On Consciousness

[Brian-M]

Get me a robot that can survive in the real world for 70 000 years without help from humans and I will start paying attention.

Show me a human that can survive in the real world for 70,000 years without help from robots, and you will have my attention.

Homo sapiens began to colonize the world from Africa around then.

I doubt any of the people from that time managed to live for 70,000 years.

Is there something else the brain outputs that machines could not?

Hormones.

(Well, I suppose you could attach a computer to some kind of chemical synthesizing device capable of manufacturing hormones.)

 

[Brian-M]

In the meantime I suggest you consider the words at minutes 52:15 to 52:30 in this video

What the hell... why not just quote it for us? You're trying to convince us of your point of view, so you should be able to quote a single sentence from a video you've seen instead of forcing each of us to search for a video to find out what you're talking about.

For benefit of everyone else, here's what it says:

"Hunting through these [satellite images] is a slow and monotonous task that can't be done by computer."



Did you even stop to consider why they regard this task as something that "can't be done by computer"?

If you had, you might have realized the reason is that the extremely complex software required to perform this highly specialized task does not exist.

It's not that computers are inherently incapable of performing this task, but that programmers haven't yet figured out how to instruct computers to perform this task.

Also ponder over these [...]

Pondering this part of your post leads me to conclude you don't understand the concept. You bring up art, humor, poetry and philosophy. All products of human intelligence and creativity never before generated by a computer.

But human intelligence has never before been generated by a computer either. Once a computer generates human intelligence it would be reasonable to expect it to be able to create products of human intelligence. But not before this happens.

Accordingly I hope you can appreciate how frustratingly laughable it is when some simpletons come along and decide that it is a matter of COMPUTATION and that's it and anyone who disagrees must be a believer in metaphysics and a woo bagger while they arrogantly cite science FICTION and their programming abilities as qualifying justifications for their FAITH in their laptop replicating the "output" of even the human brain not to mention them thinking that they have already achieved nuclear fusion inside it too.

I see. It's clear you don't understand what's meant by computation in this context. So here's a link to help facilitate the discussion...

Computational theory of mind

In case you can't be bothered reading that page here's a quote that should make it clear that the term "computation" is not being used how you think it's being used:

Computational theory of mind is not the same as the computer metaphor, comparing the mind to a modern day digital computer. Computational theory just uses some of the same principles as those found in digital computing.

'Computer' is not meant to mean a modern day electronic computer. Rather a computer is a symbol manipulator that follows step by step functions to compute input and form output. Alan Turing describes this type of computer in his concept of a Turing Machine.​

If the computational theory of mind is correct (ie, that the human brain functions by processing information) then logically any Turing Complete machine should be able to perform the same function (given sufficient time, memory and the right program).

If the computational theory of mind is incorrect... then how does the mind work? Magical pixie dust?

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

I would say the output of consciousness is experience, as consciousness is necessary for experience.

It’s certainly a convenient way of defining consciousness into existence, as a necessary condition per definition.

Yet I would rather say that consciousness relates to experience in a similar way as weather relates to temperature, moisture, wind velocity, and barometric pressure. Both “consciousness” and “weather” are useful conceptual devices. But when one tries to find “consciousness” or “weather” in their own right, zooming in, one only finds what they relate to (as different systemic configurations). When zooming out, on the other hand, one only finds necessary conditions for where the systemic configurations can exist. For weather it would be an atmosphere, and for consciousness it might be a nervous system … or something like that.

But, having said that, I also find the notion of SRIP to be quite suitable when defining consciousness. Here one should remember that consciousness simply refers to a mechanism, not to a variety of potential experiences. Thus we might consider a thermostat (as a system) producing momentary instances of consciousness. The human system produces instances of consciousness as well. Hence the mechanism is considered to be similar, in principle, yet the resulting manifestation is vastly different, in practise. Kind of like combustion, where different substances burn in different ways (e.g., hydrogen burns in chlorine to form hydrogen chloride whereas carbon will yield carbon dioxide). Yet we find a similar kind of underlying principle (mechanism) at play.

 

[Mr. Scott]

One day, when you figure out the answer to this question, you will look back at your mindset now and realize how childish and naive you were.

In the meantime I suggest you consider the words at minutes 52:15 to 52:30 in this video

Also ponder over these images

Relativity (Escher)
[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a3/Escher%27s_Relativity.jpg[/qimg]

Dream Caused by the flight of a bee around a Pomegranate seconds before awakening (Dali)
[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/df/Dream_Caused_by_the_Flight_of_a_Bumblebee_around_a_Pomegranate_a_Second_Before_Awakening.jpg[/qimg]

Metamorphosis of Narcissus (Dali)
[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/21/Metamorphosis_of_Narcissus.jpg[/qimg]


I also suggest you go to some library and read Shakespeare or Miguel De Cervantes or Robert Frost or Rudyard Kipling or Homer or even Sun Tsu.

I also suggest you familiarize yourself with some science history and read about Isaac Newton and Leibniz and Descartes and Einstein and Fourier and Laplace and Pascal and Freud.

You may even enjoy the writings of some philosophers like Voltaire and Diderot and Russell.

Moreover, you may want to go to some museum and reflect over some art like Da Vinci's or Escher’s or Michelangelo's or Dali's.

Finally you may want to have a nice night out in a good Comedy Club and enjoy some good old human humor instead of spending the night playing video games or watching Star Trek reruns.... maybe that might help.

My question was: Though it's been said that a computer can no more produce consciousness than a computer simulation of photosynthesis can produce real sugar, what evidence is there of a SUBSTANCE of consciousness the brain produces that no machine ever could produce?

The outputs of the brain you mention are INFORMATION, not substances (like sugar from photosynthesis). The output of computers is INFORMATION.

There's been lots of work in making computers output works of art. The suggestion that they could never produce good works is as naive as the assertions that they beat chess masters and Jeopardy champions.

I don't doubt that when computers and AI become sufficiently advanced, they will produce art significantly better than the average conscious person.

If you are so sure no computer could ever output a work of fine art, explain why.

PS: I'm a huge Dali and Escher fan. I've attended major exhibits of their works, and even owned a Dali. My favorite Dali is "Young Virgin Auto-Sodomized by Her Own Chastity," my favorite Escher is "Bond of Union," and my favorite old Star Trek is "The Changeling", probably because it investigates machine consciousness. As much as I love the show, I object to its monotonous appeal to our narcissism. The lesson of too many of them is that we, by virtue of our "illogical" emotions, are superior to anything we'd encounter out there.

 

[quarky]

I was making up the stuff about the rock. I just wanted to mess with the debate.

 

[Mr. Scott]

I would say the output of consciousness is experience, as consciousness is necessary for experience.

That's not an output in any normal sense of the word. Experience remains in the brain. Why couldn't a computer program produce its own internal experience?

 

[Leumas]

What the hell... why not just quote it for us? You're trying to convince us of your point of view, so you should be able to quote a single sentence from a video you've seen instead of forcing each of us to search for a video to find out what you're talking about.

For benefit of everyone else, here's what it says:

"Hunting through these [satellite images] is a slow and monotonous task that can't be done by computer."

So you cannot click on a link and then click on the slide bar of the video to go to the assigned minute?

Oh well.... maybe you should learn how to do that.

If you are incapable of doing that or too lazy then just do not bother and go away…..but do not blame me for not transcribing video scripts for you when you could just as easily watch the video. I am not your stenographer.

Did you even stop to consider why they regard this task as something that "can't be done by computer"?

If you had, you might have realized the reason is that the extremely complex software required to perform this highly specialized task does not exist.

Have you considered that I have actually posted the link to the video and must have therefore considered quite well why I was citing it.

Have you considered the CONTEXT of the citation..... if you where in fact able to READ the post and the post it was responding to and the HIGHLIGHTED bit in that

Is there something else the brain outputs that machines could not?

You may have grasped the CONTEXT of the whole thing and this post of yours would not have been a giant big snidely CONTEXTOMIZATION FALLACY.

You see the bit in the video was "something else the brain outputs that machines could not" ....... that was why I cited it.....because it was something that machines cannot do while brains can......you see you have to be able to COMPREHEND the CONTEXT of a post before you comment on it with childish superciliousness..

It's not that computers are inherently incapable of performing this task, but that programmers haven't yet figured out how to instruct computers to perform this task.

And how does that detract from the fact that it is "something else the brain outputs that machines could not"

Whether it can be programmed or not is a matter of CONJECTURE since at the moment it has not been done with all the knowhow we have and with all the RESOURCES the USA military has put to it.

But that is immaterial to the point which is that it is "something else the brain outputs that machines could not" which is why I cited it in response to the question.

I think you need to learn what the word CONTEXT means....before you mouth off your superciliousness.

Pondering this part of your post leads me to conclude you don't understand the concept. You bring up art, humor, poetry and philosophy. All products of human intelligence and creativity never before generated by a computer.

But human intelligence has never before been generated by a computer either. Once a computer generates human intelligence it would be reasonable to expect it to be able to create products of human intelligence. But not before this happens.

I see. It's clear you don't understand what's meant by computation in this context. So here's a link to help facilitate the discussion...
[snip]

It is clear you do not know how to read posts.... the post was in response to this question in this post

Is there something else the brain outputs that machines could not?

So it has nothing to do with computation or anything..... in case you have missed the question.... it was asking if there is anything that the brain can "output" that a machine cannot.

The answer was in that post whose context has obviously eluded you.

So it is you who did not read and comprehend the post and the post it was responding to and you failed to understand the CONTEXT of the post.

You see CONTEXT is of paramount importance.....that is why there is even a logical fallacy called CONTEXTOMIZATION which is a fallacy of putting things out of CONTEXT.

So when you learn what CONTEXT means maybe you should go back and read the post and the post it was responding to and maybe you can comprehend where your snarky attitude has failed you.

My other post you quoted and highlighted the word “computation” in had nothing to do with the video or material in the other post. It was talking about consciousness and therefore you AGAIN have failed to appreciate or comprehend the CONTEXT.

I really do think that you need to learn how to read things in CONTEXT so as to stop committing the contextomization logical fallacy.


Your whole post is nothing but one long logical fallacy.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I was making up the stuff about the rock. I just wanted to mess with the debate.

You didn't really rock.

Hans

 

[keyfeatures]

Well, anything can be coded, but I have a hunch that the present architecture of both hardware and software may pose an obstacle, because it is basically constructed to be as deterministic as possible, and I don't think determinism is a main feature of consciousness, quite the opposite, it seems to be 'designed' to find new combinations of input data.

This is the most sensible point that has been made in this thread. The architecture of the code and the processor are both important.

When it comes to human processor architecture and coding we are limited by the fact we can only use human processors to analyse. We can't look beyond what our processor is programmed to interpret its code as. We can only see the representation of the code, not the code itself.

 

[!Kaggen]

This is the most sensible point that has been made in this thread. The architecture of the code and the processor are both important.

When it comes to human processor architecture and coding we are limited by the fact we can only use human processors to analyse. We can't look beyond what our processor is programmed to interpret its code as. We can only see the representation of the code, not the code itself.

Unless you are The One

 

[Mr. Scott]

You may have grasped the CONTEXT of the whole thing and this post of yours would not have been a giant big snidely CONTEXTOMIZATION FALLACY.

You see the bit in the video was "something else the brain outputs that machines could not" ....... that was why I cited it.....because it was something that machines cannot do while brains can......you see you have to be able to COMPREHEND the CONTEXT of a post before you comment on it with childish superciliousness..

The context of MY question was whether or not a machine could produce the physical or metaphysical substance of consciousness (also expressed in post #1 of this thread). I saw that you changed my context, and I responded to you in both contexts.

Yes, the video did say a computer could not identify enemy hideouts from satellite photos as well as people could. But I've learned, working in research laboratories (including difficult image analysis projects) never to say never. There is no doubt a software project working on it that soon will have a program far better and faster than people can do that task, and without simulating consciousness. When that happens, I expect you'll move the goal posts.

All you are saying is computers are not as smart as people, but computers are getting smarter all the time, and people aren't. Computers should catch up with and surpass us, and maybe even achieve a higher state of consciousness than we ever could. Where will you move the goal posts when THAT happens? ROFL

 

[!Kaggen]

All you are saying is computers are not as smart as people, but computers are getting smarter all the time, and people aren't. They should catch up and surpass us, and maybe even achieve a higher state of consciousness than we ever could. Where will you move the goal posts when THAT happens? ROFL

I certainly will remember this post.

Okay, so your logic is that humans don't get smarter and computers that do. Hmm so who makes these computers that get smarter? Surely not the humans that can't get smarter. How are they suppose to make smarter computers if they don't get smarter at making computers? Are you suggesting the computers make themselves?
Watson was made by another computer?
Is Watson smarter than the guys at IBM that programmed Watson?

 

[Mr. Scott]

I certainly will remember this post.

Okay, so your logic is that humans don't get smarter and computers that do. Hmm so who makes these computers that get smarter? Surely not the humans that can't get smarter. How are they suppose to make smarter computers if they don't get smarter at making computers? Are you suggesting the computers make themselves?
Watson was made by another computer?
Is Watson smarter than the guys at IBM that programmed Watson?

I could easily program a computer to play better chess than me. In some of the videos about Watson there were moments when Watson's developers were quite surprised and delighted by how well Watson was doing. There are also links between speed and memory size, and smartness, in people and in machines. It works like this: Say Watson was equal in smartness (at Jeopardy) to a particular person, if you then doubled Watson's clock speed, you'd double its smartness, and it might double it's score against that person.

We are certainly getting smarter every day at programming smart computers. There's no doubt about that.

The essential question of this thread, stated a different way, is whether or not we will hit a brick wall in our efforts with AI, and if so, what is the nature of that wall?

 

[keyfeatures]

I don't think playing chess or answering Jeopardy questions show computers are smart. I think they show that playing chess and answering Jeopardy questions aren't the smart activities that many thought they were. Brains do a lot more complicated things than both these tasks all the time.

 

[!Kaggen]

I could easily program a computer to play better chess than me. In some of the videos about Watson there are moments when Watson's developers are quite surprised and delighted by how well Watson was doing. There are also links between speed and memory size, and smartness, in people and in machines. It works like this: Say Watson was equal in smartness (at Jeopardy) to a particular person, if you then doubled Watson's clock speed, you'd double its smartness, and it might double it's score against that person.

We are certainly getting smarter every day at programming smart computers. There's no doubt about that.

The essential question of this thread, stated a different way, is whether or not we will hit a brick wall in our efforts with AI, and if so, what is the nature of that wall?

Humans are surprised at their abilities to build machines that do what they were designed to do all the time, why should this be any different with Watson?

The brick wall is the same brick wall for any human activity, humans themselves.

 

[keyfeatures]

Chimps are already 'smarter' than humans on this test. In fact, chimps can remember, recall and order numbers that are flashed up for such little time a human couldn't even register them.

 

[Leumas]

The context of MY question was whether or not a machine could produce the physical or metaphysical substance of consciousness (also expressed in post #1 of this thread). I saw that you changed my context, and I responded to you in both contexts.

Yes, the video did say a computer could not identify enemy hideouts from satellite photos as well as people could. But I've learned, working in research laboratories (including difficult image analysis projects) never to say never. There is no doubt a software project working on it that soon will have a program far better and faster than people can do that task without simulating consciousness. When that happens, I expect you'll move the goal posts.

Go study what moving the goalposts fallacy actually means then come back and read the rest of this post.

Your OWN question was

Q: How is a computer-simulated conscious brain NOT like computer-simulated photosynthesis?

A: The brain and a conscious computer both output the same thing: control signals for the body.

Computers routinely output control signals to animal and mechanical bodies. We can do this already.

Is there something else the brain outputs that machines could not?

The question in the context of your post above is quite clear…. I am not supposed to read your mind and figure out that you also meant to include other stuff from other posts which you never quoted or cited.

I answered your question in the context of the post it was in and gave you NUMEROUS examples of brain output that machines are currently not doing….just like you asked… whether machines can do so in the future someday perhaps maybe if and when they do then I hope we are both alive to see it.

By the way speculating that I might move the goalposts when in the future your speculations about machines might come true and thus acting as if I have in fact moved the goalposts is a WHOLE NEW FALLACY that you have invented all by yourself....congratulations..... can we name it The Scott Free Fallacy?


But in fact IT IS YOU WHO IS MOVING THE GOALPOSTS right now not in some speculative future.... you do so in three ways

1. Concentrating on JUST ONE OF THE MANY MANY EXAMPLES I gave you of brain outputs that currently no machine can do.
2. You SPECULATE that since maybe perhaps one day that ONE EXAMPLE will possibly be made possible as a machine output then the entirety of the given examples ….which by the way represent a SUBSET of the sum total OF HUMAN CULTURE…. will then be dismissed by you as machine producible…. This is by the way a generalization fallacy on top of a wishful thinking fallacy.
3. Redefining the context of your post to include other posts which I am somehow meant to read your mind and deduce that you meant to include them as an implicit part of your question.

So…. You are the one who is doing wishful thinking and then basing a generalization on the outcome of your wishful thinking and moving the goalposts of your posts.....and do not forget this Scott Free fallacy of yours to boot.

 

[Leumas]

I don't think playing chess or answering Jeopardy questions show computers are smart. I think they show that playing chess and answering Jeopardy questions aren't the smart activities that many thought they were. Brains do a lot more complicated things than both these tasks all the time.

PRECISELY..... recalling chess positions one memorized from a book or recalling trivial facts one memorized from a book is not SMART.....it is just good memory.

 

[Modified]

Well, anything can be coded, but I have a hunch that the present architecture of both hardware and software may pose an obstacle, because it is basically constructed to be as deterministic as possible, and I don't think determinism is a main feature of consciousness, quite the opposite, it seems to be 'designed' to find new combinations of input data.

I wouldn't expect any kind of "direct" coding to produce consciousness, but rather a system of simulated neurons, or something like simulated neurons. This is similar to the way physics-engine-based games are now produced: you design the game with entities in the simulated environment, often with very little "real" coding.

 

[Leumas]

All you are saying is computers are not as smart as people, but computers are getting smarter all the time, and people aren't. Computers should catch up with and surpass us, and maybe even achieve a higher state of consciousness than we ever could. Where will you move the goal posts when THAT happens? ROFL

I certainly will remember this post.

Okay, so your logic is that humans don't get smarter and computers that do. Hmm so who makes these computers that get smarter? Surely not the humans that can't get smarter. How are they suppose to make smarter computers if they don't get smarter at making computers? Are you suggesting the computers make themselves?
Watson was made by another computer?
Is Watson smarter than the guys at IBM that programmed Watson?

And do not forget this one too... I think it is just as entertaining.

This is key.

Note the emphatic meanness evoked in believers in the supernatural (like you and !kaggen) when they defend their beliefs against skeptics.

The idea that a machine can think like a human is like a stab to their heart. It makes them feel less special. So, they lash out, attempting to hurt the people who hurt them.

Well, get over it. All evidence indicates the body and the brain and all of life are machines, just like the machines we build. Very complicated automata that evolved through natural selection, right now more complicated than we can build, but that gap shrinks every day. It's extremely cool that evolution resulted in self conscious machines like you and me, but there's no evidence that we are more than naturally evolved machines.

Am I wrong? Where's your evidence we are more than machines.