Speculation about Consciousness

[fredreload]

 

How can something as complex as consciousness be "a voltage" - is a battery conscious? Or a "water dipole" - is a glass of water conscious?

Well, how else can you describe consciousness?

[Strange]

Well, how else can you describe consciousness?

 

Perhaps: an emergent property of the function of the brain that gives us the illusion of a state of continuous self-awareness based on sensory inputs and memories. (I just made that up but I can guarantee it is better than "a voltage").

[fredreload]

 

Perhaps: an emergent property of the function of the brain that gives us the illusion of a state of continuous self-awareness based on sensory inputs and memories. (I just made that up but I can guarantee it is better than "a voltage").

Well, for the term "property" of the function, you should break it down in terms of current, voltage, or hardware. That's what I'm asking myself when I think of consciousness, am I the output current, the output voltage, or hardware(hardware can't think).

[Strange]

Well, for the term "property" of the function, you should break it down in terms of current, voltage, or hardware.

 

I did: "function of the brain". That means all the biochemical and electrical activity going on between all the neurons and hormones in the brain.

 

 

hardware can't think

 

Apparently it can.

[fredreload]

 

I did: "function of the brain". That means all the biochemical and electrical activity going on between all the neurons and hormones in the brain.

 

 

Apparently it can.

Well then, how would you distinguish the function of the brain from that of a computer? I'll take structural difference for an answer, I'll leave it at this

Edited July 6, 2016 by fredreload

[Strange]

Well then, how would you distinguish the function of the brain from that of a computer?

 

Complexity?

 

I don't see any fundamental difference. There is no evidence that a brain can do anything that a computer can't. (I recommend reading Godel, Escher and Bach by Douglas Hofstadter if you want an easy introduction to computability and AI.)

[cladking]

Well, for the term "property" of the function, you should break it down in terms of current, voltage, or hardware. That's what I'm asking myself when I think of consciousness, am I the output current, the output voltage, or hardware(hardware can't think).

 

Consciousness is an emergent property of the digital brain but modern humans experience it through a rectifying circuit known as language. For the main part you're the output current but all brain/ body activity is not experienced solely as output and most such activity is not experienced at all. At times the language centers sleep.

 

For most practical purposes you are the output but you still can experience the digital brain though most gets "translated"/ modified before you are aware of it.

[fredreload]

Hmm it has to be functional heh, not everyone's brains are connected together, so it has to be functional.

 

 

P.S. No it's a voltage output with different timing from the functional inputs

Edited July 11, 2016 by fredreload

[DrmDoc]

Well then, how would you distinguish the function of the brain from that of a computer?

 

If I may also respond, brain function produces consciousness while computers, at present, cannot and do not. This consciousness distinction empirically suggests that brain function does something that is not and cannot be explained by computer function.

Edited July 11, 2016 by DrmDoc

[granpa]

Computers know how to do things but don't yet know what they are doing

[Strange]

 

If I may also respond, brain function produces consciousness while computers, at present, cannot and do not. This consciousness distinction empirically suggests that brain function does something that is not and cannot be explained by computer function.

 

Juts because computers currently do not do something says nothing about whether they can.

 

I have seen no good arguments to convince me that the brain does anything that computers could not, in principle, also do.

[DrmDoc]

 

Juts because computers currently do not do something says nothing about whether they can.

 

I have seen no good arguments to convince me that the brain does anything that computers could not, in principle, also do.

 

I disagree; believing that computers can do something without verifiable evidence of same is equivalent, in my view, to religious faith and belief in some supreme deity. I don't doubt that some day computers might produce functional-equivalent consciousness; however, that day may be far in the distant future when their functional construct more accurately simulates what happens in the human brain.

Edited July 11, 2016 by DrmDoc

[Strange]

 

I disagree; believing that computers can do something without verifiable evidence of same is equivalent, in my view, to religious faith and belief in some supreme deity. I don't doubt that some day computers might produce functional-equivalent consciousness; however, that day may be far in the distant future when their functional construct more accurately simulates what happens in the human brain.

 

Believing that the human brain can do something without verifiable evidence of same is equivalent, in my view, to religious faith and belief in some supreme deity.

 

We have a theory of computable functions. There is no reason to think that the brain can somehow (magically) compute things in a way that not included in the definition of computability. As such, anything we know that the brain is able to do can also be done by a computer.

Edited July 11, 2016 by Strange

[StringJunky]

 

Believing that the human brain can do something without verifiable evidence of same is equivalent, in my view, to religious faith and belief in some supreme deity.

 

We have a theory of computable functions. There is no reason to think that the brain can somehow (magically) compute things in a way that not included in the definition of computability. As such, anything we know that the brain is able to do can also be done by a computer.

Yes. Computers are evolving mirrors of our brain functions; how can they be anything else? We make them in our own image, in effect.

Edited July 11, 2016 by StringJunky

[DrmDoc]

 

Believing that the human brain can do something without verifiable evidence of same is equivalent, in my view, to religious faith and belief in some supreme deity.

 

We have a theory of computable functions. There is no reason to think that the brain can somehow (magically) compute things in a way that not included in the definition of computability. As such, anything we know that the brain is able to do can also be done by a computer.

 

Perhaps I misunderstand, are you suggesting that brain function doesn't produce consciousness or are you suggesting that consciousness is merely a series of computations that computers currently do produce?

 

Yes. Computers are evolving mirrors of our brain functions; how can they be anything else?

 

Yes, "evolving" superficial reflections of brain function devoid of an important distinction, which is consciousness.

[StringJunky]

 

Perhaps I misunderstand, are you suggesting that brain function doesn't produce consciousness or are you suggesting that consciousness is merely a series of computations that computers currently do produce?

 

 

Yes, "evolving" superficial reflections of brain function devoid of an important distinction, which is consciousness.

....for now. With increasing functional complexity, consciousness will emerge.

Edited July 11, 2016 by StringJunky

[DrmDoc]

....for now. With increasing functional complexity, consciousness will emerge.

 

I agree; currently, computer don't possess the structure and programming known to produce consciousness as understood through brain function. One day, they might.

[StringJunky]

 

I agree; currently, computer don't possess the structure and programming known to produce consciousness as understood through brain function. One day, they might.

Yes. I have a feeling that it will, one day, just be realised that computer function has evolved to become functionally indistinguishable from a brain rather than a premeditated design from scratch; consciousness will emerge 'accidentally' ..."Ooh! Eureka!"

Edited July 11, 2016 by StringJunky

[Strange]

 

Perhaps I misunderstand, are you suggesting that brain function doesn't produce consciousness or are you suggesting that consciousness is merely a series of computations that computers currently do produce?

 

Neither.

 

I am suggesting that

 

1. brain function does produce consciousness

2. there is (currently) no reason to think that the brain can do anything that a computer can't.

 

As such, I see no reason to think that a computer cannot reproduce all brain functions, including consciousness.

[DrmDoc]

As such, I see no reason to think that a computer cannot reproduce all brain functions, including consciousness.

I understand; I'm merely saying that I've seen no convincing evidence that computers can currently reproduce consciousness based on my understanding of that quality as produced by human brain function. Indeed, computers can be programmed to simulate consciousness equivalent responses but is that truly consciousness? The answer to that question defines a quintessential distinction. It's that unequal functional measure, between computers and the human brain, that makes computers currently an inadequate model for functions that produce true consciousness.

Edited July 11, 2016 by DrmDoc

[EdEarl]

Rather than saying what consciousness is not, or guessing what it is; I'd like to discuss characteristics of consciousness.

 

We are conscious of some external stimulus, such as visual images, odors, sounds, etc., and internal feelings caused by neurochemicals, such as adrenalin, oxytocin, and serotonin. In addition, we are conscious of our thought process or train of consciousness. Moreover, our brain filters out both internal and external sensations. For example, we can focus on a single sound (e.g., someones voice) in a chorus or cacophony.

 

On the other hand, our brain does things subconsciously that do not affect our conscious thought process, for example moving our hand away from a fire that burns. We are aware after the the event, but we move about the same time our conscious realizes we have been burned.

 

When we are first learning to read, we focus on each letter or each phoneme. With practice we focus on words and phrases, without sounding out each word. This process trains us, including the conscious part of our brain. To learn the letters we train hundreds of thousands of neurons to recognize the various letters of the alphabet. We start by looking at examples of each letter and try our hand at writing each one. Our writing is not exactly the same as our example, which means our brain learns a dozens or hundreds of variants of each letter. Much of how we learn is subconscious, but our conscious brain controls some things we learn. Eventually, as we read other people's writing, we will see thousands and thousands of variants of each letter and train millions of neurons (a neural net) to recognize them. Ray Kurzweil says there are roughly a hundred thousand neurons that recognize the horizontal bar connecting the two sides of the letter A. There will be a similar number for each side of the A, and for the A as a whole.

 

We might write an A without closing the two lines at the top, in which case the brain must decide whether the letter is an A or and H. It uses additional clues to distinguish between the two, for example by testing whether the letter makes sense within the word currently being read. For example, if the word is Aaron, an H doesn't make sense (Haron) so inhibiting signals will be sent from some neurons to tell the H recognition neural net that the letter is not an H.

 

Our brain is organized hierarchically. Neurons in the eye process individual "pixels" to recognize simple line segments and movements. They send outputs to higher level neurons that recognize more complex images until a single neuron when stimulated with a tiny electric shock can cause a person to recall a complex image, such as a person. Similarly, the inhibiting signals filter a chorus or cacophony to let us hear a specific sound; from this process emerges what we call consciousness, that allows us to make better decisions, albeit a bit slower, than a simple stimulus-response. It is hard to understand and define, because it can use all sensations and memories to make decisions; it requires complex neural circuits.

Edited July 11, 2016 by EdEarl

[DrmDoc]

Rather than saying what consciousness is not, or guessing what it is; I'd like to discuss characteristics of consciousness.

If I understand, you're discussing the nature of consciousness as produced by brain function. If so, I stumbled upon a perspective of that nature while researching a book I wrote about the dreaming brain. I found that human consciousness, at the very least, is an end result of specific functional milestones in the development of our central nervous system (CNS) beginning with the entry and acquisition of afferent (input) tactile and taste sensory neural pathways at the earliest stage (myelencephalon) of our CNS evolution. Such sensory acquisitions inform our view of the behaviors ancestral animal might have engaged at distinct and significant stages in their physical and neural evolution. When we trace the afferent sensory pathways of our CNS from the myelencephalon to the cortex, we find more refined and specialized tactile sensory acquisitions contiguously positioned until we reach the thalamus. The thalamus is important because its functions added an element to our CNS responses not expressed through prior development. That element was and is a capacity to integrate diverse and distinct sensory input through a mental process that produced behaviors independent of instinct. The thalamus gave ancestral animals the capacity to form a mental environment where consciousness might arise. Although there is exceedingly more to brain function and consciousness than I briefly explored here, this type of exploration in discussion is what I think we should engage for a clear understanding of consciousness in brain function rather than artificial constructs.

[Strange]

I understand; I'm merely saying that I've seen no convincing evidence that computers can currently reproduce consciousness based on my understanding of that quality as produced by human brain function.

 

 

I agree completely. We may be decades, or even centuries (maybe even millennia) from actually implementing any such thing.

[EdEarl]

I think it will take much less than 100 years; although, there will be arguments about whether AI is sentient for a very long time. We have no consensus on whether great apes, dolphins or elephants are sentient, and that discussion has been on-going for a long time. Just recently psychologists have discovered that some birds name their young, and that dolphins, elephants, great apes, and many other animals communicate among themselves.

 

I think sentience is not on-off; rather, there are degrees of sentience. Clearly a person who is brain-dead is not sentient. Moreover, when people sleep they are not sentient; although, we might consider someone in REM sleep who is dreaming to have a small degree of sentence. Brain damage can make a person into a vegetable, who we would not attribute sentence, or leave them severely disabled, but with sentence. However, brain damage might be so severe that we could not assess whether a person is sentient, for example if a person could not talk, hear, see or move.

 

A robot might be able to do anything that humans can do, even better than we can, yet we may not credit them with sentience, because they are simulating a human. Just as some people believe astronauts did not go to the moon, there will be people who do not accept sentient AI. In fact, I think it doesn't matter, because I think there is nothing special to do to give AI sentience; it will occur or not.

[imatfaal]

Could I just point out that the existence of machine consciousness is not necessarily the same as human knowledge of the existence of machine consciousness?

 

I think it is highly unlikely to the point of impossibility that my microwave is conscious - when they link up supercomputers over the internet to perform massively parallel fuzzy logic / self replicating / genetic algorithms I begin to think that consciousness is still unlikely but I wouldn't be at all surprised.

 

I don't think we will suddenly see a 3-d face of an infeasibly attractive but slightly sexless woman (like Hwood have done it ad nauseam) - but many years after the event historians will be able to discern the first traces of the ghost in the machine