BRAAIIIIINNNS!!!

[Vraith]

Almost put this in peters thread, but it's a bit different....and I wanted to use that topic title. Especially since the research is cool...but kinda creepy.

www.bbc.com/future/story/20161004-were- ... f-the-body

[Avatar]

Gods, Jack the Bodiless here we come...

--A

[peter]

Suprised the pitchforks aren't breaking down the doors! Time enough I'll bet .........

[Cord Hurn]

Almost put this in peters thread, but it's a bit different....and I wanted to use that topic title. Especially since the research is cool...but kinda creepy.

www.bbc.com/future/story/20161004-were- ... f-the-body

Creepy yet kind of cool, I agree.

[wayfriend]

[Ur Dead]

Like Young Frankenstein -- I-gor got a brain called
Abby Normal...

I pity the zombies on a Zombie Apocalypse if they broken into a vault where only abnormal brains were being store...

[Vraith]

I put this here for no reason except the title...others might be better.
I'm gonna ALSO put it in the actual Close thread on consciousness...
Cuz, duh...

https://www.quantamagazine.org/neurosci ... -20190306/

[peter]

Good link V.

The things I take most from it (reflection no doubt of my poor grasping of the actual competing theories of consciousness outlined) are :

1) the potential value of putting together a standard collaborative methodology for dealing with areas (such as consciousness research) where the sheer complexity of the subject and our shakey grasp of even a clear definition as a starting point spawn a myriad of competing theories to the point where you simply can't see the wood for the trees. (There was no clear understanding here of whether GWT and ITT were simply the same theory looked at from different perspectives or so far removed from each other as to be not even testable/comparable in a meaningful way.)

2) The extent to which our dominant technology (in this case computer systems) becomes the arena of investigation within which the thinking and study of the consciousness problem is framed. Is this helpful in the study I wonder? Is it even possible for us to 'think outside the box' of consciousness being other than comparable in operation to the system we will very shortly develop to imitate it (in a way that makes it essentially fungible with the original - we simply won't be able to tell the difference and so AI consciousness will in practical terms be equitable with human consciousness and will morally demand equitable treatment).

3) There was a 3. but I've forgotten what it was.

Oh yes - 3) Simply how much the article drives home how basic our knowledge of what constitutes consciousness, from whence it derives and how it operates, truly is. We are virtually at the blank paper stage here. If it were compared to a similar stage in our understanding of say the cosmos we'd not even have reached the 'spheres within spheres' stage of mediaeval drawings yet: barely out of the 'thunder is the anger of the Gods' level of understanding. This article really drives home the infancy of our understanding in this area.

[Ur Dead]

A brain without a enclosure can not sing lungless songs.

[Skyweir]

Indeed UrDead

I found this a good analogy for why AIs may well never actually possess consciousness. So all about the architecture.. very interesting and absolutely borne out by the first article re cultivating brain cells.

"Digital computers can simulate consciousness, but the simulation has no causal power and is not actually conscious," Koch said. It's like simulating gravity in a video game: You don't actually produce gravity that way.

[Fist and Faith]

Gods, Jack the Bodiless here we come...

[Vraith]

Gods, Jack the Bodiless here we come...

Yes. I love those books. and get annoyed at the same time. [[there's some weakness in the whole set-up, and connections/allusionsto "reality"---but I'm pretty sure I couldn't do it better, so who am I to critique?]]
And---Cuz---they're reverse Wheel of Time. Wheel of time could have been 1/3rd as long and better if it was. Those could be twice as long and still have important and interesting unexplored territory.

Sky..you said " AIs may well never actually possess consciousness. So all about the architecture.. very interesting and absolutely borne out by the first article re cultivating brain cells.
Quote:
"Digital computers can simulate consciousness, but the simulation has no causal power and is not actually conscious," Koch said. It's like simulating gravity in a video game: You don't actually produce gravity that way."
I think there's some truth in that/basically sorta agree.
BUT--the problem is, so far, we have no actual evidence that OUR consciousness/intelligence has any causal power.
I suspect it does, for hints and indirect oddities/facts, and stuff in other threads/places.
And ALSO...our current understanding and systems seem to exclude current machines from consciousness. That doesn't mean there aren't machine architectures that will allow---or even necessarily create---consciousnesses. Consciousnesses that may run in similar ways....but also in utterly different ways.
AND---they may run in the same ways, YET come to different knowledge...
OR---they may run in different ways, YET come to the same knowledge.

[wayfriend]

I found this a good analogy for why AIs may well never actually possess consciousness. So all about the architecture.. very interesting and absolutely borne out by the first article re cultivating brain cells.

"Digital computers can simulate consciousness, but the simulation has no causal power and is not actually conscious," Koch said. It's like simulating gravity in a video game: You don't actually produce gravity that way.

That's a very interesting analogy. But I wonder if it reaches the right conclusion for the wrong reason. Because while the gravity is simulated, a ball thrown through the air still arcs downward. So one might say the simulated arc is as good as one produced by real gravity. The question is, is consciousness the gravity, or the arc?

[Skyweir]

Exquisitely astute Wayfriend.

To my mind, yes it does replicate gravity .. precisely even. But its a simulation of gravity .. its not caused by the same forces that cause gravity ... this is now beyond my scientific inability to describe lol

The most fascinating article Ive read of late was this one ... it posited some truly .. to me .. interesting concepts but mostly this one

1. That consciousness to DEVELOP .. requires physicality .. a physical structure or body. Why? Because the body is sensory and as such is flooded or immersed in data. And consciousness evolved to make sense of that data to ensure survival. And I totally love that total nerd exciting love moment right there.

Interesting observation is consciousness gravity or the arc?

From my subpar scientific perspective .. the arc is intrinsically causally connected to gravity itself, no? So the question is then .. is the arc a consequence or an affect of gravity?? Or something else? It kinda is though right? Its the measureable and observable effect of gravity.

If this is so, then is consciousness ... a concept resulting from something else or not?

To my mind then, if it is ... consciousness IS the arc .. and that makes some sense to me.

Why? Because I see consciousness as causally related to and as a result of .. something else. That something else is physicality.

In the AI realm .. consciousness is merely a brilliant simulation. Not equivalent to sentience. Sentience would be awesome.. but it could only truly occur beyond its programming.

Its like the suggestion that we are existing within a simulation. Simulation Theory is primarily a philosophical hypothesis .. in and of itself a thought experiment.. but its objectives are unclear to me.

mmm.. Note to Self .. ask about that next time

Simulated existence can never equate to reality because its a mirror image of reality. Then what IS reality? And how many ways can a simulation be distinguished from reality. And of course what characterises reality? What is reality? Is it merely subjective individual perception? Or a shared subjective perception? Or does it possess objective, observable characteristics?

Interesting .. I love the place your mind went with this .. thoughts?

[wayfriend]

Exquisitely astute Wayfriend.

BTW, my position is more like this: the arc caused by simulated gravity is the same as one caused by real gravity ... but there is no ball experiencing the arc. (That is, a simulation could provide a simulated neuron grid for a thought-process to occur, but there is no being experiencing the thoughts.)

That consciousness to DEVELOP .. requires physicality .. a physical structure or body. Why? Because the body is sensory and as such is flooded or immersed in data. And consciousness evolved to make sense of that data to ensure survival. And I totally love that total nerd exciting love moment right there.

That is pretty much my belief, and I have been saying so a long while now. But it is only based on intuition. However, that consciousness must have a "seat" - it must have a place to reside - I think is generally accepted. There is a mystery as to how pure consciousness can interact with base matter. However, we need not understand that fully to recognize that there must be a physical place where this interaction occurs.

Interesting observation is consciousness gravity or the arc? From my subpar scientific perspective .. the arc is intrinsically causally connected to gravity itself, no? So the question is then .. is the arc a consequence or an affect of gravity?? Or something else? It kinda is though right? Its the measureable and observable effect of gravity.

Well there are first order effects, second order effects, etc. You can simulate gravitiy's attraction on objects, that's first order. Then there are behaviors you can observe in those objects when they react to gravity. That's second order. Then you may notice pressure and heat resulting from those behaviors on masses of particles, that's third order. Etc. etc.

It seems to me that the idea in a simulation is you simulate the base components, and then you observe these higher order phenomenon. The higher order phenomenon should in some way replicate real-world behaviors. Succeeding in that you have a good simulation; failing in that, you have a bad one.

To my mind then, if it is ... consciousness IS the arc .. and that makes some sense to me.

As I said above, I don't quite see it the same way. The arc is surely a second-order or more phenomenon. But I equate that to thoughts or memories, which are built of either real or simulated brain matrix, and so are second order.

But there is a third thing here ... there is gravity, simulated or real. There is an arc, which is produced by the action of the gravity ... but then there is the ball, which is the thing that EXPERIENCES the arc. To my way of thinking, consciousness is not JUST a higher-order phenomenon, it is more, it is the interaction of that phenomenon with something that can experience it. There must be a place for the "ego" to reside, if you will. There must be a ball.

A simulated ball is only a collection of numbers that are assigned meaning. It is not an actual thing. The numbers are things, and the place holding the number is a thing, and the meaning we assign to the numbers is a thing. But a number and/or a number holder and/or a number assigner is not a ball, and never can be.

The ball is very much like gravity - a simulated ball will never be a real ball. Ok. So maybe the phrase "simulating gravity will never produce real gravity" applies to it. However, the difference between gravity and ball is that GRAVITY needs MERELY to be simulated, success is achieved. But the ball needs to BECOME something more. You don't simulate it, you simulate everything else and hope that it emerges. I hope that makes sense, it's hard to describe my idea lucidly.

[Zarathustra]

BUT--the problem is, so far, we have no actual evidence that OUR consciousness/intelligence has any causal power.

Of course we do. I've given many examples. What is the cause of all our technology if not our intelligence? How would that technology come about without the understanding of the principles that make such things possible? Isn't that understanding a feature of consciousness/intelligence?

We don't blindly produce technology. There might be a bit of trial and error to it, because that's a powerful tool, but much of it moves forward purely in terms of thought experiments (e.g. Einstein) and logic (e.g. the invention of computers). Spiders might be able to build webs without any knowledge of math or engineering, but it would be impossible to build nuclear bombs without understanding the processes of fission/fusion. Also, our technology is produced willfully, with goals and blueprints. If there were no causal power to our consciousness, these things wouldn't be necessary. Everything could happen bottom-up through the laws of physics without any understanding at all, much less detailed plans (which the laws of physics don't have). There is no purpose at the physical level. But we have purposes. Our industrial/technological society is the evidence of those purposes, and therefore evidence of the causal power of consciousness/intelligence. If these things are signs of consciousness/intelligence, how can they NOT be effects of it? [ If we saw technology on an alien world, our first assumption would be that an alien intelligence produced it!] If they are effects of it, it is a cause of them.

Otherwise, you're left with the conclusion that physical laws do indeed depend on or entail purpose, goals, etc.

[Vraith]

BUT--the problem is, so far, we have no actual evidence that OUR consciousness/intelligence has any causal power.

Of course we do.
ETC ETC ETC.

Man, I don't disagree with most of that [[though there are underpinnings/implications I do and would]].
Nevertheless, NONE of it is direct or unassailable, ALL of it has other explanations that have equal or more evidence....even you point at parts of that with the blindsight and other problems.

Problems exist...and they don't necessarily move closer to solutions depending on what seems like evidence or good arguments.

Even your simulation thread. Fun shit in there, maybe valuable shit, too...but
Are ALL of us simulated-but-more? [[we HAVE to be more, if we're simulated, cuz we're not ONLY what we are, we are a part of the answer to something above that we are not made of/part of. We're fucking Arthur Dent, not the goddamn mice.]]
Or is only ONE of us, probably Avatar cuz he's always saying he is/could be the only one, deluding the rest who only think they're real? Sim-Sub-simulations?

You realize your simulated place requires {probably} both MORE "Hard Problems" AND more energy to create/run than the simpler version that it is what is seems, a real universe?

[Zarathustra]

NONE of it is direct or unassailable, ALL of it has other explanations that have equal or more evidence....even you point at parts of that with the blindsight and other problems.

Blindsight removes the necessity of conscious perception as a requirement for us to interact with the world. But intelligence isn't dependent upon perception. Blind people can still design technology. Understanding/intelligence can't be eliminated.

What I find unassailable is the fact that we have purposes--without which technology would be impossible--but scientists tell us that there is no purpose in physical laws. How do you get around that? Turn purpose into an illusion? If you do, how does technology come about? What would be the basis for distinguishing "natural" and "artificial?" For instance, how could you distinguish between natural selection and genetic engineering? You'd have to say they're both the same process, with some "mysterious force" speeding up and informing the former.

You realize your simulated place requires {probably} both MORE "Hard Problems" AND more energy to create/run than the simpler version that it is what is seems, a real universe?

You should join the discussion there! I think the Hard Problems cancel out, if it's true. Also, I think that the simulation argument wouldn't require more energy because most of it would exist as mere potentials (just as quantum theory seems to indicate). Instead of modeling every particle in every galaxy, or indeed, modeling every galaxy, it would only need to model those parts of the universe which interact with a consciousness--again, as quantum theory seems to be telling us--and this modeling on the macro scale need only be approximations/summations, much like our gas laws describe a level of dynamics which ignores the fact that these are trillions of trillions of particles . . . something that is beyond our ability to calculate. This would take infinitesimally fewer resources than producing a real universe where every particle has a definite position/velocity, as classical physics would have us believe. Only a small sliver of reality would have to be calculated. And this energy savings, in addition to the limits of computational power, would be the explanation for why the universe seems to "conserve" computation, too, by only settling on definite values for "particles" (which are actually waves of probability) when someone looks/measures them.

[Skyweir]

Sky..you said " AIs may well never actually possess consciousness. So all about the architecture.. very interesting and absolutely borne out by the first article re cultivating brain cells.

Quote:
"Digital computers can simulate consciousness, but the simulation has no causal power and is not actually conscious," Koch said. It's like simulating gravity in a video game: You don't actually produce gravity that way."

I think there's some truth in that/basically sorta agree.

BUT--the problem is, so far, we have no actual evidence that OUR consciousness/intelligence has any causal power.

I suspect it does, for hints and indirect oddities/facts, and stuff in other threads/places.

Insomuch as you have already agreed with Zs examples on this ie human activity. There is the other side which I suspect is the key issue ..

Yes human activity and ingenuity demonstrates the link between consciousness and outcomes. But we still struggle to connect specific material structures in the brain and throughout the physical body that produce thought, consciousness and enable intelligence.

That same article indicated that the brain cells will never develop consciousness as they are not connected to a physical sensory structure. Now thats interesting isnt it?

Wayfriend is much further along in his understanding than me in this regard .. yet where his intuitive understanding demonstrated this logic, I needed that article to provide that insight. And to my mind THAT is a phenomenal insight.

And ALSO...our current understanding and systems seem to exclude current machines from consciousness. That doesn't mean there aren't machine architectures that will allow---or even necessarily create---consciousnesses. Consciousnesses that may run in similar ways....but also in utterly different ways.
AND---they may run in the same ways, YET come to different knowledge...
OR---they may run in different ways, YET come to the same knowledge.

I agree .. definitely NOT impossible. If we can determine HOW the body produces consciousness.. and replicate that in machines .. ie provide the requisite sensory structures .. then who knows given a mechanism to process data .. consciousness might be inevitable .. as it arguably is in all living organic organisms.

Organic structures are slow evolving structures .. with AI .. Id imagine its not going to take millennias.

Once you can replicate a similar system and structure necessary for consciousness.

But THATS a freakingly amazing thought isnt it? Because if humans were able to enable consciousness in a machine .. its no longer AI but intelligence ACTUAL. Arguably a new ... life? Life form? Sentience? It would be a sentient being.

Now thats something that will give rise to autonomous thought, independence, rights and even entitlements. We would need to give THAT due consideration and thought, no?

[Skyweir]

Exquisitely astute Wayfriend.

BTW, my position is more like this: the arc caused by simulated gravity is the same as one caused by real gravity ... but there is no ball experiencing the arc. (That is, a simulation could provide a simulated neuron grid for a thought-process to occur, but there is no being experiencing the thoughts.)

Interesting. Thats a clever distinction actually. To be sure I understand.. the ball cant truly mimic the actual effect of gravity as we see in a real ball arcing?

That consciousness to DEVELOP .. requires physicality .. a physical structure or body. Why? Because the body is sensory and as such is flooded or immersed in data. And consciousness evolved to make sense of that data to ensure survival. And I totally love that _ total nerd exciting love moment right there.

That is pretty much my belief, and I have been saying so a long while now. But it is only based on intuition. However, that consciousness must have a "seat" - it must have a place to reside - I think is generally accepted. There is a mystery as to how pure consciousness can interact with base matter. However, we need not understand that fully to recognize that there must be a physical place where this interaction occurs.

Must it though? I mean must consciousness emanate from on singular place? I mean it might ____ but what if its not just the brain for example .. what if its a merging of all sensory neutrons AND processing neurons? Im having to assign names, because I literally dont know how these processes work. So please bear with me. I guess Im saying we visualise a seat or a location but it might be broader than that.

Interesting observation is consciousness gravity or the arc? From my subpar scientific perspective .. the arc is intrinsically causally connected to gravity itself, no? So the question is then .. is the arc a consequence or an affect of gravity?? Or something else? It kinda is though right? Its the measureable and observable effect of gravity.

Well there are first order effects, second order effects, etc. You can simulate gravitiy's attraction on objects, that's first order. Then there are behaviors you can observe in those objects when they react to gravity. That's second order. Then you may notice pressure and heat resulting from those behaviors on masses of particles, that's third order. Etc. etc.

Thank you. That is brilliant and a much better method of articulation.

It seems to me that the idea in a simulation is you simulate the base components, and then you observe these higher order phenomenon. The higher order phenomenon should in some way replicate real-world behaviors. Succeeding in that you have a good simulation; failing in that, you have a bad one.

That seems logical. Agreed.

To my mind then, if it is ... consciousness IS the arc .. and that makes some sense to me.

As I said above, I don't quite see it the same way. The arc is surely a second-order or more phenomenon. But I equate that to thoughts or memories, which are built of either real or simulated brain matrix, and so are second order.

Ok. The arc is a second order or even third order effect. Meaning that it is an effect OF something else. So to my mind ... and my mind and understanding is evolving lol .. but consciousness is a second order effect of the physical sensory data structure that is human physicality.

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.

Oh and I disagree with Z .. I think perception is key. Even a blind man perceives. One does not need eyes to perceive meaning. I think perception is what consciousness produces.

But there is a third thing here ... there is gravity, simulated or real. There is an arc, which is produced by the action of the gravity ... but then there is the ball, which is the thing that EXPERIENCES the arc. To my way of thinking, consciousness is not JUST a higher-order phenomenon, it is more, it is the interaction of that phenomenon with something that can experience it. There must be a place for the "ego" to reside, if you will. There must be a ball.

A simulated ball is only a collection of numbers that are assigned meaning. It is not an actual thing. The numbers are things, and the place holding the number is a thing, and the meaning we assign to the numbers is a thing. But a number and/or a number holder and/or a number assigner is not a ball, and never can be.

The ball is very much like gravity - a simulated ball will never be a real ball. Ok. So maybe the phrase "simulating gravity will never produce real gravity" applies to it. However, the difference between gravity and ball is that GRAVITY needs MERELY to be simulated, success is achieved. But the ball needs to BECOME something more. You don't simulate it, you simulate everything else and hope that it emerges. I hope that makes sense, it's hard to describe my idea lucidly.

Mmm.. so much here.

Leaving the simulation aside for a moment ... we have a ball, gravity and an arc.

To my mind .. gravity is analogous to our materially physical sensory structure .. it exists and equates to a law, a system.

The ball I can equate with an organic life form or being ... organic beings do the EXPERIENCING. Physical structures are the thermometers of data acquisition and data accumulation ... via their materially physical, intellectual, emotional sensory structures.

Consciousness .. or arc ... to my mind is the second or third order effect .. of gravity or the data structurally acquired. Or I might be mixing too many metaphors and navigated myself into an irreversible black hole ____