On Consciousness

[!Kaggen]

At some point, the map is the territory, yes, if what you're mapping is another map.

Like I said if you define consciousness as a simulation then obviously it is a simulation.
I have pointed out Pixy Misa circular definition many times.
It's the ultimately example of idolatry.

 

[steenkh]

A simulation does not "achieve" something.
It predicts something.

OK, we change the term from 'simulation' to 'emulation', because this is obviously what we are talking about. If the emulation achieves consciousness, we have proved that consciousness can be achieved artificially.

 

[!Kaggen]

OK, we change the term from 'simulation' to 'emulation', because this is obviously what we are talking about. If the emulation achieves consciousness, we have proved that consciousness can be achieved artificially.

No, that is just a semantic dodge.
The principle being argued is that the maths which simulates, emulates, imitates, models (or whatever word refers to "artificially done" consciousness) is consciousness because despite consciousness being a property of biological organisms if you apply the maths to any medium consciousness will arise.
Somehow maths is the "magic bean" which causes consciousness no matter were its performed.
Moving pebbles in a desert, writing it done on a piece of paper, getting a computer to do the maths etc etc..results in consciousness.
This is a religion not science and like all religions it redefines words, in this case the properties of biological organisms, to suite the religious convictions.

 

[Belz...]

Like I said if you define consciousness as a simulation then obviously it is a simulation.

But a simulation is also software running on hardware, right ? Saying "simulation" summons up a certain image, but let's not forget that it's just a computer doing what it does. Assuming that what it does is the same as what a brain does, the map is the territory, wouldn't you agree ?

 

[!Kaggen]

But a simulation is also software running on hardware, right ? Saying "simulation" summons up a certain image, but let's not forget that it's just a computer doing what it does. Assuming that what it does is the same as what a brain does, the map is the territory, wouldn't you agree ?

I see words but I am struggling to see the meaning.

 

[Belz...]

Which words are you having trouble with ?

A simulation is simply a computer doing its thing: running a program with calculations and data transations. If that's all the brain does, then the "simulation" is really a "duplication".

 

[!Kaggen]

Which words are you having trouble with ?

A simulation is simply a computer doing its thing: running a program with calculations and data transations. If that's all the brain does, then the "simulation" is really a "duplication".

I understand the words you use but not the meanings of your sentences in the context of science.

Evolutionary Game Theorists use their models to predict the outcome of evolutionary strategies on computers and then seek evidence in biology for their results.
They don't claim that if the biological evidence confirms their simulation results that their computers were the earth and the simulations was evolution.

What you want to do is to define everything to be a computer and every process to be maths. Go ahead and knock yourself out, but don't expect too many followers especially amongst biologists.

 

[Mr. Scott]

It's more than just proving the consciousness is data processing.

It would be useful if we had conscious machines, such as, planetary explorers which would be give a mission and could be trusted to solve unanticipated problems (not be sphexish).

Or, telephone answering systems that would be conscious enough to never need to go to a live operator if they were too confused. I could go on. It has useful application.

Consciousness could be as useful to machines as it's useful to us.

Proving that a machine could be conscious by making a conscious machine is just the proof of concept. Once we achieve that, we could proceed to do much better than this messy kluge evolution has given us.

The only way to find out if a magic bean is needed is to try our best to produce consciousness without one.

 

[Belz...]

I understand the words you use but not the meanings of your sentences in the context of science.

Evolutionary Game Theorists use their models to predict the outcome of evolutionary strategies on computers and then seek evidence in biology for their results.
They don't claim that if the biological evidence confirms their simulation results that their computers were the earth and the simulations was evolution.

What you want to do is to define everything to be a computer and every process to be maths. Go ahead and knock yourself out, but don't expect too many followers especially amongst biologists.

This post seems to have nothing to do with the one you were responding to. Do you understand my post, yes or no ?

 

[steenkh]

No, that is just a semantic dodge.

Funny, I wanted to call your argument a semantic dodge.

An emulation is actually doing what the emulated hardware does. An emulated tape recorder really does record sound, and likewise, if the theory holds, an emulated brain really produces consciousness.

The principle being argued is that the maths which simulates, emulates, imitates, models (or whatever word refers to "artificially done" consciousness) is consciousness because despite consciousness being a property of biological organisms if you apply the maths to any medium consciousness will arise.

That is pure nonsense.

Somehow maths is the "magic bean" which causes consciousness no matter were its performed.

Where do you get it from? Do you find straw men fun to pay with?

Moving pebbles in a desert, writing it done on a piece of paper, getting a computer to do the maths etc etc..results in consciousness.

In this discussion we have only spoken about computers, even if we have noticed that theoretically, computers can be made out of unconventional stuff, like rope and pulleys. And nobody have mentioned maths; in fact, it has often been mentioned that it is likely that consciousness will not be something that results out of a program.

This is a religion not science and like all religions it redefines words, in this case the properties of biological organisms, to suite the religious convictions.

If anybody here are harbouring religious ideas, it would be you who finds the thought alien that holy biology can be emulated! What exactly is that property that biology has that makes consciousness impossible to emulate?

 

[!Kaggen]

Funny, I wanted to call your argument a semantic dodge.

An emulation is actually doing what the emulated hardware does. An emulated tape recorder really does record sound, and likewise, if the theory holds, an emulated brain really produces consciousness.


That is pure nonsense.


Where do you get it from? Do you find straw men fun to pay with?


In this discussion we have only spoken about computers, even if we have noticed that theoretically, computers can be made out of unconventional stuff, like rope and pulleys. And nobody have mentioned maths; in fact, it has often been mentioned that it is likely that consciousness will not be something that results out of a program.


If anybody here are harbouring religious ideas, it would be you who finds the thought alien that holy biology can be emulated! What exactly is that property that biology has that makes consciousness impossible to emulate?

If you are not claiming maths result in consciousness then what are you claiming results in consciousness?

The whole idea about modelling in biology is to use maths to approximate biological processes using computers to process the maths because they do it faster than what we can and thus reduce the time it takes to check whether the maths approximates the biological process being modeled.

You keep avoiding explaining to me why theoretical biologists never claim their maths or the computers processing the maths are the biological entities and biological processes being simulated.

Why is brain consciousness different to all other biological entities and their processes?

And to be clear nobody is saying you cannot model biological entities and their processes all they are saying is that they are computers running mathematical models and not biological entities and their process.
That is the basis of science otherwise we would have one department of science at all universities, computer science, since a computer and the maths running on it is all you need to study the universe.

Reminds me of a quote I read today on Facebook.

"We live in a world of more and more information and less and less meaning" Jean Baudrillard

 

[!Kaggen]

It's more than just proving the consciousness is data processing.

It would be useful if we had conscious machines, such as, planetary explorers which would be give a mission and could be trusted to solve unanticipated problems (not be sphexish).

Or, telephone answering systems that would be conscious enough to never need to go to a live operator if they were too confused. I could go on. It has useful application.

Consciousness could be as useful to machines as it's useful to us.

Proving that a machine could be conscious by making a conscious machine is just the proof of concept. Once we achieve that, we could proceed to do much better than this messy kluge evolution has given us.

The only way to find out if a magic bean is needed is to try our best to produce consciousness without one.

What I want to know is why do we want to build a machine that does consciousness?
We already have 6 Billion machines doing consciousness and counting.
Consciousness results in murder, war, torture, religion etc etc
A computer is already an impressive machine as it speeds up maths and allows us to process information much faster than what a human can do.
Its only drawback and its biggest strength is it relies consciousness

 

[Mr. Scott]

What I want to know is why do we want to build a machine that does consciousness?We already have 6 Billion machines doing consciousness and counting.
Consciousness results in murder, war, torture, religion etc etc
A computer is already an impressive machine as it speeds up maths and allows us to process information much faster than what a human can do.
Its only drawback and its biggest strength is it relies consciousness

What a closed-minded remark. For the same reason we want to build any machine.

A conscious train would notice its driver had a fetish for dangerous speeds. A conscious Mars rover would get itself out of fixes and come up with unanticipated experiments to find life. A conscious thermostat would be better able to make you comfortable. A conscious can opener would be better at opening difficult cans. Is this really such a difficult concept?

Why are you shuttling between "can't be done" and "why would we want to do it?"

Because it's science, and science works.

 

[Belz...]

What I want to know is why do we want to build a machine that does consciousness?

What I want to know is why do we want to build a machine that builds cars. We already have 7 billion able-bodied people to do that kind of work.

 

[!Kaggen]

What a closed-minded remark. For the same reason we want to build any machine.

A conscious train would notice its driver had a fetish for dangerous speeds. A conscious Mars rover would get itself out of fixes and come up with unanticipated experiments to find life. A conscious thermostat would be better able to make you comfortable. A conscious can opener would be better at opening difficult cans. Is this really such a difficult concept?

Why are you shuttling between "can't be done" and "why would we want to do it?"

Because it's science, and science works.

It's egoism taken to its final conclusion not science.

 

[!Kaggen]

What I want to know is why do we want to build a machine that builds cars. We already have 7 billion able-bodied people to do that kind of work.

Machines don't build cars by themselves.
Try again.

 

[trebor]

Why is brain consciousness different to all other biological entities and their processes?

Because consciousness is the product of a biological entity (the brain) not an entity in itself.

 

[steenkh]

If you are not claiming maths result in consciousness then what are you claiming results in consciousness?

I am not claiming any single element to be the cause of consciousness. Currently, we do not know what causes consciousness, but we know where we can find consciousness in nature. Accordingly, if we emulate that in sufficient detail, we know we will achieve consciousness. There is very little math involved.

If you have been following this thread, you will know that we already have crude systems called neural networks that are able to perform tasks without anybody, and certainly not any programmer, knowing how it is performed. This is not something you can put in a formula, at least not until afterwards.

The whole idea about modelling in biology is to use maths to approximate biological processes using computers to process the maths because they do it faster than what we can and thus reduce the time it takes to check whether the maths approximates the biological process being modeled.

No. As far as I know, nobody has presented a mathematical model that approximates biological processes, although at the lowest level you may use maths to decide when an emulated neuron should "fire". Putting a lot of these neurons together is not the same as having a mathematical model.

You keep avoiding explaining to me why theoretical biologists never claim their maths or the computers processing the maths are the biological entities and biological processes being simulated.

First of all, it is a straw man, and secondly it is nonsensical. Why on Earth would you want to hear that something being simulated is not the same as the original? It is so blindingly obvious that one wonders why you are asking the question in the first place. Perhaps you have been reading too much philosophy?

And to be clear nobody is saying you cannot model biological entities and their processes all they are saying is that they are computers running mathematical models and not biological entities and their process.

Obviously. And your point is?

"We live in a world of more and more information and less and less meaning" Jean Baudrillard

Even when I was young I noticed that French philosophers had a way with words that sounded very fancy but was really without content.

 

[!Kaggen]

I am not claiming any single element to be the cause of consciousness. Currently, we do not know what causes consciousness, but we know where we can find consciousness in nature. Accordingly, if we emulate that in sufficient detail, we know we will achieve consciousness. There is very little math involved.

I think you are dodging the fact that modeling is a mathematical discipline.

If you have been following this thread, you will know that we already have crude systems called neural networks that are able to perform tasks without anybody, and certainly not any programmer, knowing how it is performed. This is not something you can put in a formula, at least not until afterwards.

So these neural networks just appeared out of nowhere then? No mathematical modeling required?

No. As far as I know, nobody has presented a mathematical model that approximates biological processes, although at the lowest level you may use maths to decide when an emulated neuron should "fire". Putting a lot of these neurons together is not the same as having a mathematical model.

What?

First of all, it is a straw man, and secondly it is nonsensical. Why on Earth would you want to hear that something being simulated is not the same as the original? It is so blindingly obvious that one wonders why you are asking the question in the first place. Perhaps you have been reading too much philosophy?

I glad we cleared that up then.

Obviously. And your point is?

All cleared up then.

Even when I was young I noticed that French philosophers had a way with words that sounded very fancy but was really without content.

Meaning certainly seems empty when you have been seduced by information.

 

[Mr. Scott]

I think you are dodging the fact that modeling is a mathematical discipline.

So these neural networks just appeared out of nowhere then? No mathematical modeling required?

What?

I glad we cleared that up then.


All cleared up then.

Meaning certainly seems empty when you have been seduced by information.

I think you are dodging the fact that there is a mathematical foundation to all of nature. Your philosophy is medieval, and you don't even seem to be reading or thinking about my postings.

To distill your arguments:

1 - Machines will never be conscious.
2 - We don't need conscious machines because we have conscious people.
3 - Those who disagree with (1) or (2) are egotistical.

I think you are wrong on all three points, and they are all bald assertions. Can you back them up with any evidence? There's plenty of evidence conscious machines would be useful, and that brains are data processing machines.

How is it egoism to suggest a conscious train could be safer?

What's in it for you to keep arguing your position?

BTW: A scientific understanding of the brain ("maths" as you call it derisively) will help treat people with mental problems. Why don't you care about mental illness? (need to fill my quota of straw manning before the end of the month).