BRAAIIIIINNNS!!!

[wayfriend]

Or I might be mixing too many metaphors and navigated myself into an irreversible black hole ____

Yeah, it's getting thick. Let me try another angle.

Simulating consciousness is easy. The Eliza program dates back to the UNIVAC days. Because, remember, this task is merely making a program that SEEMS consciousness. It passes a Turing test.

If we are after a real consciousness, what we are simulating is a matrix - the raw materials - from which an actual consciousness can emerge. It doesn't just LOOK conscious, it IS conscious. Therefore, it's not simulated.

Which is where first order, second order, etc. effects comes in. Which is where the idea of a good simulation comes in. What we want to do is simulate the first order effects necessary for consciousness, and then hope that the second, third, etc. effects replicate real activities so well that the topmost effect, consciousness, appears.

(This is why I think the gravity analogy is right for the wrong reason. Gravity is matrix material. First order. It is pure simulation, completely unreal. Nor does it need to be real in any way. In other words, it only needs to SEEM like gravity, it doesn't need to IS gravity. Consciousness is a higher order phenomenon. And we aren't searching for SEEMS conscious, but IS conscious. So gravity is not a good analogy to consciousness.)

Our physical, emotional, intellectual make up or sensory structures are immersed with data at constant and regular rates. Flooded with data human consciousness sorts it and makes meaning of it.

Frank Herbert described the purpose of consciousness is to be a filter which is used to make sense of the sensory flood. Which is interesting to me, in so far as it proposes that self-awareness is a side effect of the necessity of trying to understand what we perceive. A side effect!

The biggest mystery of self-awareness is, why do we need to be? We would survive just as well being non-self-aware but otherwise intelligent. So maybe an accidental side-effect makes sense.

[Vraith]

The biggest mystery of self-awareness is, why do we need to be? We would survive just as well being non-self-aware but otherwise intelligent. So maybe an accidental side-effect makes sense.

I don't have time or desire right this second to get deep in this, so the short observations/instant reactions::::
Prime thing...there is a mystery about self-awareness. But beyond that::::

HAH HAH HAH!!!!!!!
For two reasons.

One, no. Not for one second do I think there is any evidence...and I sure don't believe...we [or anyone/thing anywhere/time] can be truly intelligent AND non-self-aware. [[lots of reasons I've already put in other posts other times. Others I'm not sure I've talked on, so maybe will sometime, but not now]]

Two. You and Z 100% agree!!!!! Crack my ass up!!! Hell, the whole motivation for a thread involved "Why are we aware, instead of just smart but not-aware?"

A proposal/conjecture/intuition I have is this:
For every set of otherwise identical beings, those that are self-aware will, in every case, be more intelligent than those that are not.
Imagine you have two Einsteins...if one is self-aware, it will be more intelligent than the non-aware one.
Self-awareness is not a side-effect. It is the cause of true intelligence.
Self-awareness/consciousness IS the difference between an actor and a reaction, between chemistry and a chemist, between effect and agent.


Sky---if we ever make an AI it will STILL be "artificial" and "intelligent."
We TALK about AI NOW, but while all of them are artificial, zero are intelligent.
We might have to, for accuracy's sake, have to change the term to manufactured intelligence or somesuch.

[Skyweir]

Good point re manufactured intelligence.. but if self awareness arises ... then we would absolutely be looking at a new life form .. manufactured of course .. but if conscious or sentient ... then a completely different thing from an AI or a MI.


I think yes there is a distinction between consciousness and intelligence.

I think consciousness is absolutely a side effect of being and having being I love Herberts take. And I find that freaking awesome actually and phenomenally exciting.

But I think intelligence arises FROM consciousness.. or is a side effect OF consciousness.

I too am not sure you can have intelligence without awareness or consciousness. That just seems a non starter to me.

I think intelligence likely cannot exist without consciousness .. intelligence is what we make of our awareness of self and our environment. The more data we are exposed to the greater our intelligence capability imv.

Then the question ... why do we need to be conscious is then arguably rendered moot ..

I truly believe consciousness is an evolutionary imperative and our survival hangs on it .. as equally as it hangs on a functioning and healthy physical anatomy.

Even homo Neanderthals possessed consciousness AND intelligence .. I suspect their anatomy effected the survival. But natural selection I suspect weeded out any lesser consciousness capability and therefore lesser intelligence capability .. over millenias to produce the consciousness and intelligence capabilities humans possess today.

Wayfriend I take your very good point re gravity and consciousness.. I wont use that analogy again. We are looking for REAL consciousness ..

Back to consciousness as side effect ... I feel like Ive mentioned this TOO much .. but consciousness is a side effect .. a materially reducible side effect of our physicality.

Yes there is a great chunk of understanding still missing re explaining the specific causal connections and links .. re the HOW .. but we cant be that far from a better understanding.

Organic life forms .. in this case humans, possess intricate and complex neural and nervous system, a network of nerve cells and fibres which transmits nerve impulses between all parts of the human body. I think consciousness has directly and naturally evolved and arisen, as PART of that physical system imv.

Fun

[wayfriend]

Why can't the world's greatest minds solve the mystery of consciousness?

There was only one truly hard problem of consciousness, Chalmers said. It was a puzzle so bewildering that, in the months after his talk, people started dignifying it with capital letters - the Hard Problem of Consciousness - and it's this: why on earth should all those complicated brain processes feel like anything from the inside? Why aren't we just brilliant robots, capable of retaining information, of responding to noises and smells and hot saucepans, but dark inside, lacking an inner life?

Two decades later, we know an astonishing amount about the brain [...] Meanwhile, the field of artificial intelligence - which focuses on recreating the abilities of the human brain, rather than on what it feels like to be one - has advanced stupendously. But like an obnoxious relative who invites himself to stay for a week and then won't leave, the Hard Problem remains.

It's a very long and very good article. And it explains the mystery, and why it is a mystery.

Focuses on recreating the abilities of the human brain, rather than on what it feels like to be one ... indeed, that distinction is often lost. But I was grasping for that idea earlier with "but then there is the ball, which is the thing that EXPERIENCES the arc." But, anyway, this is the part about being IS conscious rather than just SEEMS conscious that I emphasize.

[Vraith]

but consciousness is a side effect .. a materially reducible side effect of our physicality.

Oh, God...can we keep material reducibility out of my domain, please?!?!

We have different meanings of side-effect. Consciousness is a direct effect of the physicality. Just like the polarity of water is a direct effect of combining hydrogen and oxygen. Every time you combine them, you will get a polar water molecule...and that polarity is an inherent feature that is responsible for the behavior and properties of water.

If you have a car that's lost a wheel, you don't say it's a great car, except for the rolling down the road part.
If you have someone in a coma, you don't say "well, s/he's fine, just missing that consciousness side-effect."
You know their brain is broken.

And take sleep. There's a whole lot we don't know about sleep, yet.
But one thing it does in all the relatively intelligent beasties is make the CONSCIOUS functions work right.

I just think the idea that a brain would be just as intelligent without the conscious "side-effect" is highly unlikely.
It is a direct effect...and once it exists, it is selected FOR, because it is superior. [[if it is even possible to have a brain-like thing without it.]].

WF, this thing---"But, anyway, this is the part about being IS conscious rather than just SEEMS conscious that I emphasize." Yea, we've talked about that before. Simulations/AI so far, and forever if we keep using the same basic elements/processes/structures we do now, will ONLY be "reality-like" and "intelligent-like." Some functional, representational, symbolic, analogic and other resemblances of course, and many uses, but NOT actual...always something less than/missing.

[Skyweir]

I am not sure I follow you guys exactly ... surprise, surprise

I dont think the quest is about what consciousness FEELS like. I dont see that being what is being sought. And I think you can distinguish an analysis of what something feels like from EXPERIENCING consciousness. Sure its a fine distinction nevertheless.

Im not even convinced that recreating the abilities of the human brain will lead to an explanation of consciousness .. but sure if consciousness IS as we, and others surmise .. a result of human and animal physicality .. which seems abundantly logical an assumption .. then it might. But more than recreating the brain itself would be required in such an investigation ... youd surely need to include the central nervous system and all its functioning parts to assess the entire process from data reception to its processing, meaning and response. So to my mind it requires more than just the brain.

As noted from the scientist recreating human brains

V we might indeed have a different perspective on side effect .... I mean it as causally resultant from or consequential of.

I completely agree consciousness and intelligence ARE connected and share a relationship ... a direct and absolute relationship. I have not challenged that ..

Also Ive never ever argued the brain would be just as intelligent without consciousness.

What I have said is consciousness naturally arises and evolved from organic physicality and organic structure itself.

I have said as such or in other words consciousness arose as a side effect OF having an evolved organic structure. Thats my thinking but it clearly isnt unique as it is shared.

Next I think intelligence is for want of a better more scuentific descriptor .. a by product OF consciousness. That consciousness AND intelligence are directly connected AND one cannot exist without the other.

Thats the sum of my contention but you all know way more than I do about such topics .. cos not a scientist and a sciencey brain I do not possess .. so I lack the nuanced appreciation that those with sciencey brains possess.

AI or MI should consciousness EVER develop in AIs would clearly establish this contention but thats a humongous IF.

I think Wayfriend that IF energy and resources were invested in doing as you suggest in AI .. and connecting sensory aspects of AIs ... as opposed to programming algorithms rather replicating intelligence structures ie sensory centres and extremeties, replicating a central processing or nervous system .. which is arguably extant .. what could we learn?

But Im also not computer savvy .. so what I suggest may be untenable.

But the scientist growing the brains could .. look at the development of consciousness. Shes already identified a structure IS required to enable consciousness.. if a brain can be grown perhaps a structure can too. Maybe even an organic structure as opposed to a machine of sorts.

Pretty much Frankenstinian, no?

[Vraith]

But more than recreating the brain itself would be required in such an investigation ...

So to my mind it requires more than just the brain.

Well...yes, in a way. I'm on record telling Fisty his toe is part of his brain/consciousness---if he never had it,, he'd be a different person, if someone cuts it off, he will change. [[the size/importance of the change is arguable...but not the fact of difference/change.]] I don't really think of any of that as "more than" the brain, generally. Just extensions/peripherals.
That's how we are...and I think how any/all naturally evolved intelligent critters are/will be.

AND YET/BUT/ALSO...no.
We could [in theory, and probably in practice in the not-very-distant future] grow a brain in a vat. And then just stimulate input paths, and have machines/stimulations be responsive on output paths. [[or not...the output/response might not be necessary for all things...depending on the purpose of the "experiment." It might be sufficient to let it just create it's own internal world from the information stim/sim-ulated, and us just spy on it.]]

This would be a very interesting thing: a 100% real, conscious, intelligent, human brain..."living" a SIMULATED life...which seems utterly real to it.

AND YET---really living an entirely different life---pink, gray, and white matter floating in a jar and getting shocks---that it is not only unaware of, but can never BECOME aware of on its own.

ALTHOUGH---we could hook up its stimulators to equipment so it COULD learn its actual situation. It would probably be fucking PISSED!!!

ALSO---it could [depending on what gear you wire it up to] create WHATEVER world it wanted, WITHOUT knowing/being shown what its actual situation is...
[[and either knowing it was telling whatever life-story it wanted,
or NOT knowing it was doing it...
in either case without knowing why/how it worked.]]

OR---WITH knowledge of its actual situation. [[writing its own story/movie, but being able to experience being in it, living the simulation, but knowing it was simulated, and having parallel knowledge/experience of Blob-in-a-bottle-wired-up-to-stuff]]

Heh...in that case it would probably make the gear make it forget its actual situation and cut off the inputs/ouputs that showed it...

Or try to figure out ways to kill us all for what we did to it.

.[[which we could allow, or not, or anything else---we could totally fuck with/interfere/alter/erase/create any damn thing we wanted to impose on it.]]

BTW---real brain [or maybe whole body---but why save the whole body?--- in a vat wired up to responsive hardware is the most likely kind of "simulation" we'd be living in IF we were living in a simulation. It is massively easier, more efficient, and more useful than "absolutely everything is running simulation."

Just like making us all integrated cyborgs is way the hell superior to a future with separate humans, AI's, and robots.

[Skyweir]

That is absofuckinglutely brilliant .. great idea. We could so stimulate input paths .. and facilitate response pathways.

Haha I dont think the grey pink blobby mass will pose any serious threat even if it became self aware and realised what we were doing to it.

[wayfriend]

No, that's a horrible idea. What a cruel thing to do!

[Zarathustra]

How is attempting to grow a brain in a vat any more cruel than attempting to make a sentient computer? Wouldn't a sentient computer be the electronic equivalent?

[Vraith]

How is attempting to grow a brain in a vat any more cruel than attempting to make a sentient computer? Wouldn't a sentient computer be the electronic equivalent?

Actually, if successful, they are equally cruel, especially if we don't act responsibly/treat them right. We have to do the opposite of how the religious generally think here....
If the world fucking sucks, it's not our fault, it's that the dieties are just assfuckinholes.

If we are somehow living in a simulation and YET somehow actually conscious/intelligent/free...the makers aren't better than us, they are nasty motherfuckers.

[Zarathustra]

Wait, you agree that creating AI is cruel? On what basis?

[Vraith]

Wait, you agree that creating AI is cruel? On what basis?

If it is actually conscious/self-aware...not the totally non-intelligent/conscious machines we call intelligent now...it easily could be cruel/immoral.

I'm not sure where exactly I'd put the line...when it's smart/conscious as a rat? A cat? A raven? A dog? A pig/dolphin/octopus/monkey??? Hard problem.
But you make it, you are responsible for it, you OWE it, are OBLIGATED to it...you're not allowed to torture or experiment on your kids, experimenting an a true AI has similar, near identical, constraints.
And it doesn't owe you a damn thing, especially if you don't bring it up right and set it free.

[Zarathustra]

I said "create," not "torture."

[Vraith]

I said "create," not "torture."

and obviously I was speaking to "what then?"
Unless you KNOW what then, and what then is an actual law, and that law includes an unavoidable means of asking what it wants FIRST, and obligation/accountability TO the answer it gives...yea...cruel is the LEAST thing you can call it.

[Skyweir]

No, that's a horrible idea. What a cruel thing to do!

On what basis is it cruel?

The experiment I mean .. ie stimulating data input pathways etc? At that point its a non sentient cellular mass without self awareness

Should consciousness arise .. then what we do from THEN .. that moment I think V is right we are then bound by some form of duty of care to IT. But what would IT be at that juncture .. a consciousness equivalent to a fish, a bird, a reptile or something else? We dont really know. We dont really know anything about relative consciousness or awareness.

Look at how we treat animals. I think testing products, treatments, on animals is cruel. But humans do this, uses lesser species as tools and mechanisms or more accurately vehicles of technological developments.

So any laws regarding such behaviour and arguably cruel experimentations are unlikely to prevent or even deter such behaviour and practices.

This IS sad.

But like in I Robot .. what do we do with AI that develop awareness of their SELF? Which seems not an improbable prospect. Especially if all consciousness requires to arise, is a physical structure, in organic beings anyway ... to enable data input, processing and response mechanisms.

It would leave us acknowledging a new man made manufactured species or being ... with consciousness and intelligence most likely superior to organic human consciousness and intelligence .

But back to the mass of brain cells .. cruelty could only arise should the stimulated data input mechanisms enable some form of data experience steuctures.. that would enable FEELING, pain response etc. Then arguably that may be cruel.

However, the question then hinges on how long the piece of string is

... to determine the EXTENT of the AWARENESS and the EXTENT of the consciousness, no?

Humans are quite comfortable with trailer loads of cattle held in abattoirs.. waiting to be exterminated, butchered etc .. all the while those animals can smell fear, blood of those that are being slaughtered. If humans EVER acknowledged animal consciousness and intelligence we would owe THEM a greater duty of care, no?