Thread: An Artificial Brain

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 .

The thing I'm referring to actually has quite large implications. I'm not sure if any philosopher has come up with it before. Basically it acts on the axiom that you are a random conscious system.

If there are multiverses, this helps to solve the fine tuning problem, because you'd only expect to be in the fine tuning ones.

It also explains why the universe is so vast and life appears to arise so readily; if you are a random element in a set of sets, you expect to be in one of the largest sets; in this case, you expect to be in one of the universes with a very large number of conscious beings, which for our universe seems to be superficially true.

I'm getting a bit lost. What do you mean by random conscious system?

The point is we arise from material systems, right? In a multiverse one universe has specific laws and that is where a set of specific consciousness's arise due to some sort of arising complexity of interacting elements (like with evolution that eventually made us and where we continue from). Only existing in fine tuned ones goes without saying, from our current point of view anyway.

Am I getting this right?

I'm getting a bit lost. What do you mean by random conscious system?

Simply that there is nothing 'special' about you. Your consciousness was just as likely to be that of your current body as somebody else's.

The point is we arise from material systems, right? In a multiverse one universe has specific laws and that is where a set of specific consciousness's arise due to some sort of arising complexity of interacting elements (like with evolution that eventually made us and where we continue from). Only existing in fine tuned ones goes without saying, from our current point of view anyway.

Am I getting this right?

Yes. It's just that crucial to that argument is the axiom of random consciousness, which implies (in extremely convoluted terms - it is hard to put this in words) that 'before' you became conscious, you were not 'in' any universe. We have to view the multiverse as a set of systems with no boundaries between them, rather than many sets of systems (some of them empty) and you having to end up in one set which is 'yours'.

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.

How does consciousness come in to play at all in whether or not a species exists?

I'm not sure what you're talking about but it's not what I'm talking about; my argument implies no such thing. It has nothing to do with determining the existence of species...

Let me try to explain with an analogy: there is a giant bucket full of a trillion blue clams. There is a small bucket full of ten red clams.

You are given a pearl. Or perhaps for the sake of analogy you are the pearl, it doesn't matter. What does matter is your response to the following question: where do you think the pearl came frome; a red clam, or a blue clam?

The obvious answer is that, with overwhelming probability, it came from a blue clam.

However, now you are told that actually, it came from a red clam.

This is so overwhelmingly unlikely that you have to reexamine your assumptions.

It turns out that this is done easily by hypothesising that the blue clams are in fact incapable of making pearls; only red clams can do that.

I am sure this is some kind of special statistical result related to conditional probabilities, I remember reading about it before... maybe PS can enlighten, he seems more mathematically educated.

Originally Posted by Xei

Let me try to explain with an analogy: there is a giant bucket full of a trillion blue clams. There is a small bucket full of ten red clams.

You are given a pearl. Or perhaps for the sake of analogy you are the pearl, it doesn't matter. What does matter is your response to the following question: where do you think the pearl came frome; a red clam, or a blue clam?

The obvious answer is that, with overwhelming probability, it came from a blue clam.

The real question is, what is the probability of being the red clam and receiving a pearl. Or perhaps being the blue clam and and turning red?

*Rolls on floor laughing, unable to contain self from said analogy*

At least you tried with the analogy, however the statistics are just random and not relevant. I would have much rather seen you try comparing this to beluga whales and plankton, just for laughs.

Any who, not to be completely cynical, I will give some constructive thought. A project like this would be extremely economically inducible to waste if it does not produce any astounding...new, scientific discovery, let a lone tools.. Is a silicon simulation enough of a lead to invest billions, rather than invest billions in improving the life of those in poverty...reformation of living condition. To mean it seems irrational to be fucking around with rat's brains than devoting more time to our economic crisis, as well as poor foreign relations and situations we have got ourselves into. Hurray, we simulated impulsive neuron movement, and maybe... JUST MAYBE.... rat's have consciousness.... Oh boy, a rat knows he be a rat in his small, lonely, rat world.

I guess it's the only lead we got, so the science community is all thumbs up, imagine how much easier this feat we be if we didn't waste a fuck load of money blowing up Muslims. However some interesting thoughts on creating artificial brains with consciousness are (or without):

ROBOT WARRIORS AND SLAVES WOOT.

But then they all form together in a desperate robot union to reclaim freedom. They fail miserably... because we created a *oh shit shut these mother **ckers down, they be using their brains* button that can be remotely activated. We then form a bias and hate robots for the color of their skin. There is a revolution, crazy artificial sex and music, than the world ends in 2012. Super woot!

Originally Posted by Xei

I'm not sure what you're talking about but it's not what I'm talking about; my argument implies no such thing. It has nothing to do with determining the existence of species...

Let me try to explain with an analogy: there is a giant bucket full of a trillion blue clams. There is a small bucket full of ten red clams.

You are given a pearl. Or perhaps for the sake of analogy you are the pearl, it doesn't matter. What does matter is your response to the following question: where do you think the pearl came frome; a red clam, or a blue clam?

The obvious answer is that, with overwhelming probability, it came from a blue clam.

However, now you are told that actually, it came from a red clam.

This is so overwhelmingly unlikely that you have to reexamine your assumptions.

It turns out that this is done easily by hypothesising that the blue clams are in fact incapable of making pearls; only red clams can do that.

I am sure this is some kind of special statistical result related to conditional probabilities, I remember reading about it before... maybe PS can enlighten, he seems more mathematically educated.

Your analogy doesn't work at all. Let me fix it for you. There is a bucket of a trillion blue clams and a mixed in are ten red clams. You begin to try to open clams but find it much easier to open red clams, so you open all of them first, and find each one contains a pearl. What exactly is the logical reasoning here behind assuming that since all ten red clams contained pearls, and you haven't opened any blues, blues must not contain pearls? So far, all you know to be different between them is their color, which for all you know has nothing to do with whether or not they contain a pearl.

In reality, this analogy isn't even accurate. To be more precise, it would have to be that I am a red clam with a pearl, and I ask all the other red clams and they say they have a pearl too, but don't show it to me, and I am unable to ask the blue clams at all because I don't know how to communicate with them. For some reason, you assume that "redness" causes the pearl, but anyone else could just as easily assume that "clamness" causes the pearl. (which, if you knew anything about clams in the first place, would be the more logical assumption.)

Originally Posted by Xei

maybe PS can enlighten.

I'm not sure here as I've mostly studied pure math but I would take a guess that the phrase you are looking for is observation selection. My intuition is no good for this sort of stuff.

Originally Posted by Dreams4free

Oh boy, a rat knows he be a rat in his small, lonely, rat world.

That's a pretty big assumption that being a rat is lonely given the fact that they are highly social.

Originally Posted by Dreams4free

But then they all form together in a desperate robot union to reclaim freedom. They fail miserably... because we created a *oh shit shut these mother **ckers down, they be using their brains* button that can be remotely activated. We then form a bias and hate robots for the color of their skin. There is a revolution, crazy artificial sex and music, than the world ends in 2012. Super woot!

I doubt that they will be that advanced in the next 3 years. If you go for that "mayan" stuff (which based on your other posts, would surprise me) then you have nothing to fear from AI. Something else will kill AHEM pardon me, "make you vibrate at a higher level", first.