Consciousness: Is It Possible?

[Birdjaguar]

So does that mean that when it comes to AI, it is not possible, since artificial life is not the result of evolution?

Interesting question. I would say that AI is possible, but not consciousness. I think that consciousness that can grow and evolve belongs to living things; non living things can be aware and respond in complex manners, but cannot respond or change in the same manner that living things can do. AI would act within tighter constraints.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I am of the view that consciousness is the experience that any system of energy has as a collected system of energy.

Yes, and as complexity increases, so to does the capability to respond. Atoms will respond when close enough to other atoms and may form more stable bonds. Then again, if you put two puppies together, they may form a different bond.

 

[timtofly]

Is there any utility in proclaiming free will an illusion?

I don't think that is the right question. Not to offend. Western thinking defaults to the need for utility. Saying that it is an illusion is the attempt to escape from such utility. Maybe that is what you are asking. I don't think that most are denying free will either. The modern view just states it does not exist. There is no need for it to exist nor for it not to exist.

Also, I have to caution you. As someone who studies equilibrium theories in the marketplace (economics), it's very easy to justify consequentialist if-then logic as the truth, when reality has no interest in your limiting analysis and will continue to function in a grander way.

The mistake people make is assuming its experience is like ours. A battery's consciousness is certainly less interesting than that of a battery, a switch, a light bulb, and some wires. But even that consciousness is basically "electricity is lighting me up, electricity isn't lighting me up!" as far as I can surmise. Oh, and it wouldn't understand the abstract concept of the self as it, well, lacks a brain. Not a particularly interesting consciousness to me.!

It may be that it is because the human brain allows a more interesting consciousness, but I do not see how that consciousness is any different than any other, if all that is involved is just the reaction of organic or inorganic matter to any stimulus.

The narcissistic leap certain folks think is in thinking that an inorganic consciousness has feelings like humans do. It's even a mistake to think that a conscious ascribes value judgments that inform it of its survival vs its death a market-consciousness might not actually care if its booming or busting, but then again, as its informed by human actors who do care, it might actually be hyper emotional and care a lot. But even if it did, it might not care the way we could ever empathize with without completely invalidating its existence.

In the end, the only interesting takeaway I have is that if energy systems spawn consciousness, and consciousness is experienced, and anything experience something is observing within its limits of observation, then it has by definition some kind of agency or some kind of self-awareness feed-backing effect.

It's also a question of how meta a system of energy can be and still live. My thoughts are real existing things. A collection of thoughts interacting is a collection of interacting (energy with cause-effect) things. And a collection of a collection, influenced by biological systems affected by physical constraints of the nearby star etc? If it can layer up, which I think by definition it does, it ends up layering into the entire universe and some. And it is a consciousness made up of intelligent parts, and has awareness and therefore some kind of agency.

The other thing is that I find interesting is that if its an aggregated energy system, and I show you

    .
  .   .
.   .   .

and ask you to make triangles from the dots, how many unique triangles are there? And are redundant triangles (the same dots but rotated) unique? The lines that connect the dots into the triangles are the energy that is aggregating the nodes (brain cells, visual stimuli, organs etc) can form many aggregations, many triangles. Could it be that you are just one consciousness in your body having a full experience? And that most of these consciousnesses are pretty redundant and they're all kind of on the same journey, does it matter? But if each one has agency, might they be working sometimes in unison, sometimes diversifying, and sometimes in conflict? How could you communicate with them?

Perhaps, if when they become redundant (rotations of the same triangle) they are in sync and can communicate. How to maximize redundancy? Meditation, when practice optimally, is optimally firing off your neurons to the point that you are creating white noise in your head. And maybe the thought of "I'm sharing this body with nearly identical me's, and maybe some radically different ones" is a physical enough manifestation that it can get it all more integrated and working together.

But then, and here's where I step outside consciousness and back into economics is a separate question: what's more resourceful to your life, harnessing crowd wisdom and independence of separate consciousnesses sharing a body working toward mutual goals of survival and thrival, or all of them thinking the same united thoughts so that there's no contradiction in action and there's the strength of a cohesive unit. Which is basically the same Triforce question that my dots hint at in the first place. Boom.

I suppose it may not make sense to attribute feeling to any thing really. Would it not be narcissistic to think that only humans have feelings though? We know we have feelings, because that is a term we gave to the way we interpret certain stimuli. To say that everything has feelings does not even have to attribute the same feelings that we have, or the narcissistic view that you were alluding to. I think that you are on to something in the pattern recognition example you gave and Gatsby's mirror below. The human brain has the capability to look at patterns and even mirror them to come up with vast ways of looking at things. The brain even functions on levels we do not even have to consciously think about.

Say more!

Perhaps I am better at mirroring people's thoughts than actually putting thoughts into one's head. I was sort of being tongue in cheek in my own thread in the chamber, and probably not a good idea. Polarity can be found in almost everything. Is there a need to have a positive side and a negative side? Would the universe exist without polarity? Even Gatsby points out one needs two mirrors.

I don't think that any one likes being put on one side of an issue or the other. Neither do they want to be considered as "know it all's" even if it strokes one's ego. Especially if there is really nothing there to begin with. However if there was nothing to motivate us, life would be stagnate.

The more I think about this issue, the more I am inclined to think that consciousness is no more real than the illusion of moving pictures created by a roll of film being run through a film projector.

Consciousness clearly has a reflective quality to it, and I have read of it being compared to a mirror. I think that consciousness is more like two mirrors facing each other, creating an impression of an infinite series of mirrors which aren't actually there. Likewise the reception of new data by the senses is continually compared to / "reflected" onto previous sensory data (i.e. via short- and long-term memory), and this process happens rapidly and continuously thus creating the illusion of an independently existing consciousness. Humans have brains of sufficient processing power and complexity that they can use sensory data to create elaborate abstract notions like "self" and "subjectivity", and these notions help reinforce the apparent substantiality of what we call consciousness. In other words, "consciousness" is a sensationalised interpretation of what happens when sensory data meets memory.

I tend to agree on your outlook, but does that mean reality is not real? All that is accomplished is an illusion producing an illusion. There is nothing in there about reality being experienced and recorded. That would put humans outside of the universe, not part of it.

I think that the conscious does work like two mirrors bouncing off of each other, even if that seems too simplistic. However those two mirrors are not the beginning nor the end of the process. If we only look at consciousness as just two mirrors, then it would be an illusion.

What about something like the sun though? That is a lot of energy! Does it have consciousness?

Nothing, I just think true free will is impossible in a fully deterministic system. I have no idea how you'd design one in a system that isn't deterministic, so I claim no answers there, but mind you I am not fully convinced that we do have it in the first place.

As much as proclaiming that God exists, in my mind. But if that statement is a conclusion built upon a rational examination of some data and axioms, and is fully logical, then surely it must carry some weight, even if it is wrong.

The sun has a lot of energy, but not much else to offer with it's minimal atomic makeup.

Even evolution would be an illusionary portrayal of determinism. Mutation does not determine the outcome. Mutation just makes an error and the outcome is either a dead end or a doorway. A thought would be the same as a mutation. The outcome is either a dead end or a doorway. Determinism seems to be the default position, because for the most part we can only see things proceed in a linear/progressive direction. I don't think that our brain works that way, so why should we accept that everything is the result of determinism?

If God does exist, the only way one is going to experience God, is if God gives one that experience. It is safe to say that every human that ever existed has experienced something that no one else has experienced and there is no way any other human would ever experience that. That does not mean that it was never experienced, unless of course, one cannot get past the illusion that life is an illusion. Saying that God exist, does not make it so. Saying that God does not exist does not make it so. Even believing in something does not give it any substance, except in the mind of the believer, which is only an illusion. That is why the scientific method is so addictive. It creates an idea that cannot be defaulted to an illusion. It removes it out of the individual and into the real world.

Interesting question. I would say that AI is possible, but not consciousness. I think that consciousness that can grow and evolve belongs to living things; non living things can be aware and respond in complex manners, but cannot respond or change in the same manner that living things can do. AI would act within tighter constraints.

Things are pretty adaptive at the atomic level though. So holding to pure complexity, there would always be some consciousness. A computer is not going to think on it's own, however if an AI is given the free will to do so, why would there not be any consciousness involved?

 

[Hygro]

What about something like the sun though? That is a lot of energy! Does it have consciousness?

I would presume it does. Plus it gets to experience gravity on a whole higher level. I have no idea what its conscious experience would be, or if it's particularly interesting. Maybe it's way cooler? Not literally mind you

As much as proclaiming that God exists, in my mind. But if that statement is a conclusion built upon a rational examination of some data and axioms, and is fully logical, then surely it must carry some weight, even if it is wrong.

I suppose.

I don't think that is the right question. Not to offend. Western thinking defaults to the need for utility. Saying that it is an illusion is the attempt to escape from such utility. Maybe that is what you are asking. I don't think that most are denying free will either. The modern view just states it does not exist. There is no need for it to exist nor for it not to exist.

That, in a post-post-modern ( ) way, was partially my point, though I would suggest that arguing there is no free will is neither the most compelling nor cutting edge take on free will. What is interesting, to me, is twofold.

First, is that the belief in whether or not we have free will depends not just on logic and evidence, but pretty culturally specific semantics of what "free", "will" and "free will" are what that means. That to me is pretty critical to understanding the meaning of the assertion.

Second, what kind of culture we create (and reflect too) when we assert such a thing. If everyone believed free will was totally real in the easiest to digest way, that we really do choose among things actively or subconsciously but that it's a choice that could have gone any which way will, I imagine, produce a totally different culture than one where everyone believes it's an illusion and what we do is a passive product of a preprogrammed reality. Even though whether or not we have free will might not even matter.

With that in mind, let's create the best society the we can.

It may be that it is because the human brain allows a more interesting consciousness, but I do not see how that consciousness is any different than any other, if all that is involved is just the reaction of organic or inorganic matter to any stimulus.

Yeah, who knows?

I suppose it may not make sense to attribute feeling to any thing really. Would it not be narcissistic to think that only humans have feelings though? We know we have feelings, because that is a term we gave to the way we interpret certain stimuli. To say that everything has feelings does not even have to attribute the same feelings that we have, or the narcissistic view that you were alluding to.

That's what I mean. It's narcissistic to anthropomorphize everything, and it's also narcissistic to think that things don't have feelings just because they are different. Hell, plants can feel, they have hormones and respond to stimuli. That's damn near what feelings are. Neurotransmitters are pretty much hormones with a different name.

My original point in its smaller form was this: just because it doesn't have our system, aka a brain and a nervous system and more, doesn't mean it doesn't have consciousness (or feelings) or some kind of living experience, but nor does its living experience mean it is anything like ours or should be treated with our social constructions and instincts of respect for biological creatures.

I think that you are on to something in the pattern recognition example you gave and Gatsby's mirror below. The human brain has the capability to look at patterns and even mirror them to come up with vast ways of looking at things. The brain even functions on levels we do not even have to consciously think about.

Definitely on some of that, but I might be misunderstanding--so if I may: in my analogy the "pattern" is not created by observing the materials for the pattern. The "pattern" is the consciousness and the nodes are the pieces of the brain. So the dots are on the inside and the triangles represent the experience of being the dots. aka not the brain consciously examining a pattern, but the pattern is the consciousness coming from the brain (and other bits too) that then has whatever powers of observation that consciousness is capable of.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Is there any utility in proclaiming free will an illusion?

Not directly, no I suppose not. I certainly don't live my life any differently for it.
However, I think - assuming it is true of course - realizing and accepting this can significantly help to demystify words like "deserve" or "justice" and in general see the world more in terms of utility/value rather than wrong and right. So I think it can be part of a wider philosophy a society could benefit from.

edit: Hah, just now read your second post and it seems we independently arrived at an at least similar conclusion.

Also, I have to caution you. As someone who studies equilibrium theories in the marketplace (economics), it's very easy to justify consequentialist if-then logic as the truth, when reality has no interest in your limiting analysis and will continue to function in a grander way.

Suggesting my reasoning moves in a too limited frame? Well I'll be glad to hear how.

Now, those are quit some thoughts you put out there.
It seems sensible to me to assume that consciousness can take various forms and that our way to experience it is just one possibility. So far so good.
But do we have any actual reason to believe electricity can result in consciousness in any other environment but brains or brain-like-structures? Because I don't see such reason, which renders any further exploration of that hypothesis a bit mood.

Regarding various independent consciousnesses within me: I suppose there is some observation suggesting that one can assume a variety of Mes within me.
But isn't a much easier explanation that there is one consciousness, but various potential sources of or relevant inputs for my consciousness stored within my brain which enables my brain to sort of switch conscious-variants?

I feel like Occam's Razor decapitates your post.

 

[Hygro]

A nice rhetorical finish but Occam's Razor doesn't actually simplify a model of consciousness into one-space, one-consciousness. That raises its own problems.

The reason it's not moot btw, or won't be soon, is because we're going to end up with AI that's going to be increasingly indistinguishable from human or living intelligence, even though we won't have figured out the hardware/software for "free will" or "consciousness" or whatever.

How we should treat these things really depends on what they actually are... If we can fully simulate a living experience of some sort, that thing is just as alive as we are.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

How we should treat these things really depends on what they actually are... If we can fully simulate a living experience of some sort, that thing is just as alive as we are.

fully is a tricky word in this context

 

[Hygro]

Ah that's true.

I hedged it later in the sentence

 

[warpus]

I would presume it does. Plus it gets to experience gravity on a whole higher level. I have no idea what its conscious experience would be, or if it's particularly interesting. Maybe it's way cooler? Not literally mind you

I think you're the first person I've ever heard say that the sun is conscious. You must be aware how .. unconventional that sounds, yes?

It just doesn't seem right on any sort of level at all. I disagree with it on all levels possible.

 

[timtofly]

A nice rhetorical finish but Occam's Razor doesn't actually simplify a model of consciousness into one-space, one-consciousness. That raises its own problems.

The reason it's not moot btw, or won't be soon, is because we're going to end up with AI that's going to be increasingly indistinguishable from human or living intelligence, even though we won't have figured out the hardware/software for "free will" or "consciousness" or whatever.

How we should treat these things really depends on what they actually are... If we can fully simulate a living experience of some sort, that thing is just as alive as we are.

Probably more alive, if we leave out ethics.

In response to "free will":

It would seem to me that free will can not be given to oneself, but comes from an outside source. It does not evolve, not even in the sense of an answer to ethics. Free will is not a license to do as one pleases. I don't think it is even doing things that come naturally, since that does not take much effort or will to do either. The only context free will works in, is if there are choices, and since we have convinced ourselves there are not any choices, we have negated free will. I would concede that we may have imagined an outside source at one time, and the only thing left is the illusion of what once was imagined.

In response to patterns:

I would say you would be right in both cases. Humans have the capability of seeing patterns, but also the ability to live the pattern instead of just hung up on the objective aspect of it. I wonder if there would be any major differences between a chaotic neural net and one specifically designed in multiple patterns?

 

[Hygro]

I think you're the first person I've ever heard say that the sun is conscious. You must be aware how .. unconventional that sounds, yes?

It just doesn't seem right on any sort of level at all. I disagree with it on all levels possible.

Once you divorce the idea that consciousness has to be like your own, it makes a lot more sense.

 

[warpus]

Once you divorce the idea that consciousness has to be like your own, it makes a lot more sense.

But then your definition of consciousness seems to lose all meaning for me as it becomes something that describes things that aren't like the things we mean when we say "this is conscious".

In essence to me it sounds like you're saying "red is green", so then I'm going to stop you and ask what exactly you mean by "red" and what you mean by "green", because we can't really have a meaningful conversation if we don't even see eye to eye on the things we are discussing in the first place.

 

[Hygro]

But then your definition of consciousness seems to lose all meaning for me as it becomes something that describes things that aren't like the things we mean when we say "this is conscious".

In essence to me it sounds like you're saying "red is green", so then I'm going to stop you and ask what exactly you mean by "red" and what you mean by "green", because we can't really have a meaningful conversation if we don't even see eye to eye on the things we are discussing in the first place.

Well, we're both talking about things, entities, that have a "self" and experience its life according to its sensory inputs and physiology, right?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

A nice rhetorical finish but Occam's Razor doesn't actually simplify a model of consciousness into one-space, one-consciousness. That raises its own problems.

Which would be?

The reason it's not moot btw, or won't be soon, is because we're going to end up with AI that's going to be increasingly indistinguishable from human or living intelligence, even though we won't have figured out the hardware/software for "free will" or "consciousness" or whatever.

How we should treat these things really depends on what they actually are... If we can fully simulate a living experience of some sort, that thing is just as alive as we are.

Well you see I do not believe that we can simulate experience. Or rather, that if we simulate experience, it will remain just that - a simulation. Something that to us may appear like that but will not actual be the real thing.
However that does not mean we can not create artificial consciousness, what I mean is that it would require an actual physical structure having the properties which allow our brain to create consciousness. Think of the positronic brain of data in Star Trek.
But it is true that I do not know that is the case. How could I. It just IMO is the safest assumption to make.

 

[Tahuti]

How about connecting a rodent to a computer?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

You mean that the rodent's brain would sort of function as a sort of hard drive for the computer to mess with? Hm, that is an interesting thought!
No idea Though a rodent already has a sort of consciousness from what I know.

 

[Hygro]

Which would be?

Well for starters you would have to justify why there are still separate, independent consciousnesses. If there can only be one consciousness per system, then the existence of multiple interacting independent consciousnesses in a network starts getting pretty strange. You would have to introduce other constraints, and suddenly the hypothesis I offer (every aggregation of a self contained system is conscious in its own capacity) is simpler than one that denies it.

Well you see I do not believe that we can simulate experience. Or rather, that if we simulate experience, it will remain just that - a simulation. Something that to us may appear like that but will not actual be the real thing.
However that does not mean we can not create artificial consciousness, what I mean is that it would require an actual physical structure having the properties which allow our brain to create consciousness. Think of the positronic brain of data in Star Trek.
But it is true that I do not know that is the case. How could I. It just IMO is the safest assumption to make.

Wouldn't the safest assumption be to assume something IS conscious if it's telling you it is and responding like it is? It might be emotionally easier to swallow that a machine can't be conscious unless we build it some kind of special soul box, and then we can have human-like slaves guilt free. But in terms of playing safe our morals, I'd take the opposite position.

 

[warpus]

Well, we're both talking about things, entities, that have a "self" and experience its life according to its sensory inputs and physiology, right?

Nah, there is more to it than that. We are talking about such things which are self-aware, have a sense of self-hood, and some sort of an executive control of some sort of a thought process.

So essentially for the sun to be conscious, it would have to be sitting there thinking "la di da, I'm the sun! Whoa" and I just don't think that's what's happening

 

[Hygro]

Nah, there is more to it than that. We are talking about such things which are self-aware, have a sense of self-hood, and some sort of an executive control of some sort of a thought process.

So essentially for the sun to be conscious, it would have to be sitting there thinking "la di da, I'm the sun! Whoa" and I just don't think that's what's happening

Wait, you think something have an aware experience outside the automaticity of the universe is not the defining feature of consciousness?

 

[warpus]

Wait, you think something have an aware experience outside the automaticity of the universe is not the defining feature of consciousness?

I can't parse what you said, you will have to rephrase please. But yeah, we should figure out what we each mean by consciousness. I'm just going by what wikipedia says.