i ooooo o ooooooo ooooo ooooo
I I I I I I I 8 8 8 8 8 o 8 8
I \ `+' / I 8 8 8 8 8 8
\ `-+-' / 8 8 8 ooooo 8oooo
`-__|__-' 8 8 8 8 8
| 8 o 8 8 o 8 8
------+------ ooooo 8oooooo ooo8ooo ooooo 8

Copyright (c) Bruno Haible, Michael Stoll 1992, 1993
Copyright (c) Bruno Haible, Marcus Daniels 1994-1997
Copyright (c) Bruno Haible, Pierpaolo Bernardi, Sam Steingold 1998
Copyright (c) Bruno Haible, Sam Steingold 1999

;; Loading file loader ...
;; Loading file fixes ...
;; Loading of file fixes is finished.
;; Loading file progmr ...
;; Loading of file progmr is finished.
;; Loading file cgram ...
;; Loading of file cgram is finished.
;; Loading file syscom ...
;; Loading of file syscom is finished.
;; Loading file smutil ...
;; Loading of file smutil is finished.
;; Loading file smspec ...
;; Loading of file smspec is finished.
;; Loading file smass ...
;; Loading of file smass is finished.
;; Loading file dictio ...
;; Loading of file dictio is finished.
;; Loading file morpho ...
;; Loading of file morpho is finished.
;; Loading file show ...
;; Loading of file show is finished.
;; Loading file blockl ...
;; Loading of file blockl is finished.
;; Loading file plnr ...
;; Loading of file plnr is finished.
;; Loading file setup ...
;; Loading of file setup is finished.
;; Loading file thtrac ...
;; Loading of file thtrac is finished.
;; Loading file blockp ...
;; Loading of file blockp is finished.
;; Loading file data ...
;; Loading of file data is finished.
;; Loading file newans ...
;; Loading of file newans is finished.
;; Loading file mover ...
;; Loading of file mover is finished.

SHRDLU version UMR-1.0
Loaded 12/31/2009 in CLISP 1999-07-22 (July 1999)


READY
Who's on first?

*YES.
PLEASE TYPE <LF> AND CONTINUE THE SENTENCE.
READY
I mean the fellow's name.

*WHO.
PLEASE TYPE <LF> AND CONTINUE THE SENTENCE.
READY
The guy on first.

*WHO.
PLEASE TYPE <LF> AND CONTINUE THE SENTENCE.
READY
The first baseman.

*WHO.
PLEASE TYPE <LF> AND CONTINUE THE SENTENCE.
READY
The guy playing first.

*WHO IS ON FIRST.
PLEASE TYPE <LF> AND CONTINUE THE SENTENCE.
READY
I'm asking you who's on first.

*THAT IS THE MAN'S NAME.
PLEASE TYPE <LF> AND CONTINUE THE SENTENCE.
READY
That's who's name?

*YES.
PLEASE TYPE <LF> AND CONTINUE THE SENTENCE.
READY
Well go ahead and tell me.

*THAT'S IT.
PLEASE TYPE <LF> AND CONTINUE THE SENTENCE.
READY
That's who?

*YES
PLEASE TYPE <LF> AND CONTINUE THE SENTENCE.
READY
Look, do you have a first baseman?

*CERTAINLY.
PLEASE TYPE <LF> AND CONTINUE THE SENTENCE.
READY
Who's playing first?

*THAT IS RIGHT.
PLEASE TYPE <LF> AND CONTINUE THE SENTENCE.
READY

Well Pixy... SHRDLU's answers to my questions can only be interpreted as non-responsive.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Agreed! It's usually written into scripts to stimulate anticipation of a shattering breakthrough -- a cliffhanger to keep the audience from tuning out during the commercial break. I'll scrutinize the context when I find the time and get back to you on that one.

In the meantime, I think "scientific theory" is pretty safe.

Yea, I've watched the docu on Daniel Tammet, and the line "...if it's true, it blows away scientific theory" is complete nonsense just to impress naive viewers. They never followed up with any explanation of exactly what scientific theory is threatened to be blown away.

Tammet's brain is clearly miswired between the visual/spacial/shape analysis are and the number area, as Ramachandran suggests. The miswiring apparently happened as a result of seizures Tammet had when he was four.

What's cool is how Tammet sends his math problem to his processing center, and he can watch the spectacular animation light show as it works on the problem. It's "conscious," but as a fireworks display.

I also think autistic savants must be using the parts of their brains normally purposed for social navigation on technical problems. It's a testament to the huge data processing capacity required for social navigation (I'd conclude because of an arms races over a million of years). Tammet, for example, describes the number 9 as imposing and intimidating, and 6 as diminutive, much like social ranks.

I'm also interested in how the brain processes things unconsciously. Say, someone describes the plot of a movie, and nobody can remember the title. I stop thinking about it, and 15 minutes later, the title pops into my mind. What was the brain doing during that time, how and where, to locate the memory? It obviously didn't need to work on it consciously. Unfortunately, this kind of brain activity is shielded from introspection.

 

[PixyMisa]

"We have no idea how consciousness emerges from the physical activity of the brain and we do not know whether consciousness can emerge from non-biological systems, such as computers...

Argument from authority. I've demonstrated that the bolded part is necessarily false, given established laws of physics. The first part is simply an overstatement.

There are also statistics that show that it is far from unanimous in the AI community that human consciousness can be instantiated in computers.

Argument from popularity. And as I said, provably wrong.

I have presented these statistics before for anyone with the burning desire to confirm them.

Don't care. Anyone who thinks that consciousness can't be instantiated in a computer needs to address the facts, not just count heads.

FTFY

You failed to follow me? Yes you did. Back to Descarte's cogito, when people refer to consciousness they mean self-referential information processing.

SRIP is widespread in computers right now.

Yes.

Is computer “consciousness” the equivalent of human consciousness?

Define equivalent in this context.

According to the opinions of the nerds at UCL you are just wrong.

According to your interpretation of those opinions, you mean.

Brain = srip

No.

Srip = computer

No.

Computer = brain

No.

Thermostat = computer

No.

Brain = thermostat

No.

Brain = conscious

No. One's a noun, the other's an adjective.

Thermostat = conscious

Given that I have pointed out dozens of times that this is precisely the opposite of what I'm saying... No.

Pixy logic. Yes…..no?

Every single one of those statements was wrong.

Even for you, that's pretty good work.

 

[PixyMisa]

Pixy has claimed before that the computer program SHRDLU is conscious.

Yes. It is.

And so even are you.

 

[AlBell]

I have shown conclusively that computers can be conscious.

No; you have asserted it.

I have shown that self-referential information processing is what we mean when we talk about consciousness.

No; you have asserted it.

I have shown that this is widespread in computers right now. I have explained exactly why and how the brain is a computer. All of these make it clear that consciousness is computational.

No; you have asserted it.

You have... What? Stamped your foot, if that?

Pot ... Kettle.

 

[PixyMisa]

No; you have asserted it.

Wrong. If you want to discuss the argument I've laid out, feel free, but to claim that I haven't presented such an argument is obvious nonsense.

No; you have asserted it.

Again, obvious nonsense. Unpack Descarte's cogito and consider what he is saying.

No; you have asserted it.

Again, obvious nonsense.

If you want to ask questions about any of the points I've made, feel free, but don't tray to claim that I haven't made them. The thread is right here. Everyone can see it.

 

[Jeff Corey]

I'm lost in this alternate universe where KITT and computers are conscious, so I must bid you all adieu and see if I can find the rabbit hole egress.

 

[Belz...]

"We have no idea how consciousness emerges from the physical activity of the brain and we do not know whether consciousness can emerge from non-biological systems, such as computers... At this point the reader will expect to find a careful and precise definition of consciousness. You will be disappointed. Consciousness has not yet become a scientific term that can be defined in this way. Currently we all use the term consciousness in many different and often ambiguous ways. Precise definitions of different aspects of consciousness will emerge ... but to make precise definitions at this stage is premature."

Giggle. The bolded part would seem to imply that the laws of physics that apply to brains don't apply to non-brains.

 

[quarky]

I'm not the one who said cars are conscious. Take it up with Pixy.

Would you mind, in the mean time, addressing my point about introspection ? I did ask you a question about it or two:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=8479163#post8479163

I believe that I mentioned that my views on that could not be classified as science; that the debate is philosophical. Consciousness can be explored by the individual, without dissecting the brain or studying computers.
To verify that, you would need to meditate or take a nice dose of a psychoactive chemical. This puts it in a subjective realm, and is not an avenue for a science discussion. That doesn't mean its invalid in a discussion on consciousness.
I think Pixy is being silly. He/she thinks/knows he/she is correct.
I disagree. I don't see consciousness in any machines, thus far.
It surprises me that this is such a contentious view-point.

Do you suppose the majority of scientists would disagree?
What % of scientists do you suppose would agree that a car is conscious?

Is David Hasslehoff (The Hoff) conscious?

 

[Belz...]

I believe that I mentioned that my views on that could not be classified as science; that the debate is philosophical.

Philosophical debates are entertaining, but not very useful.

Consciousness can be explored by the individual, without dissecting the brain or studying computers.

I've already addressed this. Introspection leads to widely different interpretations, and is not useful. We know this.

To verify that, you would need to meditate or take a nice dose of a psychoactive chemical.

Again: no. Just because you have an experience doesn't mean it gives you useful information on reality. See my exemple with the pile of clothes in the darkness or the irrational fear of elevators that some people have.

You are yet to explain to me why consciousness is different from other phenomena.

This puts it in a subjective realm, and is not an avenue for a science discussion. That doesn't mean its invalid in a discussion on consciousness.

Actually, I believe it does mean that. As Pixy noted, a brain on drugs is not functioning properly. Hell, even when its functioning properly it is very poor at making judgments about its own state.

I think Pixy is being silly. He/she thinks/knows he/she is correct.
I disagree. I don't see consciousness in any machines, thus far.
It surprises me that this is such a contentious view-point.

Then perhaps you are simply using a definition of consciousness that is incompatible with the one Pixy uses, so I'll ask you: what is your definition ?

 

[Mr. Scott]

I don't see consciousness in any machines, thus far.

What's the minimum you would need to see in a particular machine to convince you it was conscious?

 

[Zeuzzz]

Argument from authority.

And pretty good, and relevant, argument from said authority, at that.

 

[quarky]

Philosophical debates are entertaining, but not very useful.



I've already addressed this. Introspection leads to widely different interpretations, and is not useful. We know this.



Again: no. Just because you have an experience doesn't mean it gives you useful information on reality. See my exemple with the pile of clothes in the darkness or the irrational fear of elevators that some people have.

You are yet to explain to me why consciousness is different from other phenomena.



Actually, I believe it does mean that. As Pixy noted, a brain on drugs is not functioning properly. Hell, even when its functioning properly it is very poor at making judgments about its own state.



Then perhaps you are simply using a definition of consciousness that is incompatible with the one Pixy uses, so I'll ask you: what is your definition ?

Yes, philosophical debates have there place, which is why I petitioned to have this thread moved to an appropriate sub forum.
If I tried to define consciousness, in would be mere hypothesis, from anecdotal observations. So far, it would disclude machines, but not out of meaness or envy or paranoia or tree-huggy spiritualism.

To suggest that consciousness is some sort of background radiation would do it a disservice. Though I strongly suspect that its closer to that than some convictions that it is mere electronics and mechanics, that we can, and have replicated.

Which brings it back to semantics: Is the definition of consciousness the one that Pixy has so forcefully insisted on?
Am I allowed to disagree?

And suggest again, that the thread be moved?

I'm going with Jeff Corey. Maybe he's found that egress by now.

 

[dlorde]

Pixy does, in the computing context. He says it's an emergent property of computation.

I'm not sure that was what he meant. Nevertheless, a characteristic of emergent behaviours are generally unpredictable given a knowledge of the elements from which they emerge, e.g. the bulk behavioural properties of water (turbulence, etc.) are not directly predictable from the properties of a water molecule, or the Mandelbrot Set from z_n+1 = z_n² + c.

Have you heard of any evidence of prehuman intelligence that you would not unhesitatingly dismiss as "woo"?

It depends what you mean by 'prehuman', but non-human primates (and other extant species) show intelligence, so I have no problem with 'prehuman' intelligence. But intelligence isn't consciousness (though I have no problem with 'prehuman' consciousness either).

I can't help feeling if awareness is a good trick (and it seems so bound to intelligence the two are essentially one) then it should have evolved many times.

Almost all life I can think of has some level of awareness. It's hard to survive unless you can sense and respond to your environment. Conscious awareness is more sophisticated, and seems to be a feature of higher mammals (but it's hard to tell without a clear behavioural definition - there are non-mammalian candidates, e.g. corvids).

which suggests there is something very special about the way human brains are built and that suggests its going to be less easy to copy.

The evidence is pretty clear that human brains are basically typical primate brains with an extended frontal cortex; nothing 'very special' about the structure compared to other primate (or general mammalian) brains.

... like most of us you would argue that evolution works by modifying existing body parts.

No - unless you count DNA as a 'body part'. Body parts do get modified, but that's only part of the story.

I think it's either there or it isn't. That does not stop it changing and growing within one life or over evolutionary history. But it's either there or it isn't.
... if consciousness is not an actual example of something which is either on or not on, I can't think of a better one.
...An eye that works as a light sensor is a light sensor. It's not the Hubble, but it may not have to be. It's a basis for selection to work on.
But consciousness is surely either there or it's not? (There may be degrees, but there must be a point below which one is not conscious and above which, one is. If you disagree, then we are thinking of consciousness surprisingly differently. Could you explain how you think of partial consciousness?

OK, that's just semantics. You may as well say an eye is either there or it is not; it's just a matter of personal preference where in the evolutionary development from light sensitive skin cell to camera-like eye you draw the line between eye and not (yet) eye - and if you want to call the skin cell an eye, how light sensitive does it have to be before it's an eye?

 

[Beelzebuddy]

"We have no idea how consciousness emerges from the physical activity of the brain and we do not know whether consciousness can emerge from non-biological systems, such as computers... At this point the reader will expect to find a careful and precise definition of consciousness. You will be disappointed. Consciousness has not yet become a scientific term that can be defined in this way. Currently we all use the term consciousness in many different and often ambiguous ways. Precise definitions of different aspects of consciousness will emerge ... but to make precise definitions at this stage is premature."

…just a reminder for those who like to think we have already achieved computer nirvana

You keep quoting this whole thing, apparently never having read more than the first sentence. Pay close attention to the highlighted bit. It, and the rest of the paragraph, very politely describes the term "consciousness" as meaningless garbage people use to vaguely refer to the process of thinking, but never in any reliable or objective way. The authors are not saying that consciousness is a thing of mystery, they are saying that it isn't even a thing.