On Consciousness

[case#46cw39]

Ok.... I will change it to monumentally simplistic.... is that ok?

No. That's worse.

 

[Leumas]

No. That's worse.

Ok... what adjectives would you use to describe the attitude and behavior of people who behave in a similar manner to my colleague described in this post.

 

[quarky]

This is getting dull.

I'm going back to claiming that consciousness is/was an aspect of the singularity from which all has sprung.
A rock is fully conscious.
It simply can't do much about it.
A quark is fully conscious.
Why not?

The brain is something else entirely.
Its not the seat of consciousness.
Its more like a computer.

Of course, the computer is also conscious, if the atoms that compose it are conscious.
Buddists wouldn't object to such notions, particularly.
Some quantum physicists wouldn't either.

It has nothing to do with religion.
Everything is alive.

Even pedantic atheists and computer programers.

 

[Leumas]

This is getting dull.

I'm going back to claiming that consciousness is/was an aspect of the singularity from which all has sprung.
A rock is fully conscious.
It simply can't do much about it.
A quark is fully conscious.
Why not?

The brain is something else entirely.
Its not the seat of consciousness.
Its more like a computer.

Of course, the computer is also conscious, if the atoms that compose it are conscious.
Buddists wouldn't object to such notions, particularly.
Some quantum physicists wouldn't either.

It has nothing to do with religion.
Everything is alive.

Even pedantic atheists and computer programers.

But I am not sure about ones who are both at the same time

 

[Jeff Corey]

I don't think the poll choices exhaust all the possible answers, like "None of the above".

 

[Roboramma]

This is getting dull.

I'm going back to claiming that consciousness is/was an aspect of the singularity from which all has sprung.
A rock is fully conscious.
It simply can't do much about it.
A quark is fully conscious.
Why not?

But conscious of what?

I can actually accept that a rock may be conscious in some way. But the experience of consciousness is dependent upon it's context. My experience is dependent upon what my brain is doing, upon it's internal architecture and external stimuli that affect that. There's something there for me to be conscious of. If I get bored, it's because I have the (evolved) capacity to be bored. If I feel something tastes delicious it's because I have that (evolved) capacity.

A rock doesn't have sense organs, nor the information processing organs to turn sensory data (that it doesn't have) into meaningful context. Lacking that, perhaps it does have some sort of experience: it interacts with the world regardless, but it can't be a particularly deep experience.

The brain is something else entirely.
Its not the seat of consciousness.
Its more like a computer.

And yet your (and my) conscious experience are dependent upon the states of that computer. Give it a particular drug, and your experience is altered. Damage it in a particular way and your experience is altered again in a particular way.

So the brain certainly has something to do with consciousness.

 

[Roboramma]

But I am not sure about ones who are both at the same time

Is that called for?

 

[rocketdodger]

Ok.... so I then take it that you agree that Douglas Adams' brain was not doing mere calculations and running algorithms when he created his fiction and the brain is not a mere computer...right?

If you think the brain is a mere computer and that all of its "output" can be simulated on a laptop running some clever programs....then please explain the algorithms and mathematical calculations that went on in Douglas Adams’ brain while producing his monumental trilogy in 5 parts.

Now that Adams has tragically passed away too soon maybe we can program a computer to give us the REST of the unfinished Salmon Of Doubt story or even the sequel to Dirk Gently's adventures....who needs Adams' brain if we can just program a laptop to do the same...right... it is after all just calculations...no?

I don't think you understand at all what I was talking about.

I wasn't even making a statement about the brain or consciousness. I was making a statement about a certain viewpoint regarding a "partial" computational model.

I merely pointed out that IF someone accepts that the "main" part of the brain functions by computing, THEN it is logically inconsistent to assert that the "input" part does not function by computing, BECAUSE input is part of computation.

For example there has been this idea put forth by some forum members that the abstract computational notion of a Turing machine doesn't include "input." That is simply false -- in a Turing machine, the input and output and program are merely the same thing, the "tape." Input is still there for every operation. To say there is no "input" is absolute nonsense, if there was no input there would be nothing to compute.

 

[Leumas]

Is that called for?

Dude....it is a JOKE.... I myself fall smack in the middle of that set.... I have been programming for remuneration since I was 15 and I have been an agnostic/atheist since I was 17.... some time during the cambrian era that is.

 

[Leumas]

I don't think the poll choices exhaust all the possible answers, like "None of the above".

That is putting it mildly.... the whole thing is a false dichotomy logical fallacy.

This poll is a false dichotomy...especially when Scott himself has admitted that the third choice was

...The planet X option was my joke ...

The false dichotomy is

You either agree with his SPECULATIONS and CONJECTURES or you are a WOO BELIEVER​

It is not just a false dichotomy...it is an egregious insult to anyone who sides with the scads of scientists who disagree with his FAITH in SCIENCE FICTION.


Before this thread degenerates into more nonsensical armchair speculations from laymen along with vitriolic hubristic defense of these conjectures by citing scifi fanfic along with adamant unwavering “monumentally simplistic” “operational definitions” that are “of no practical value”... and before it gravitates towards hypotheses of how the characters in the Sims video game are conscious entities if only you could redefine reality to suit.... and before it settles down to wishful thinking and aspirations of some laymen for becoming Deos Ex Machinas.... I suggest you watch this video to see the facts of where we stand in regards to the possibility of Pinocchio becoming a reality.

The following minutes are of salient relevance

• 30:10 to 32:20
• 34:55 to 41:45
• 42:12 to 45:05 (especially 44:43-45:00)
• 56:55 to 57:35
• BUT....ABOVE ALL.... minutes 48:50 to 50:40.....especially the sentence the scientist says at minute 50:08 to 50:10.

 

[quarky]

But conscious of what?

I can actually accept that a rock may be conscious in some way. But the experience of consciousness is dependent upon it's context. My experience is dependent upon what my brain is doing, upon it's internal architecture and external stimuli that affect that. There's something there for me to be conscious of. If I get bored, it's because I have the (evolved) capacity to be bored. If I feel something tastes delicious it's because I have that (evolved) capacity.

A rock doesn't have sense organs, nor the information processing organs to turn sensory data (that it doesn't have) into meaningful context. Lacking that, perhaps it does have some sort of experience: it interacts with the world regardless, but it can't be a particularly deep experience.

And yet your (and my) conscious experience are dependent upon the states of that computer. Give it a particular drug, and your experience is altered. Damage it in a particular way and your experience is altered again in a particular way.

So the brain certainly has something to do with consciousness.

The brain has a lot to do with self reflection. Thought is the likely cause of our sense of being an individual entity. This might be delusional, actually, this notion of being an individual entity. Individual cells in our conglomerate organism, in some cases, are indistinguishable from free ranging single celled organisms. These organisms show all the necessary signs of awareness.
Without awareness, an amoeba couldn't function. Yet, it lacks a brain. Its not a machine. Its something else.

I work with rocks. They get a big kick out of being moved. They are generally very slow. Sometimes, after thousands of years of not much happening, they find themselves being crushed by a large machine. Suddenly, they aren't the same entity anymore.

The entity known as quarky emerged into this world as a conscious 8 lb blob of protoplasm. He soon expanded 20 fold, and remained conscious. We have little in common, these various forms of me.

I wax philosophic, for which I apologize. This thread should have been in R&P.
Our collective biomass may well have an individual consciousness, of which we remain unaware. Much as our cells may be unaware of their collective entity.

 

[punshhh]

Individual cells in our conglomerate organism, in some cases, are indistinguishable from free ranging single celled organisms. These organisms show all the necessary signs of awareness.
Without awareness, an amoeba couldn't function. Yet, it lacks a brain. Its not a machine. Its something else.

Quite.

Our collective biomass may well have an individual consciousness, of which we remain unaware. Much as our cells may be unaware of their collective entity.

Again quite so.

 

[Roboramma]

Quarky, my point is pretty simple: without a brain consciousness lacks context. If a rock is conscious of being crushed, in what way is it conscious of it? If I am crushed I'll experience pain and I'll probably have thoughts about death, but both of those things are dependent upon the specific way in which my brain works.

Every conscious experience we have exists within that context. So what does it mean for a thing to be conscious without that context?

 

[punshhh]

OK, but simulation is a bit ambiguous. A flight simulator isn't the same as flying for real, but if I "simulate" your neurons using NAND gates on silicon chips, it's more than just some image on a screen.

There's something I vaguely recall about replacing one single brain cell with a single microchip. Your conscious mind still functions, and you are still you. Only then I replace another, and another, and another. You're still you, you're still conscious. But then I keep going, all the way. And all the way you're still you, and you're still conscious. Even though you end up being made of silicon.

It was maybe just some science fiction story, but it stuck with me, and I ended up thinking what's the difference?

Yes, its an interesting idea which may in principle work, but I have my doubts about its practicality from reading these threads.

Going back to my point about simulations, I am happy with the idea of an intelligent simulated entity on a screen or virtual stage of some sort. Provided it is acknowledged that the computation going on to sustain the simulated entity is performed by a piece of hardware which is a replica brain. Rather than an in its stead, an entirely virtual computation. Whatever that is.

 

[punshhh]

The complex intelligence is the interaction of the parts that make up the replica brain. That can change over time, just as a wave on the ocean is the interaction of the water molecules that make it up, even though which water molecules make up the wave can change over time.

This is true of our brains: my intelligence is not located in my foot, but my foot (or at least the nerves in it) is a part of that intelligence, in so much as the signals it sends are a part of that complex interaction.
The atoms that make up my brain are replaced over time, but at any particular moment there are particular atoms interacting in a particular way and we can say that is the physical location of my intelligence. Where else would it be?

I find this discussion odd: whatever it is that brains do, they are made up of fundamental particles. It's the interactions of those fundamental particles that defines the system. If we can find another way to create interactions that do the same thing, then we'll have reproduced what brains do, and consciousness is a part of that.
Just as you can have different bridges made to different designs with different materials both capable of supporting traffic over a river, there's no reason that two brains couldn't be made of different materials with different designs.

That doesn't suggest, of course, that we know how to design such a thing now, but that's an engineering problem, not a fundamental theory problem.

Yes I agree, I was focussing specifically on what a simulated entity is and where it is located.

Do you imagine human consciousness as a kind of simulation of a self, a virtual self?

 

[punshhh]

A glass of Tawny Port for me old chap...what?

[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/57/Port_wine.jpg/320px-Port_wine.jpg[/qimg]

Nice!

 

[MRC_Hans]

I doubt there will be any change in what computers can do, only in processing speed and storage capacity. Even "quantum computing", if it ever becomes practical, will not change the functionality of computers. So your premise only makes sense if you think speed of operation is a necessary component of consciousness, enormous amounts of storage will be needed (more than is currently available), or some sort of data processing machine will be invented that can evaluate noncomputable functions.

I would say we could do it now if we knew how, it would require a lot of storage, and the result would be too slow to be of any interest.

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.

Another obstacle is that the big buck in software is not in consciousness; we are designing computers to be our obidient slaves, and we really don't want them to have consciousness. A conscious machine is an interesting project, but might require more serious funding than it can attract.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

A rock is fully conscious.

I think not. Not for any useful definition of 'conscious'.

Is an unconscious person conscious?

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Going back to my point about simulations, I am happy with the idea of an intelligent simulated entity on a screen or virtual stage of some sort. Provided it is acknowledged that the computation going on to sustain the simulated entity is performed by a piece of hardware which is a replica brain. Rather than an in its stead, an entirely virtual computation. Whatever that is.

It is non-existent. We know of no example of any kind of algorithm that does not need hardware to perform it.

Hans

 

[Brian-M]

A simulation is not a replica of a brain, it is a projected image on a screen, which can be interpreted by a viewer. The projection may be of a replica brain, but that brain would be in another box or a different part of the box from the simulation projector, not on the screen.

Do you even understand the concept of "simulation"? (I explained it back in post 80, but that was the last post on the page so you might have missed it.)

I think you're confusing "simulation" with "animation" or "graphics". A simulation doesn't need to be capable of being represented visually to function. It doesn't need to be interpreted by a viewer.

For example, you could create a numbers-only orbital simulation of the solar system, with the only output being a list of the co-ordinates for each orbital body at regular time intervals in the future, printed out on fan-fold paper via a daisy-wheel printer, and it'd still be a valid simulation of the solar system. (There's a good chance this may have actually been done by someone, somewhere, back in the 70's). No screen or graphical representation needed, no graphical representation even needed in memory.

(You could even have a simulation that provides no output all, and it'd still be a valid simulation. But it wouldn't be much use, except possibly for testing system resources.)

A simulation that numerically duplicates all the processes occurring in the brain is a replica of the brain. An functional replica rather than a physical replica, but still a replica.

ETA:

And where is the complex intelligence? on the screen, in an attached camera lens or in a component attached somewhere round the back of the simulator marked "replica brain"?
Does it somehow dwell in all three?
Or is it located in a virtual world which is in no exact location in the physical world?

Physically? In the CPU, ROM and other parts of the computer being used to run the simulation.

Of course, it only has this intelligence while the simulated brain is functioning, the same way that a flesh-and-blood person only has intelligence when their meat brain is functioning.

(If we stopped your brain from functioning, possibly by freezing it solid or physically disconnecting the neurons from each-other without damaging them, you wouldn't be intelligent anymore even though all the same components are there. Same applies for stopping the simulation.)