Consciousness: Is It Possible?

[Hygro]

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.

I have this theory that what I mean is somewhere in the middle of what you think I mean and what I think you mean.

On some level I'm saying yeah, the sun is probably going "la di dahhh I'm the sun. fusion power, ishes!" but on another level I'm saying, no the sun is totally, obviously not doing that, duh, but it doesn't need to be doing that or a our-dimensions-of-reference scaleable metaphor of that to be exerting the characteristics of consciousness. Its living self awareness or whatever not-self-but-sun-logic awareness experience might, by virtue of being ginormous, might find our consciousness to be as intelligent and meaningful as whatever consciousness we find in the individual cells in our body and the plants we pluck for our dates.

 

[timtofly]

To a certain extent awareness is part of consciousness. Out of all the items and entities that we are aware of only a few seem to us to be aware of itself. That everything is not is only an assumption on our part. For some reason humans relate to things easier if they personify them. In fact we do not even ask permission to do so. We just assume we can, because nothing has stopped us from doing so. We have boxed ourselves into the idea that we are the only authority on what is self aware and what is not.

 

[Birdjaguar]

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

What if you define consciousness as the capability of something to respond to things outside of itself. The sun's consciousness functions at the atomic level, as well as, the "sun" level. It's consciousness, though, is far less complex than a kitten's and cannot change or grow.

 

[warpus]

I have this theory that what I mean is somewhere in the middle of what you think I mean and what I think you mean.

On some level I'm saying yeah, the sun is probably going "la di dahhh I'm the sun. fusion power, ishes!" but on another level I'm saying, no the sun is totally, obviously not doing that, duh, but it doesn't need to be doing that or a our-dimensions-of-reference scaleable metaphor of that to be exerting the characteristics of consciousness. Its living self awareness or whatever not-self-but-sun-logic awareness experience might, by virtue of being ginormous, might find our consciousness to be as intelligent and meaningful as whatever consciousness we find in the individual cells in our body and the plants we pluck for our dates.

There is just nothing in place in the sun for it to have any sort of inkling of wanting or being able to say anything, think about anything, realize what it is, or anything of the sort. It's as non conscious as a dead parrot. Non aware. Just a bunch of chemical and nuclear (?) processes going on. When you mix two chemicals in a beaker and they react - is that consciousness? If so, how? If not, what's in the sun that would give it the ability to be conscious? Do you think it's something we haven't discovered yet - perhaps some sort of a neural net? Is it something we already know about that you think is producing the effect? If so, what exactly is it?

 

[peter grimes]

There is just nothing in place in the sun for it to have any sort of inkling of wanting or being able to say anything, think about anything, realize what it is, or anything of the sort. It's as non conscious as a dead parrot. Non aware. Just a bunch of chemical and nuclear (?) processes going on.

So are we, though. So I don't think that's a valid objection.

For that matter, your first sentence is awfully chauvinistic. Or maybe I don't understand what you mean by "in place".

Neurons don't know what they are, but a collection of them does. At some point consciousness emerges from neural activity. Is it really that strange to imagine that at some point consciousness might arise from photonic interactions with strong magnetic fields in a very strong gravity well?

 

[Hygro]

Peter, that's pretty much the logic of it.

 

[warpus]

So are we, though. So I don't think that's a valid objection.

For that matter, your first sentence is awfully chauvinistic. Or maybe I don't understand what you mean by "in place".

Neurons don't know what they are, but a collection of them does. At some point consciousness emerges from neural activity. Is it really that strange to imagine that at some point consciousness might arise from photonic interactions with strong magnetic fields in a very strong gravity well?

Our brains contain neural nets though, "designed" to learn. They are incredibly powerful pattern recognition machines, essentially. They are based on chemical processes - but there is a lot more than that - in a way a very complex computer built out of neurons and their connections. In theory that is the framework that allows us to be conscious.

What I'm saying is - I see no such structure in the sun, and am wondering what other structure is suggested by Hygro to allow the sun to be self conscious and self aware. We have a framework for our consciousness - a very powerful computer in our head - what does the sun have that might give it consciousness?

I also don't understand how I was being chauvinistic. I am being too forceful in demanding answers? I hope not. Even if I was - how is that chauvinistic? I just want to figure out what's meant by consciousness here by Hygro - and the above questions will help me understand. Plus, so far I 100% disagree with his hypothesis, so I'm voicing that, hopefully without bashing anyone's head in.

 

[Hygro]

the powerful computer in our head is another way of saying the aggregation of a network of chemical and physical reactions and interactions. It seems pretty straight forward extrapolating from a human with a human form built from the process that replicates humanness that goes to make use of one type of physio-chemical network to perpetuate and experience its existence as a tiny organic thing that dies almost as soon as it is born, into to a star with a solar form built from the process that represents stardom star-ness that goes to make use of another physio-chemical network to perpetuate and experience its existence as a massive stellar thing that dies aeons after it is born.

 

[peter grimes]

Our brains contain neural nets though, "designed" to learn. They are incredibly powerful pattern recognition machines, essentially. They are based on chemical processes - but there is a lot more than that - in a way a very complex computer built out of neurons and their connections. In theory that is the framework that allows us to be conscious.

I know that you're using "designed" as a shorthand, but it's perhaps not helpful to use the word here. Our brains are not designed as pattern-recognition machines. They happen to have evolved that way because they were useful. They could have evolved in a different direction, say incredibly powerful numeric integrators [totally made that up, if you couldn't tell ]. That our brains are made up of connections of neurons doesn't mean that's the only way to get a computer, as you well know. And, I doubt that pattern recognition in itself is a prerequisite for consciousness.

What I'm saying is - I see no such structure in the sun, and am wondering what other structure is suggested by Hygro to allow the sun to be self conscious and self aware. We have a framework for our consciousness - a very powerful computer in our head - what does the sun have that might give it consciousness?

I think it's premature to say that we know everything there is to know about the sun, however robust astrophysics is these days. Do we know a heck of a lot? Certainly. But we can't even be sure that some birds and cetaceans aren't conscious - and they share not only evolutionary history with us, but also some of the same exact wetware! How can we be so confident to say that there is not any analogous structure in stars?

Maybe we will be able to rule that out some day, but I really don't think we're there yet.

I also don't understand how I was being chauvinistic.

I meant chauvinistic in the sense that you're looking for consciousness and neural nets similar to our own, rather than leaving open the possibility that there could be drastically different substrates or phenomena that could have the same result. It's like expecting all alien life to be humanoid, when not even all life on earth is humanoid.

 

[Kyriakos]

^Not sure what you mean, FYI i always see every object or idea as some sort of trigonometric value building up the complex part of a number involving an imaginary part and a real one.

I thought everyone was like that. I am quite scared to even think you mean that is not so!

 

[Hygro]

^Not sure what you mean, FYI i always see every object or idea as some sort of trigonometric value building up the complex part of a number involving an imaginary part and a real one.

I thought everyone was like that. I am quite scared to even think you mean that is not so!

I almost missed the joke.

If I had, I would replied: "Kyriakos, most folks don't think like you "

 

[peter grimes]

I have no idea what he just said - you sure there's a joke in there?

 

[Hygro]

He said we already think so radically different from one another that we'd be wrong to assume another consciousness would function like our own.

 

[peter grimes]

Oh my - of course

Sometimes I read too closely and miss the proverbial forest

 

[Souron]

The below exchange sounds interesting, so I thought it deserves it's own thread, instead of being intertwined into the other thread.

What allows consciousness? Is it the amount of brain capacity? Is it the result of evolution? Is it random or pre-programmed? Do thoughts arise out of nothing, or are they put there by some invisible force?

I think the important part of consciousness is self awareness, which requires having a mental model of oneself. It is not computational power, though it requires some. It is basically software. So the internet will never become conscious, no matter how big it gets, because it doesn't work in the right way.

It's a little tricky to say what would be sufficent to create a computer with consciousness, because when programming a computer we have a mental model it and everything else, but it's tricky to say what is required to say that the computer shares that mental model.

I agree with Warpus' point on this, as well. A computer may have 1000 times the processing ability the current best computers do, it still will not by itself make it form any sort of what we sense as consciousness. Processing ability is not leading to self-reflection or even basic awareness that something exists, in a similar way that a sword used thousands of times in battle to slay enemies will not form some sense of brutality on its own part.

The current attempts to make "conscious robots", i am afraid (or perhaps happy with) are just entirely misquided and won't ammount to any consciousness at all. Even the very basic "insect-like robots" which were created a few years ago, and have the program to identify hindrances on their environment as something not to be overcomed but instead forcing a pathway searching approach, are nothing at all like the actual insects and how they move and react. In reality those robots have absolutely no consciousness, they merely can give the illusion that they have, if someone who knew nothing about them (for example a very young child) had happened to glance at one of their anxious-looking twists and turns.

I think artificial intelligence has taken the aproach of trying to pass the Turring Test or trying to be useful, which are very different things from being conscious. The closest thing to consciousness are expert systems, which do work similarly to how people think. Problem is, it's very difficult to teach them enough facts to even approach the intellect of a child, so most have instead focused on being good at domain specific knowledge. But being good at Jeopardy isn't self knowledge.

I have this theory that what I mean is somewhere in the middle of what you think I mean and what I think you mean.

On some level I'm saying yeah, the sun is probably going "la di dahhh I'm the sun. fusion power, ishes!" but on another level I'm saying, no the sun is totally, obviously not doing that, duh, but it doesn't need to be doing that or a our-dimensions-of-reference scaleable metaphor of that to be exerting the characteristics of consciousness. Its living self awareness or whatever not-self-but-sun-logic awareness experience might, by virtue of being ginormous, might find our consciousness to be as intelligent and meaningful as whatever consciousness we find in the individual cells in our body and the plants we pluck for our dates.

I think the suggestion that the sun has consciousness preposterous. We evolved consciousness because it's useful for a glob of cells with the same dna to act in unison to perpetuate that dna. There's more to it, but clearly the sun never had such evolutionary pressures.

Which would be?

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.

I disagree with this. Consciousness is software. It's behavior. It a way of thinking. None of these things require particular hardware. So it could be created in silicon as easily as carbon. You might say that consciousness necessitates certain components, but if so, those components would be software too and could be emulated on any platform.

Our brain may be a specialized piece of hardware, so a general purpose computer may need a lot more processing power to emulate the same behaviour, but there's no reason to think it cannot given such power.

 

[timtofly]

I think the important part of consciousness is self awareness, which requires having a mental model of oneself. It is not computational power, though it requires some. It is basically software. So the internet will never become conscious, no matter how big it gets, because it doesn't work in the right way.

It's a little tricky to say what would be sufficent to create a computer with consciousness, because when programming a computer we have a mental model it and everything else, but it's tricky to say what is required to say that the computer shares that mental model.

Software is only as efficient as it's designer. It seems that you are equating the way the brain works strictly under the guidelines of software.

I think artificial intelligence has taken the aproach of trying to pass the Turring Test or trying to be useful, which are very different things from being conscious. The closest thing to consciousness are expert systems, which do work similarly to how people think. Problem is, it's very difficult to teach them enough facts to even approach the intellect of a child, so most have instead focused on being good at domain specific knowledge. But being good at Jeopardy isn't self knowledge.

AI will never have conscious if it has to wait on software, unless that software is written given the AI free will and free from the restraint of pre-written software. That would be the "magic" moment that people think may happen. Anything that is designed will only act in the manner that the software dictates. That is one of the hang ups I have with evolution. If you stick with the straight definition of software, software cannot evolve on it's own, even if the hardware can. Software does not "happen". Hardware may evolve and show signs of some software activity, but that software is not the controlling factor, but just the way the hardware would act because of how it evolved.

I think the suggestion that the sun has consciousness preposterous. We evolved consciousness because it's useful for a glob of cells with the same dna to act in unison to perpetuate that dna. There's more to it, but clearly the sun never had such evolutionary pressures.

There is not much evolution pressure on cells and plants, but they also show signs of awareness. I doubt evolutionary pressure has much to do with it. Mutation does not work under pressure. Nature and events select their survivors, but mutation happens way before that. As far as we know the sun's genetic makeup may not support consciousness, but that is about all we know.

I disagree with this. Consciousness is software. It's behavior. It a way of thinking. None of these things require particular hardware. So it could be created in silicon as easily as carbon. You might say that consciousness necessitates certain components, but if so, those components would be software too and could be emulated on any platform.

Our brain may be a specialized piece of hardware, so a general purpose computer may need a lot more processing power to emulate the same behaviour, but there's no reason to think it cannot given such power.

Consciousness is more than mere software. Besides the fact that as long as that software is pre-determined it will never create consciousness. Perhaps we conflate consciousness with software, because it gives the illusion of control?

 

[Hygro]

I think the suggestion that the sun has consciousness preposterous. We evolved consciousness because it's useful for a glob of cells with the same dna to act in unison to perpetuate that dna. There's more to it, but clearly the sun never had such evolutionary pressures.

So consciousness by your definition is driven by a bunch of matter with a shared form to act in unison to self perpetuate. Check.

The thing missing from this discussion is not what is consciousness but that consciousness is experienced. Like there's literally a totality of your own universe being experienced by you right now, based on the parameters of your physical existence. We consider that experience synonymous with the consciousness itself. There's nothing that says, logically speaking, that we need to be present and experience consciousness. In fact, all we need to be able to do is be the implied understanding of the man in the Chinese Room, existing without experiencing what we are experiencing. That's what a lot of folks in this very thread thing that a simulated intelligence would be.

But we know we aren't for the very reason we know we aren't, because we can actually experience that we are experiencing our existence.

So we have this experience, where does the experience comes from. Well it comes from a bunch of different, separate things acting in coordination. And in aggregate, those things are experiencing something.

 

[timtofly]

I don't think that consciousness can be simulated, nor even created for that matter. It has to be experienced in it's own unique way.

 

[Kyriakos]

I almost missed the joke.

If I had, I would replied: "Kyriakos, most folks don't think like you "

Yes, i was indeed noting that each person thinks in a considerably different way, for many reasons. The example itself was a hyperbole, of course (or i think it was ).

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I know that you're using "designed" as a shorthand, but it's perhaps not helpful to use the word here. Our brains are not designed as pattern-recognition machines. They happen to have evolved that way because they were useful. They could have evolved in a different direction, say incredibly powerful numeric integrators [totally made that up, if you couldn't tell ]. That our brains are made up of connections of neurons doesn't mean that's the only way to get a computer, as you well know. And, I doubt that pattern recognition in itself is a prerequisite for consciousness.

I know you're using "they happen to have evolved that way because they were useful"as a shorthand but its perhaps little confusing. Wings would be quite useful or second pair of hands or perhaps an extra eye on the back of the head but they haven't evolved (well at least bats and spiders consider them useful) on the other hand heigtened capacity for pain in higher organisms seems like a bit of drag. I mean give me intellect but I dont need any mental problems. Thank you Evolution.

Btw when you say useful you are implying purpose. How would you define it? Survival? That can hardly be done without the other species of plants and animals to develop in harmony. One doesnt survive all by himself. There is a massive interdependence. And for that you need some sort of design. I am afraid...