Electronic Consciousness?
-
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)
-
I'm not sure why, but that reminded me that praying mantis have two brains. I don't know if that's relevant or I'm just getting tired.
Bruce Patin wrote:
My own experience tends to agree with this.
That sounds interesting. Have you had a near death or outer body experience?
I had several out of body experiences in a period of two years after I started Transcendental Meditation. They stopped when life got busy and I couldn't relax enough.
-
I'm not sure why, but that reminded me that praying mantis have two brains. I don't know if that's relevant or I'm just getting tired.
Bruce Patin wrote:
My own experience tends to agree with this.
That sounds interesting. Have you had a near death or outer body experience?
Just to clarify, lest you fear that the real you is going to die - the physical brain consciousness seems to be a subset of the soul consciousness, and is not lost in that regard. Frequently, experiences of the higher bodies are not always downloaded to the physical brain, so we don't always consciously remember in our physical brain what we experience beyond the physical body. Sometimes we need to go back to the higher experience and try to download it again. Sometimes it just won't download properly, because the physical brain can't yet relate to it. I am stretching, here. No guarantees of absolute truth. Still trying to understand it all thoroughly.
-
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.
SeattleC++ wrote:
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.
Yeah it's too bad about interstellar travel and virtual immortality, but nature is far from boring if you look close enough, it's sometimes weirder and more improbable than any science fiction. For instance, would you believe that this was possible if it wasn't clearly real?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ophiocordyceps_unilateralis[^]
-
I admit that I only skim read about the Abhidarma. I got sidetracked as it made me imagine digitizing our brains in order to ascend.
AAC Mike wrote:
So how could you save it if you don't have a clue what it is?
I do that with my code sometimes.
-
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?
-
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.
The Turing Test and Turing Machines are different things, but you're right in that neither has anything to do with consciousness. The Turing Test was about machine intelligence, nothing to do with the philosophical or metaphysical implications of consciousness. Turing was a mathematician, not a philosopher of mind. The Turing Test was imagined as a way to tell if a machine could think, not a way to tell if it was conscious, self-aware, etc. Turing's idea of a "thinking machine" was a very practical one and he deliberately left open the door to puppets, that is, if the programmers are clever enough to allow the computer to "fake" thought, that's as good as thought for all practical concerns. Turing's concept of a thinking machine was more like contemporary expert systems, not hard AI.
-
I'm not sure how well that argument would stand up in a hospital. ;)
-
For example, you said "brain". That is an assumption that consciousness resides in the brain. I found your post very interesting and am just trying to open up the dialogue.
I stated that information resides in the brain, in the form of neurons. Our current understanding indicates that consciousness is related to the flow of information in the brain. This is not an assumption, this is strictly an observation. MRI systems are able to directly observe the electromagnetic signatures from living brains during interaction with the consciousness of the person. The reason I harp on this point is because I try very hard not to make assumptions. I know that consciousness exists, because I am aware of my own consciousness. I know that brains exist, because I have seen them first hand. I know that there is a direct correlation between interacting with another person visually, verbally, and through other sensory mechanisms, and the pattern of electrical activity in that person's brain, because I have seen MRI demonstrations. These are all first hand observations of my own. I have read through mathematical papers on quantum mechanics. I make no claim as to unilaterally understand quantum mechanics, but I can follow the math and determine that it "works". I have read research into the composition of neurons, and the observations that lead the researchers to the conclusion that electrons are in a hyperpositional state within the neurons. My point was that this set of conditions suggests that consciousness may be non-deterministic in nature. Any Turing machine can, hypothetically if not practically, be replicated using strictly mechanical rod-logic that is exactly deterministic in nature. Therefore, while it is entirely likely that a Turing machine will be capable of simulating a conscious response well enough to interact with and fool an observer, this will not be the same as generating a consciousness, if indeed it turns out there is a non-deterministic computational component required.
-
SeattleC++ wrote:
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.
Yeah it's too bad about interstellar travel and virtual immortality, but nature is far from boring if you look close enough, it's sometimes weirder and more improbable than any science fiction. For instance, would you believe that this was possible if it wasn't clearly real?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ophiocordyceps_unilateralis[^]
-
Its not irrelevant. It doesn't need to know we exist to do something that's catastrophic to us, but beneficial to it.
We can program with only 1's, but if all you've got are zeros, you've got nothing.
-
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.
SeattleC++ wrote:
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.
Since both are very, very difficult the fact that one might or might not be easier doesn't alter the fact that it is very, very difficult. Moreover recognizing that consciousness exists is far different than understanding it. And although understanding it might lead to creation there is no guarantee.
SeattleC++ wrote:
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
Not really. In particular notice that the third subtopic in the following which notes that people have already used that 'test' to decide that programs are intelligent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test#Weaknesses_of_the_test[^]