Electronic Consciousness?
-
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[^]
-
patbob wrote:
It doesn't need to know we exist to do something that's catastrophic to us
Then, by definition, we would know it exists. And if we know it exists we can certainly do something to it.
We'd know, but only after the fact.. and only maybe. We'd need to know with certainty that an unnatural event happened. We'd know it was unnatural if A) our predictions didn't predict it, B) we're very certain our model isn't incorrect, and C) we don't just toss that data point out as anomalous. You hit most of the stoplights green on the way home tonight.. natural event, or unnatural? How can you tell?
We can program with only 1's, but if all you've got are zeros, you've got nothing.
-
I see no reason why it wouldn't be possible. After all, the human brain is nothing but a big processor that obeys the laws of physics. Man-made systems with similar capabilities of cognition, affectivity, introspection... should be able to support consciousness. Wikipedia supplies interesting material on this topic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_uploading[^]). Moving consciousness from one being to another is something we (I) don't understand at the moment, and it seems to raise paradoxical situations.
I remember the book Neverness (think it was from Alan Dean Foster) that I read several years ago. In this book a sentence was quoted several times: If our brain was simple enough that we could understand it, we would be so simple that we couldn't. So maybe creating and teaching an AI is possible, but I don't think copying/transferring would work.
-
We'd know, but only after the fact.. and only maybe. We'd need to know with certainty that an unnatural event happened. We'd know it was unnatural if A) our predictions didn't predict it, B) we're very certain our model isn't incorrect, and C) we don't just toss that data point out as anomalous. You hit most of the stoplights green on the way home tonight.. natural event, or unnatural? How can you tell?
We can program with only 1's, but if all you've got are zeros, you've got nothing.
patbob wrote:
We'd know, but only after the fact..
That is a pretty big what if. You are suggesting that the did something awful but did nothing at all before that which was detectable. Sort of like suggesting that humans went from a club straight to a full nuclear missile launch.
-
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.
Please see the page at http://tmor.exnihilum.org/ and reply here if anyone would be interested in working together with me on this way overdue project. Cheers, TJL
-
Lets just hope its not touch screen.
Depends upon who's doing the touching. :)
-
Depends upon who's doing the touching. :)
Good Point. :) As long as they wash their hands.