Electronic Consciousness?
-
But Troy you are working on an assumption that you know what consciousness is. You don't. Remember the story of the blind men and the elephant. Each had a different perception depending on which part of the elephant they were touching. Try reading some early 20th or even 19th thoughts on science and see how each generation is so presumptious about what it thinks it knows. We have a very, very long way to go. I think 1000 years from now might we might be a little closer. Lay people often ask me about things like artificial intelligence and I tell them the key word is "artificial" NOT intelligence.
I don't see anything in my post that appears to make that assumption. In fact, my supposition is that we do need to learn more about the mechanics of non-deterministic computation in order to achieve either goal. How does my post demonstrate an assumption that I know what consciousness is?
-
I am curious from the point of view of people from a programming sort of environment, how many of us believe that it will be possible to store a consciousness electronically. This could be either to store an existing conciousness (as in copying or backing up an existing mind electronically) or to develop a completely new conciousness that never existed biologically. I'm trying to stay away from the far reaching philosophical and moralistic implications of doing either of these things. That's a massive can of worms. I just wondered how many coders actually think it will ever be possible and how many think it is something that could never be achieved. I think it will be possible.
Lee Chetwynd wrote:
I am curious from the point of view of people from a programming sort of environment, how many of us believe that it will be possible to store a consciousness electronically.
Sometimes I wonder if we haven't inadvertently already achieved this. I've had bugs in code, I have absolutely gone over it line by line and swear there is nothing wrong with the logic. It is way too computationally intense to step through line by line, So I add code to find the first point it goes south and print statements to file to identify where it is happening. Poof, bug disappears. I've had that happen in the past, but it was fixed by altering the memory processing and removing the logic, the bug reappears. Those are REALLY difficult to find. Great, first time I've run into that on a windows environment. (When I did before, it last was FORTRAN on IBM mainframe.) I remove bug trace logic, expect the bug to reappear, it doesn't. That, I call a ghost in the shell moment. I had printed out my code in an attempt to coolly and calmly review what I had written before putting in the write statements, so I print the version that is currently working. Line, by line, everything lines up, no visible extra characters added or dropped, but now code works perfectly. They say the devil is in the details, I say the devil is in the machine just waiting to pounce. :-D
-
patbob wrote:
Will we develop an artificial consciousness? I think we're starting to approach it in the right ways, but I'm not sure we'll recognize when we succeed. Personally, I'm beginning to suspect we've already succeeded.
Do you mean the internet? Apparently it looks a bit like the cover of the last Muse album. Or do you mean something else? Are we living inside a big simulation?
Not so much the structure of the internet, but more the complexity of the software that interacts across it. We've got millions of little computers, all network connected, all doing a little processing, and all passing data to other computers. We think it's producing deterministic results given a set of inputs, but the exact same can be said of your neurons too. If your consciousness can be a gestalt of the signals between your neurons, why can't a higher level one be a gestalt of our smart phones and PCs?
We can program with only 1's, but if all you've got are zeros, you've got nothing.
-
Will we be able to create an artificial consciousness sufficiently similar to our own that we would recognize it as conscious? Absolutely. Probably within a human lifetime. Self-awareness isn't as hard as people make it out to be. Consciousness is mostly a data storage and retrieval problem, I think. Will we be able to download a human consciousness and run it on a computer? Probably not feasible. The human brain stores its memories in the wiring of the entire brain. You'd have to be able to read out all the neural synapses. Can you do that without carefully dissassembling a brain? I rather doubt it. Synaptic function is more than connectivity. The strength of signalling of any neuron is a function of the precise functioning of the neuron's internal machinery. You may expect this machinery to be as variable as human appearance. Think of all the many kinds of behavioral health issues people may display, all the kinds of genius and developmental disability, and you get some idea of how variable this function is. Even if we could wave a magic wand and make the problem of downloading the synapses go away, the brain is not a single organ, but rather hundreds of related, specialized processors. DNA stores only an approximate map of these processors, they are self-assembling during development, and no two are alike. Making these specialized processors run efficiently on a general-purpose computer is unlikely. You'll have to simulate them at a very low level to get high fidelity. And in the end, how valuable would this be, even if we could do it? Few people are going to be excited about having their consciousness downloaded if the process is destructive, because the consciousness in your body would then very definitely die, with only the promise that a very similar one would be created. Like life insurance, this bet doesn't benefit your original consciousness. If the process was not destructive, then the result would be that there are two "yous", each wanting to live, each wanting to control the assets "you" own, each rapidly diverging into different identities as their experiences differed. You forgot to ask the "upload" question. Could you upload your copied consciousness into other brains? Again, given the variability of brains, you'd need a way to exactly recreate your original brain in order for the consciousness "program" to run reliably. Sorry, the human brain is the ultimate intellectual property. Its design completely frustrates copying and duplication. DRM is designed in, intelligently or not.
SeattleC++ wrote:
then the result would be that there are two "yous", each wanting to live, each wanting to control the assets "you" own, each rapidly diverging into different identities as their experiences differed.
I have thought about this bit a lot. I think you are right with rapid. I think we change with every microsecond of experience. Two identical consciousness would remain identical for only the smallest measurement of time if at all. Uploading would be interesting. Perhaps instead of the death sentence you could have your mind overwritten. That probably amounts to the same thing. The film 'freejack' just popped up from a small dark corner at the back of my mind. Are you saying that physical variances in the development of each individual neuron, play a part inthe definition of who we are? Kind of like, Ill attempt an analogy of what I think you said: its not just about if the switch is in an on or off position but also the physical dimensions of the switch, what brand it is, which shop you got it from and how much you paid for it and who made it and whether or not they are happy in their job and remembered to feed the dog before they left for work that morning.
-
I think it will be possible, but it's going to take a better understanding of the quantum state of neurons to implement. There is evidence that neurons operate using electrons in a hyperpositional state, meaning that it is entirely possible what we think of as information in the brain only exists as it interacts with the world. Even developing a non-biological conciousness, at least as we currently understand what that means, will likely require some form of non-deterministic computation. In the nearer term, developing more and more sophisticated simulations that can, ultimately, fool the user/observer into thinking that they are conscious is a much more straightforward goal.
Perhaps we are just fooling ourselves. Maybe consciousness is something that doesn't really exist and we just think we are.
Troy.Thompson wrote:
There is evidence that neurons operate using electrons in a hyperpositional state, meaning that it is entirely possible what we think of as information in the brain only exists as it interacts with the world.
That is an interesting idea. In my head it combines not being able to measure both the position and speed of an electron, with Descartes 'I think therefore I am' .
-
This idea is central to the later books in The Heechee Saga[^] by Frederik Pohl, a series of science fiction novels. The Heechee, an alien race, store their consciousness in a device when they are near death. Family members carry the devices with them, and the stored intelligences are an integral part of their culture. Humans adapt the technology for themselves. The main human character through the series eventually becomes 'vastened' himself.
Software Zen:
delete this;See also pretty much everything by Greg Egan. Love his books. Myself... I'm not sure.
-
I am curious from the point of view of people from a programming sort of environment, how many of us believe that it will be possible to store a consciousness electronically. This could be either to store an existing conciousness (as in copying or backing up an existing mind electronically) or to develop a completely new conciousness that never existed biologically. I'm trying to stay away from the far reaching philosophical and moralistic implications of doing either of these things. That's a massive can of worms. I just wondered how many coders actually think it will ever be possible and how many think it is something that could never be achieved. I think it will be possible.
First thing I thought of was the the Turing machine. Looked it up, has nothing to do with consciousness. I do remember talk of using a Turing machine on one end and a teletype on the other and if you couldn't tell if what is responding to you is a person or machine, then you've achieved consciousness. I couldn't find a link to that, so I may be totally wrong. Big blue has a machine that can go on game shows and do very well indeed. It, in no way, indicates it is a person so we aren't there yet, but that would have been impossible to do 20 years ago. If you know or can find that description, I'd like to see how they defined consciousness.
-
Lee Chetwynd wrote:
believe that it will be possible to store a consciousness electronically.
There are several points. 1. Can it be recorded? 2. What happens after it is recorded? For the first one must be able to demonstrate that consciousness itself has been recorded and not just a fixed state. That means that the second requires that it must be able to interact with the world in such a way that it is verifiable. And if either is possible it is a long, long way off.
Lee Chetwynd wrote:
or to develop a completely new conciousness that never existed biologically.
No that is a different problem. A rough analogy is the difference between recording a artist performing a song and then playing it back versus creating the song in the first place. Again if possible at all it is a long, long way off. And given the lack of real progress in this in the last 50 years, despite many attempts, I suspect it will never be possible.
Yes it will. Yes it will. Yes it will. ;P Sorry. That felt like when I watched a program as a child that said we would never travel at light speed. I got sulky and grumpy. Fair points raised though.
-
Perhaps we are just fooling ourselves. Maybe consciousness is something that doesn't really exist and we just think we are.
Troy.Thompson wrote:
There is evidence that neurons operate using electrons in a hyperpositional state, meaning that it is entirely possible what we think of as information in the brain only exists as it interacts with the world.
That is an interesting idea. In my head it combines not being able to measure both the position and speed of an electron, with Descartes 'I think therefore I am' .
If we think that consciousness exists, doesn't it? Or, in other words, I think I think, I think therefore I am, I think. We aren't really unsure about consciousness. If it didn't exist, we wouldn't know to make the argument that it may or may not exist. Instead, we may be ignorant about the physical properties of consciousness.
-
I definitely think is will be possible (if humans don't destroy themselves 1st or otherwise lose all the gains they've accomplished over the past millenia). I do, however, think we will achieve this in a manner not currently considered. Since I'm a firm believer that every living thing is linked to the cosmic conscientious, all that is really required is a "port" to my thread and voila, done! String theory may get us there...
If we manage to do it before we destroy ourselves, we can destroy our digital selves over and over again.
-
Lee Chetwynd wrote:
I am curious from the point of view of people from a programming sort of environment, how many of us believe that it will be possible to store a consciousness electronically.
Sometimes I wonder if we haven't inadvertently already achieved this. I've had bugs in code, I have absolutely gone over it line by line and swear there is nothing wrong with the logic. It is way too computationally intense to step through line by line, So I add code to find the first point it goes south and print statements to file to identify where it is happening. Poof, bug disappears. I've had that happen in the past, but it was fixed by altering the memory processing and removing the logic, the bug reappears. Those are REALLY difficult to find. Great, first time I've run into that on a windows environment. (When I did before, it last was FORTRAN on IBM mainframe.) I remove bug trace logic, expect the bug to reappear, it doesn't. That, I call a ghost in the shell moment. I had printed out my code in an attempt to coolly and calmly review what I had written before putting in the write statements, so I print the version that is currently working. Line, by line, everything lines up, no visible extra characters added or dropped, but now code works perfectly. They say the devil is in the details, I say the devil is in the machine just waiting to pounce. :-D
Sounds like a typical Monday.....
-
SeattleC++ wrote:
then the result would be that there are two "yous", each wanting to live, each wanting to control the assets "you" own, each rapidly diverging into different identities as their experiences differed.
I have thought about this bit a lot. I think you are right with rapid. I think we change with every microsecond of experience. Two identical consciousness would remain identical for only the smallest measurement of time if at all. Uploading would be interesting. Perhaps instead of the death sentence you could have your mind overwritten. That probably amounts to the same thing. The film 'freejack' just popped up from a small dark corner at the back of my mind. Are you saying that physical variances in the development of each individual neuron, play a part inthe definition of who we are? Kind of like, Ill attempt an analogy of what I think you said: its not just about if the switch is in an on or off position but also the physical dimensions of the switch, what brand it is, which shop you got it from and how much you paid for it and who made it and whether or not they are happy in their job and remembered to feed the dog before they left for work that morning.
Lee Chetwynd wrote:
Are you saying that physical variances in the development of each individual neuron, play a part inthe definition of who we are? Kind of like, " its not just about if the switch is in an on or off position but also the physical dimensions of the switch, what brand it is, which shop you got it from and how much you paid for it"
Your brain is not a digital computer. It's deeply, strangely analog. Differences in the exact base sequence of one person's DNA to another's will result in a given population of neurons signalling a little faster or slower, or being biased toward signalling to different extents. Developmental differences will result in the synaptic map being subtly different. All the processes that make our cells work are subject to variation. If the variation is too large, we are not viable and we do not live. But smaller variations probably explain much of who we are. Imagine your consciousness downloaded to an imperfectly similar brain. The result might be able to move about and to think to some extent, but would it be hyperactive, or depressed, or insane? It certainly wouldn't be "you". This is a standard sci-fi / fantasy wish. It's very sad that the world of physical reality is such a boring place that it doesn't permit really interesting stuff like warp drive, uploading consciousness, or any other kind of magic.
-
Lee Chetwynd wrote:
believe that it will be possible to store a consciousness electronically.
There are several points. 1. Can it be recorded? 2. What happens after it is recorded? For the first one must be able to demonstrate that consciousness itself has been recorded and not just a fixed state. That means that the second requires that it must be able to interact with the world in such a way that it is verifiable. And if either is possible it is a long, long way off.
Lee Chetwynd wrote:
or to develop a completely new conciousness that never existed biologically.
No that is a different problem. A rough analogy is the difference between recording a artist performing a song and then playing it back versus creating the song in the first place. Again if possible at all it is a long, long way off. And given the lack of real progress in this in the last 50 years, despite many attempts, I suspect it will never be possible.
Creating an artificial consciousness is a far easier task, because you are not constrained to follow any particular implementation. It just has to have the external interface of a consciousness. That is what the Turing Test is about; defining an acceptance test for an artificial consciousness. It avoids metaphysical arguments about what consciousness *is*, and effectively says, if it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck... See? Way easier.
-
Lee Chetwynd wrote:
I am curious from the point of view of people from a programming sort of environment, how many of us believe that it will be possible to store a consciousness electronically.
Sometimes I wonder if we haven't inadvertently already achieved this. I've had bugs in code, I have absolutely gone over it line by line and swear there is nothing wrong with the logic. It is way too computationally intense to step through line by line, So I add code to find the first point it goes south and print statements to file to identify where it is happening. Poof, bug disappears. I've had that happen in the past, but it was fixed by altering the memory processing and removing the logic, the bug reappears. Those are REALLY difficult to find. Great, first time I've run into that on a windows environment. (When I did before, it last was FORTRAN on IBM mainframe.) I remove bug trace logic, expect the bug to reappear, it doesn't. That, I call a ghost in the shell moment. I had printed out my code in an attempt to coolly and calmly review what I had written before putting in the write statements, so I print the version that is currently working. Line, by line, everything lines up, no visible extra characters added or dropped, but now code works perfectly. They say the devil is in the details, I say the devil is in the machine just waiting to pounce. :-D
It does worry me that the more complicated the computer gets, the more we need to turn it off and on again to fix some unknown intermittent and random problem.
-
If we manage to do it before we destroy ourselves, we can destroy our digital selves over and over again.
-
Sounds like a typical Monday.....
-
Interesting reading. It seems that a fruit fly and a mouse have already been digitized so we are not far off. :-D I wonder what you would call a bug in the code of a bug? I don't think humans need to understand something before they copy it and the process of copying may give us better understanding.
-
Sometimes the bug in the bug will cancel each other. I wonder if they will improve human software so that all these lengthy nightly reboots can be avoided :)
That would be good. If sleep was optional, I'd choose Thursdays.
-
But we can use bacteria to store data and cells from a leech to process data. They are both examples of digital to biological. Why could we not do the reverse. Biological to digital.
What about chemical reactions ? For example, we are able to transmit with our cell phones voice and visuals but what about smell ?
-
BillWoodruff wrote:
soon as I can define "consciousness,"
Not unconscious. Problem? :trollface:
“Education is not the piling on of learning, information, data, facts, skills, or abilities - that's training or instruction - but is rather making visible what is hidden as a seed”
“One of the greatest problems of our time is that many are schooled but few are educated”Sir Thomas More (1478 – 1535)