Thread: Consciousness and AI

Okay I still don't understand what point your trying to make.

From Xei's explanation all I can figure is that your trying to find a reason why people think consciousness can't arise from the brain?

That's is just strange. But I think I sort of answered it, when I said the points I made were besides the point of this thread. But that's really the thing you're trying to figure out.

Unless I've got it wrong again.

I'm going to expand on that VVVV later if this ^^^^ is what you're arguing about.

It is just a trick of the brain and the way it is wired.
Consciousness just forces us to stay alive because we perceive ourselves as.... ourselves.

Gets in the way of what? If we didn't have consciousness, we wouldn't be aware and wouldn't place value on anything. There would be no feeling of anything being valuable, no state would be better than any other state, there would be nothing to get in the way of.


We think we are separate from other things. Which makes us want to keep surviving. Putting ourselves above other things.
The only thing we value because of consciousness is our own lives and those of our close relatives, because they share our genes.
This is getting off the point though and I don't want to convince you of this because you don't understand the consciousness issue in the
first place. If you begin to understand the issue you raised, maybe you will see what I'm talking about regarding consciousness being a bother.

I hope this thread is active...

I read the previous posts with great interest. I Have only a few points to add.

Xei mentioned earlier that consciousness can't be divided, and a lot of people has mentioned that it seems impossible to reduce consciousness to more basic physical processes. In my oppinion this indicates that conscousness can't be a purely physical process, and that there has to exist something else. Still, it also seems to me that conscousness has to be connected to the brain in some way. That something which is not a physical process (consciousness) can arise from physical processes (the brain) is however a big challange to explain...

Even though i find arguments like Tommos's very interesting I can't completely agree with them. Every person has a subjective experience of having a unique consciousness. It seems impossible that consciousness can simply be a trick of the mind when all our experiences result from having this consciousness. Even though you can point to a stranger and claim that he/she is imagining having a consciousness, you can't honestly do the same with yourself.

Originally Posted by tommo

From Xei's explanation all I can figure is that your trying to find a reason why people think consciousness can't arise from the brain?

It isn't that I'm trying to figure out why other people don't think consciousness can arise from the brain. I don't understand myself how it can arise from the brain, and I've explained why. I added more to it before, but basically my argument is this: The individual pieces of a brain, or of a computer, aren't conscious. A computer program, for example, is basically made up of unthinking sets of rules. No matter how complicated the program was made, even if it were to simulate a human brain, it would still be unthinkingly following sets of rules.

I'm summarizing what I remember of this example by Douglas Hofstadter:
Imagine we have a book which perfectly represents Einstein's brain right before he died. Some parts of the book represent his memories, others represent his methods of reasoning, etc. The book is basically a set of rules. You give it words as input, follow the rules, and eventually you arrive at the output. Some of the rules in the book reference other parts of the book, and others tell you to change other parts of the book. In real life, such a book would be billions of pages long and it would require an inconceivable amount of time to ask Einstein a single question. But, theoretically, it could exist. Now, the question is, would this book be Einstein's mind? Would it be consciously aware of its thought processes? If you intuitively answer no, you're in agreement with me, and see the problem I have with consciousness.

I guess another question that could be asked is, if it is possible for consciousness to arise via brain processes, could you create a robot which perfectly simulated a human and was not conscious?

So you ARE saying that you don't think computers can becomes conscious. Or you don't understand how. So why did Xei tell me that's not what you're saying?

If this is still not it, read the rest of my post anyway coz I'll just respond to your post in itself.

Originally Posted by Dianeva

It isn't that I'm trying to figure out why other people don't think consciousness can arise from the brain. I don't understand myself how it can arise from the brain, and I've explained why. I added more to it before, but basically my argument is this: The individual pieces of a brain, or of a computer, aren't conscious. A computer program, for example, is basically made up of unthinking sets of rules. No matter how complicated the program was made, even if it were to simulate a human brain, it would still be unthinkingly following sets of rules.

Ok, individual bits of a brain aren't conscious either. We are pretty sure, through scientific studies, that consciousness is in the frontal lobe.
Ok, so the rest of the brain is unthinkingly following sets of rules. You have to think
of the consciousness as a part of the brain which is observing the rest of the brain, and in the human case, even observing itself sometimes.

But the consciousness is still most likely following rules.

There are computer programs which don't follow set rules as you would think of them (if this happens, do this). They, rather, say "if something is like this, check the state of all these things and choose the most appropriate response".

Which is exactly what all animals do that had/have any chance of surviving.

So you could think of the consciousness as probably following a similar, open sort of rule.
For example "display running processes of the rest of the brain relating to past stimuli which is similar to present stimuli." or "if place is unknown, check past memories for similar stimuli //which would be shapes, colours, objects, people etc.// and try to figure out what is contained within this place based on these past experiences and what is most likely." This would be imagination too.

This is epic pseudo-code obviously and for the first example it would have to be WAYYYY more complicated.
But I think the best way to figure out how to code consciousness is not to look at the minutiae of how the neurons fire etc. But just to develop this pseudo-code, which we can figure out by observing how our own consciousness works (using our own consciousness), into real code. In other words, figure out the rules our consciousness uses.

It is just another part of the brain which uses rules, but these rules are related to observing itself, the brain.

My guess is that, even if someone did develop a computer with consciousness, the general population would not believe it anyway, unless it has a smiley face on a human-like body.

They would dismiss it as a trick, just code, without realising that the same rules applies to every human being too.

Originally Posted by tommo

So you ARE saying that you don't think computers can becomes conscious. Or you don't understand how. So why did Xei tell me that's not what you're saying?

lul... she's saying things becoming conscious in general seems contradictory. Forget about computers. It's really not that hard man, it's been explained like five times.

The question, Tommo, is why is it necessary for the experience of consciousness to accompany the set of rules that the brain follows? As you say, most people would claim that the computer is not conscious despite the fact that it works the same way a brain does. Does this mean that I am justified in denying your consciousness, or anyone elses?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

As you say, most people would claim that the computer is not conscious despite the fact that it works the same way a brain does.

Would they really? I'm not so sure, not if the question were asked precisely, and bearing in mind they could have an in-depth conversation with such a computer.

Originally Posted by Xei

Would they really? I'm not so sure, not if the question were asked precisely, and bearing in mind they could have an in-depth conversation with such a computer.

I don't know if they would, I was only responding to Tommo's example in his post. I actually believe that people would readily identify any computer that mimics humans as conscious whether or not it was. People already talk to and blame their problems on their GPS's/give them names/etc. because of the human voice. I think though that if a computer believed itself to be conscious but did not behave in a human way, most humans would not identify with it and therefore would deny its consciousness. Basically the same reason why many people do not believe that animals are conscious, unless they exhibit human like behavior/emotions.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Basically the same reason why many people do not believe that animals are conscious, unless they exhibit human like behavior/emotions.

I think it's intuitive to most people that animals are conscious (because they do exhibit human-like behaviors. We don't have tails, but we can tell that when a dog wags its tail it means it's happy).

I think so too (at least for animals more complex than insects and such). But I have a hunch that many people would be resistant to the idea of a conscious computer, no matter how human-like its behavior. This sort of deep-seated resistance is pretty much the basis of the Chinese Room argument--computers are said to lack a sort of Secret Ingredient ("original intentionality" in Searle's words) that prevents them from being "truly" conscious. I think many people find this type of reasoning deeply intuitive. After all, the Chinese Room paper is still the most highly cited paper in the journal Behavioral and Brain Sciences, which is itself one of the most high-impact journals across any field.

Huh... pretty surprising considering how absolutely bollocks it is.

Originally Posted by Dianeva

I think it's intuitive to most people that animals are conscious (because they do exhibit human-like behaviors. We don't have tails, but we can tell that when a dog wags its tail it means it's happy).

Right, you used an example of an animal that is one of the closest to humans as far as behavior is concerned, both because it is a mammal and also because dogs have evolved along side humans as companions for about the last 100,000 years. Much of a domesticated dog's behavior has evolved specifically to appeal to human emotions.

Originally Posted by Xei

lul... she's saying things becoming conscious in general seems contradictory. Forget about computers. It's really not that hard man, it's been explained like five times.

Oh, I knew it would be obvious, I just couldn't figure it out for some reason, don't know why.

So my previous post is still relevant then, because it explains why it is not contradictory.

Dianeva - It is definitely not intuitive to know animals are conscious, or at least "higher" animals. Up until the last hundred years or so dogs were assumed to be robot like in thought. i.e "I'll give you a treat when you do this" and they will learn to do it eventually when given a signal. They'll beg to you to get food etc. But humans think exactly the same way.

The point is, it's not intuitive, for almost all of human existence, most people have thought humans were the only conscious creatures, and some people still do.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

The question, Tommo, is why is it necessary for the experience of consciousness to accompany the set of rules that the brain follows? As you say, most people would claim that the computer is not conscious despite the fact that it works the same way a brain does. Does this mean that I am justified in denying your consciousness, or anyone elses?

Ok well, that's a different question to what Xei said this thread was about.
But....
It might not be necessary, but it's obviously how it works. Everything follows rules.
I have a problem with saying "follows rules", because it doesn't really, nothing does I mean. We just apply rules to the patterns that appear in nature. But nevertheless....
I'm assuming you mean, "why is it necessary for the experience of consciousness to accompany the set of rules that the rest of the brain follows?"
What other rules would it follow?
And what rules are you talking about?
As I said, in pseudo-code, the hippocampus, for example, would be something like: gather stimuli from sensory brain regions, compile into memory type, store in (wherever). This is an example, I'm not a neuroscientist so be lenient if this is fairly wrong.
The code for the frontal lobe or wherever consciousness is, would just be to observe that actual thing happening, (not the brain activity, but the situation which will be turned in to a memory) and maybe make notes about the situation.

It's not the same rules, but it's still following rules, and they have the same basis. Otherwise how would it function?
It is clearly made up of the same brain material etc. It stimulates the other neural cells in similar ways to the rest of the brain, just containing different info.
So it is quite likely that it works in the same way as the rest of the brain and follows rules with the same.... structure, if you will.

Originally Posted by Xei

Would they really? I'm not so sure, not if the question were asked precisely, and bearing in mind they could have an in-depth conversation with such a computer.

It doesn't matter. Because most people aren't willing to accept that the brain is just simply following rules. The way that they know a computer is. We think we are somehow above all that and consciousness places us higher. They don't know that consciousness is just another part of the brain. Probably because they don't think about it, or they are religious and think it is their soul or something and computers don't have souls etc.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I don't know if they would, I was only responding to Tommo's example in his post. I actually believe that people would readily identify any computer that mimics humans as conscious whether or not it was. People already talk to and blame their problems on their GPS's/give them names/etc. because of the human voice. I think though that if a computer believed itself to be conscious but did not behave in a human way, most humans would not identify with it and therefore would deny its consciousness. Basically the same reason why many people do not believe that animals are conscious, unless they exhibit human like behavior/emotions.

That's what I was saying with the smiley face thing.
I watched that James May thing with Asimo, how he tells it that this toy robots is grandpa, and then when he shows it the toy robot again, it puts it's hand out and says "grandpa". And I felt like it was somehow conscious, and I felt sorry for it in a way. I'm not sure why I felt sorry for it (maybe for the same reason I feel sorry for an animal if someone teases it with food, but it can't do anything about it), but thinking it is anything other than simple code is illogical.

Anyway, what I was saying is if, for example, you had a persons brain put in to a computer but they could only communicate through text. So it was them, exactly the same, except in a computer. If the average person communicated with them, they would just think of it as a cool program, but not conscious. I can guarantee it. (If they didn't know it was a brain inside a computer.)

I am not sure that the limitations that we have cast upon what we think consciousness is, dictates what consciousness is.
There are many forms of consciousness as it stands.
I believe that a conscious computer is possible, even if it did not share the same form of consciousness that we do.
...Especially if all possible means of computer processing are considered.

You are entirely correct. However, you could have stated it much simpler. Consciousness involves cause and effect--of just what is not exactly known. The fact that we can produce other causes and effects does not equate the one with the other.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

You are entirely correct. However, you could have stated it much simpler. Consciousness involves cause and effect--of just what is not exactly known. The fact that we can produce other causes and effects does not equate the one with the other.

I don't understand.

Analogy. I can peel a potatoe. A machine can peel a potatoe. That does not mean that I am a machine or that the machine is a man.

One can build a computer out of water valves--that does not mean it has intelligence.

I like your analogy.
I can agree that, for argument sake at least, a collection of water valves does not have intelligence, (though some Panenthiests/Pantheists would disagree),
However, I do not see the fundamental difference between you and a machine. I hope that didn't sound offensive. I share the same scar, I assure you. Other than the fact that a human is made out of materials that we have given a special happy label called "organic" can you state the reason why sloth could not be considered to be a type of machine?

There are two paths in evolution. We change in order to survive or we change the environment in order to survive. Most evolutionist concentrate on the changes in the individual--physical changes. Man's mind is evolving in order to master the environment. I make a distinction between endo-evolution and exo-evolution. We make machines to that end, for our survival. The machine serves us. No machine has yet made a man to serve it.

If we go to first principles, an environmental acquisition system, one can say that we are that system which must acquire experience, abstract from those experiences forms of behavior to apply to our body such that that behavior maintains and promotes the life of the body. We serve something called life.

Take a look around at all of creation. Where have you ever seen a machine evolve or even start to? The fact that causality exists, does not mean you can call all causal processes mechanic.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

There are two paths in evolution. We change in order to survive or we change the environment in order to survive. Most evolutionist concentrate on the changes in the individual--physical changes. Man's mind is evolving in order to master the environment. I make a distinction between endo-evolution and exo-evolution. We make machines to that end, for our survival. The machine serves us. No machine has yet made a man to serve it.

If we go to first principles, an environmental acquisition system, one can say that we are that system which must acquire experience, abstract from those experiences forms of behavior to apply to our body such that that behavior maintains and promotes the life of the body. We serve something called life.

Take a look around at all of creation. Where have you ever seen a machine evolve or even start to? The fact that causality exists, does not mean you can call all causal processes mechanic.

Mankind. If I am arguing that mankind is a type of machine, then I can say that if I am correct, mankind is a machine that evolves.

And I don't believe that has any bearing over whether or not it is a machine.
If one does not limit his definition of a machine by its complexity, or types of parts (which shouldn't define whether or not it is a machine) then one can say that mankind itself, generation by generation, evolutionary step by evolutionary step, is a type of machine, just like a computer, or a clock. It is an ongoing chain reaction of chain reactions. Evolution is part of that chain reaction.

How do you reply to " A machine is a man made object that performs specific tasks."

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

How do you reply to " A machine is a man made object that performs specific tasks."

With "No." lol

What if it does not perform specific tasks? What if it used to perform specific tasks, but now it just makes a terrible grinding noise. Now what is it? It's a broken machine, right? It's still a machine though.

What if a frog makes it?
What if an extraterrestrial makes it?
What if a machine makes it?

Just because these things have not happened does not mean that they cannot.

And of course there are already machines that are "made" by other machines; cars, computers, and a host of other things that are assembled by robots. How do you define "made"?

Is a dog's kidney a machine?

The definition "A machine is a man made object that performs specific tasks" would categorize a fist size lump of glass as a machine, as it is made by a man (or person) and performs the task of keeping papers from being blown off of your desk.

Where have you ever seen a machine evolve or even start to?

Evolving Machines

Originally Posted by sloth

What if it does not perform specific tasks? What if it used to perform specific tasks, but now it just makes a terrible grinding noise. Now what is it? It's a broken machine, right? It's still a machine though.

That is a matter of debate. Plato explored the concept, for example, is a doctor a doctor in so far as he fails as a doctor? No. A broken machine is not a machine. Linguistically "broken" is the same as "not". Many people simply see denial only if you use the term "not" this keeps them from understanding the "is" and "is not" which is assertion and denial in general.

As far as robots, which I do work with, they perform specific tasks, but you cannot say because they performed a task they made the car or computers, the part is not the whole. A man made a robot to make a part, i.e. the man made the part and used a robot, which is a tool to accomplish that task. Like all logic, one has to follow the train down to the first principle.

And for the lump of glass that sits on paper, if you used the term "performance" in the same way in bed with your girl friend, she would not be your friend for long. That use makes performance and non performace to mean the same thing. There would be no distinction between potence and impotence.

We use tools to make things, so, every machine is a tool, but not every tool is a machine.

And, the simple ability to change is not evolution.

A definition includes both form and material difference. The name of a thing is equal to the names of that things forms and the material differences in those forms. If a thing fail in form, it fails in the definition. If it fails in the material difference, again it fails in the definition. We often call a thing by a name even though it fail in one or more aspects of a definition. This is a form of ellipsis that has not been explored in grammar to my knowledge other than in the works of Plato. This effect also causes a great deal of confusion for people trying to work with definitions.