Thread: An Artificial Brain

Poor virtual person, when they make the actual brain. They should give it eyes and ears. He could be the actual example of the brain in a vat.

It's extremely philosophically interesting; would it be conscious?

It divides many people, but I think that it certainly would be. My argument is that there is obviously nothing inherently conscious about the material that constitutes the neural network (biological molecules as opposed to silicon).

Yes. If I may go further with this. What's so inherently special about neural or silicon based networks that creates consciousness? They are just interacting systems. What gives me or some other animal the specific subjective experience is the relation between our sensory organs and complex neural structures. What I'm aiming at - is it possible that the motion and interaction of macroscopic objects, some simplistic communication between bacteria, or even motion of water molecules creates some sort of a consciousness. Is it in a sense possible, that with our social interaction (for example), we create a new global consciousness? Is the idea that a group of people interacting creates some sort of a virtual entity too far fetched to consider? If it is, then why? (Pointing back at the lack of any inherent characteristic to a neuron that would imply it's uniqueness in spawning a consciousness, for example.)

Originally Posted by Bonsay

Yes. If I may go further with this. What's so inherently special about neural or silicon based networks that creates consciousness? They are just interacting systems. What gives me or some other animal the specific subjective experience is the relation between our sensory organs and complex neural structures. What I'm aiming at - is it possible that the motion and interaction of macroscopic objects, some simplistic communication between bacteria, or even motion of water molecules creates some sort of a consciousness. Is it in a sense possible, that with our social interaction (for example), we create a new global consciousness? Is the idea that a group of people interacting creates some sort of a virtual entity too far fetched to consider? If it is, then why? (Pointing back at the lack of any inherent characteristic to a neuron that would imply it's uniqueness in spawning a consciousness, for example.)

My argument against this proposition is a mathematical one; the number of systems outnumbers the number of brains by a very large factor. Given the axiom that there is no bias to 'being' any particular conscious system, then the proposition seems unlikely, because you would not expect to be in the extreme minority which is human brains; however, we are.

It seems more likely to me that only certain systems are capable of consciousness. What is special about those systems I do not know, but perhaps we will work it out when we crack the neural code.

Originally Posted by Xei

My argument against this proposition is a mathematical one; the number of systems outnumbers the number of brains by a very large factor. Given the axiom that there is no bias to 'being' any particular conscious system, then the proposition seems unlikely, because you would not expect to be in the extreme minority which is human brains; however, we are.

It seems more likely to me that only certain systems are capable of consciousness. What is special about those systems I do not know, but perhaps we will work it out when we crack the neural code.

Ok, if I understand correctly - then is it not also true that in some classical deterministic model of the universe every conscious systems might not be recognizable by only one version? For example we might only detect the entities which are based on the same systems, due to our "biased" brain structure which only recognizes specific ones. This emergent characteristic could easily be ascribed to some evolutionary process or the fact that we (animals) are related. Of course we could then project the only way we perceive consciousness further, like creating AI. It would only appear to us that we are in a minority.

When we look objectively, even if many try to fight this, the brain from which we arise falls under the same laws as everything else. I feel free, but I might just be as free as a rock flying through space. I don't really have the authority to say that the universe is deterministic, but if it is, there is nothing stopping my lamp from being "conscious". If I really simplify it all, It might reason with it's "free will" by deciding to stay still. The funny thing is that there is no way to prove it, since free will in determinism doesn't mean anything objectively. Just throwing out my ideas. What do you think?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Until we know in great detail what that connection is, we will not be able to create artificial consciousness.

We might not be able to agree on it's existence (not knowing the nature of consciousness), but I'm pretty sure we'll create it.

Originally Posted by Xei

My argument against this proposition is a mathematical one; the number of systems outnumbers the number of brains by a very large factor. Given the axiom that there is no bias to 'being' any particular conscious system, then the proposition seems unlikely, because you would not expect to be in the extreme minority which is human brains; however, we are.

It seems more likely to me that only certain systems are capable of consciousness. What is special about those systems I do not know, but perhaps we will work it out when we crack the neural code.

Your poor usage of statistics to bolster your point of view is disturbing, Xei. The only reason why you feel we are in a minority is on account of your subjective classification. There is no reason why "human brain" should be considered a seperate system from "biological life", "carbon-based molecular structures", or even "matter". Not only that, whether or not the system "human brain" is a minority among total number of discrete systems across the universe has no bearing on the existence of consciousness in any of the systems in question.

Even under your assumption that only certain systems are capable of consciousness, without knowing any of the criteria for being conscious, you can't know whether we are even in a minority at all.

There is no reason why "human brain" should be considered a seperate system from "biological life", "carbon-based molecular structures", or even "matter".

Yes there is: because we have a separate consciousness from all of those things.

Not only that, whether or not the system "human brain" is a minority among total number of discrete systems across the universe has no bearing on the existence of consciousness in any of the systems in question.

Can't make head or tail of this.

Even under your assumption that only certain systems are capable of consciousness, without knowing any of the criteria for being conscious, you can't know whether we are even in a minority at all.

That wasn't the proposition, was it..?

The proposition involved things such as bacteria being conscious.

My argument is that as there are 5,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 bacteria on Earth and only 6,000,000,000 humans, it is extremely unlikely that we should happen to be humans given that both sets of organisms are conscious.

It is also inherently obvious to me. Brains are unique objects capable of doing unique things, such as problem solving, self awareness, discussing consciousness even. The fact that I am conscious and I am a brain is strongly suggestive that the two are interlinked.

That's right, but as far as probability goes, you could say the same about Earth, or you happening to exist after all - it being small.
I agree with you. Consciousness does seem to emerge out of various, interlinked, more primitive computational systems. As I said before, I was just philosophizing, bordering on some new age mysticism .

Originally Posted by Xei

My argument is that as there are 5,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 bacteria on Earth and only 6,000,000,000 humans, it is extremely unlikely that we should happen to be humans given that both sets of organisms are conscious.

Why? I don't see any logical reasoning behind this argument at all. How does consciousness come in to play at all in whether or not a species exists? There are 5,999,999,999 human beings with various genetic make up, but there is only 1 me. Does this mean that I am the only conscious being in existence? Honestly, I need you to teach me because my obvious ignorance keeps me from differentiating between these two arguments.

Originally Posted by Xei

It is also inherently obvious to me. Brains are unique objects capable of doing unique things, such as problem solving, self awareness, discussing consciousness even. The fact that I am conscious and I am a brain is strongly suggestive that the two are interlinked.

The fact that I am made of matter and I am conscious is strongly suggestive that the two are interlinked. The fact that I am composed of cells and I am conscious is strongly suggestive that the two are interlinked. The fact that I use the english language and I am conscious is strongly suggestive that the two are interlinked. The fact that I am a middle class white male and I am conscious is strongly suggestive that the two are interlinked. What?
[human] Brains are unique objects capable of doing unique things, such as problem solving, self awareness, discussing consciousness, with other brains within the same species. All you are really saying is that human brains are limited to recognizing consciousness only in things that are very much like themselves.

Originally Posted by Xei

It's extremely philosophically interesting; would it be conscious?

It divides many people, but I think that it certainly would be. My argument is that there is obviously nothing inherently conscious about the material that constitutes the neural network (biological molecules as opposed to silicon).

The guy said Blue Brain is starting to do things it is not programmed to do, so maybe in 10 years it will be fully conscious. I wonder if they would be able to dream?

Certainly these brains wouldn't be able to change over time like a real brain though, would it? Really makes me wonder with my limited teenage understanding of neuroscience.

Cool stuff, thanks for the post. Maybe our time really is the rise of AI.

Certainly these brains wouldn't be able to change over time like a real brain though, would it?

It's a complete simulation of a brain.

They created models of how neurons work (apparently they all function extremely similarly) and then mapped them out as the occur in the neocortical columns.

There's no reason to think they shouldn't change, to my knowledge.

That's not really an artificial brain, though is it?
I'd rather say it's a simulation of a brain. An artificial one would be if you made one.

Artificial only means man-made.

And they are making it. Superficially it may not look much like a brain but silicon is just as much a physical embodiment as any other.