http://online.wsj.com/video/scientis...912D85C81.html
This would be intresting. A brain inside a computer?:shock: They will soon take over the world.
Printable View
http://online.wsj.com/video/scientis...912D85C81.html
This would be intresting. A brain inside a computer?:shock: They will soon take over the world.
things like that make me want to change my major...
My idea.
I'm considering working for these people... I'm getting a degree in mathematics and a master's in neuroscience because this is exactly the kind of thing I'm interested in.
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.)
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?Quote:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonsay
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.
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.
It's a complete simulation of a brain.Quote:
Certainly these brains wouldn't be able to change over time like a real brain though, would it?
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.
None of you have even mentioned God. You are all sinners! :mad:
Consciousness is one of the major areas that science has not come even close to explaining. We know its extreme correlation with the brain's activity and specific areas of the brain, but we are clueless on what the connection is. Until we know in great detail what that connection is, we will not be able to create artificial consciousness.
On the other hand, if consciousness is tied into the most basic fabric of reality itself (as Eastern philosophers and mystics believe), then calculators and microwave ovens are already conscious, as are rocks and atoms.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
So, are they actually putting together a neuron grid made of silicon? If so, then it's an artificial brain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
But if they're just programming a simulation, no matter how life like, they've just simulated it. They haven't made it.
What's a 'simulation'..? Simulations do not have some kind of ethereal existence. A simulation is made of transistors and electrons and silicon and is every bit as physical as a brain. It's just mapped out differently in space.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
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.
Yes there is: because we have a separate consciousness from all of those things.Quote:
There is no reason why "human brain" should be considered a seperate system from "biological life", "carbon-based molecular structures", or even "matter".
Can't make head or tail of this.Quote:
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.
That wasn't the proposition, was it..?Quote:
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.
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 :P.
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?
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.Quote:
I'm getting a bit lost. What do you mean by random conscious system?
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'.Quote:
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?
That's not true. You consciousness is linked with your body, and the sense impressions it gets.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
You've misunderstood, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that it's just as likely that your consciousness was going to be linked with your body as another's.
I might be misunderstanding what your saying but wouldn't this be a variant of the anthropic principle?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
My conciousness is existing on a substrate capable of supporting it because if it didn't than it wouldn't exist to begin with.
While the sentence is perfectly clear, the meaning is obscure. If I understand, then I disagree completely. There seems to be no way to separate conciousness from the brain and its genetic basis which will vary slightly between individuals. Supose a gene varies which controls re-uptake of seretonin or even that our mothers ate different levels of omega-3's when we were in their wombs, which is known to affect the release of seretonin after reuptake. That will have dramatic effects on the conciousness which exists as a result of that brains operations. My conciousness can only exist in/as my brain. It seems as if you are positing a symmetry that does not exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Essentially yes, although I'm expressing it more formally; this allows us to make other conclusions (such as the aforementioned reason that the universe is so big).Quote:
I might be misunderstanding what your saying but wouldn't this be a variant of the anthropic principle?
No, I understand that.Quote:
While the sentence is perfectly clear, the meaning is obscure. If I understand, then I disagree completely. There seems to be no way to separate conciousness from the brain and its genetic basis which will vary slightly between individuals. Supose a gene varies which controls re-uptake of seretonin or even that our mothers ate different levels of omega-3's when we were in their wombs, which is known to affect the release of seretonin after reuptake. That will have dramatic effects on the conciousness which exists as a result of that brains operations. My conciousness can only exist in/as my brain. It seems as if you are positing a symmetry that does not exist.
What I'm saying is hard to convey but is crucial to the logic of the anthropic principle. There's probably a statistical word for it but I don't know it. Essentially I'm saying there's nothing special about 'you' and we can treat your consciousness as a random element in the set which is the sum of all individual consciousnesses.
It may help to think of the following question: why am I conscious in this body and not somebody else's?
Because you have a specific brain structure at a specific time? That is, that you arise from that specific brain structure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
[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.
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...Quote:
How does consciousness come in to play at all in whether or not a species exists?
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
*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!
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
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.)
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
That's a pretty big assumption that being a rat is lonely given the fact that they are highly social.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreams4free
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreams4free
Mathematics is a powerful tool for understanding the universe. Ignoring any probabilistic argument because probabilities are 'just random' doesn't really carry any weight for me.Quote:
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.
Well, I disagree. Firstly a simulation is pretty much necessary if we're ever going to crack the neural code, because you can fuck around with a simulation however you please, unlike real neural networks.Quote:
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.
And secondly; we could at any point during our history have said, 'what's the point in this science crap, what good is it?' because we couldn't see any application... then where would we be? We might not have electricity. We might not have medicine. We might not have computers. All of these things have had large benefits for humanity as a whole, yet we wouldn't have following your argument. Plus the investments involved are so minute in comparison to the scale of America's bailouts (although Blue Brain isn't even in America, it's Swiss) that it's hardly worth talking about.
What can I say? You haven't really understood the statistical argument at the heart of the analogy and thus your responses aren't relevant.Quote:
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.)
Nah that wasn't it, it was some very specific probabilistic equation relating to conditional probabilities... never mind.Quote:
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.
Ah, I think I remember where I read about it before though; it was here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_argument
I think the term I may have been looking for is the Copernican or 'mediocrity' principle.
If you can't explain yourself, then you don't really understand it either. Until you do a better job of it, I'll just assume your argument doesn't hold water.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
It's very simple. There are trillions of blue clams so if you were given a random pearl you'd expect it to be from a blue one. However given that it actually came from a red one, in statistical terms, it is sensible to assume that the blue clams contain no pearls, which nullifies what would otherwise be an unbelievably massive coincidence.
That is a pretty good explanation
*Nods head*Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Interesting... but the beluga whales and plankton still holds more value. You can do better than clams and pearls you coward.
Hmmm but belugas and plankton don't have anything 'special' hidden in them.
I thought I was being quite artistic. :P
First of all, this is the same way you said it before. Second, it still doesn't apply to the concept of consciousness.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Let me try to explain it to you. You say you are "given" a pearl; as in, a solid object was removed from one of these creatures and handed to an outside observer. In the case of consciousness, what is the object? Who is the outside observer? There is no answer to either of those questions. The very fact that you are a human being instead of a bit of bacteria (or a red clam as opposed to a blue clam) could be considered a famously unlikely coincidence in itself. The fact that you are standing on the one known planet to contain any life at all among trillions could also be considered to be one hell of a coincidence. The fact is though, its not signifigant, and its misleading to use statistics in this way.
Your example assumes consciousness can be taken out and examined, but so far, it can't. We have a lot of very logical sounding guesses as to what it might be, but when it comes right down to it, I can't even be completely sure that you are conscious.
Like I said before, in your example; its not a situation of finding a pearl in a red clam, its a situation of being a red clam and having a pearl. Given that information, you can wonder all day long about how amazingly coincidental it is that you are among the tiny minority, but what you can't do is apply that knowledge to what the majority may or may not possess in terms of valuable milky spheroids, especially if you can't even see your own little spheroid to get a better idea of what one might look like.
Otherwise, I'll go back to my previous statement. I am the only being in the world that is quite like me, and I know I'm conscious. I don't know for sure whether or not anything else is conscious, but I do know I'm a minority of 1 against what might possibly be an infinite amount of other 'things' so for me to be conscious is extraordinarily unlikely given the chances. I guess I'll have to assume then that I am the only conscious thing in the universe.
No, the whole point is that these two are analagous. I said at very the beginning that you might as well say that you 'are' the pearl inside a clam instead of 'having' it, it doesn't make a blind bit of difference, the statistical argument is exactly the same.Quote:
Like I said before, in your example; its not a situation of finding a pearl in a red clam, its a situation of being a red clam and having a pearl.
But you can. And I have.Quote:
Given that information, you can wonder all day long about how amazingly coincidental it is that you are among the tiny minority, but what you can't do is apply that knowledge to what the majority may or may not possess in terms of valuable milky spheroids
I see no reason why the (purely mathematical) argument does not apply, and you haven't supplied one.
I understand the statistics idea Xei. It's been around a while actually, in fact, it can be found in something called the Simulation Hypothesis. What I have NOT seen is anyone understand the idea that didn't understand it right from the get-go. lol
Anyways, as to whether a simulated mind would be conscious, I say absolutely yes. I don't believe in P-Zombies. IMO, consciousness is fundamental and root to all existence, and will "see" out of all possible perpectives, and I don't think you can possibly engineer something that acts just like a human brain without it having an internal system through which consciousness will inevitably see. It's kind of like trying to make a window that is clear, but that you can't see through. =p
The reason why the argument doesn't apply is that you are making a purely subjective differentiation between what is like and what is dislike the thing that has consciousness (yourself). You assume yourself to be among an extreme minority only because you've decided that being a human is fundamentally different from being a bacterium, or any other life form, or even any other physical thing. For all you know about the nature of consciousness, there really may be no signifigant difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
None of the things you are saying have any bearing upon the mathematical argument. None of them are assumed, nor are they particularly relevant to the issue at hand.
Humans beings are different from bacteria. They have neural networks.
Perhaps there is something special about the human neural networks in relation to every other animal species on the planet which is necessary for consciousness. Perhaps a few animal species have consciousness. It is impossible to tell because the statistical argument does not apply to this situation where there are similar population numbers.
What is possible to tell (still) is that it is very unlikely that bacteria (bacteria is an objective category of organisms by the way, as is human, not subjective) have consciousness because of their vast numbers.
I think I disagree, Xei.
Maybe because a unique conscious entity would use the same argument with respect to humans. It seems a bit arbitrary. Maybe I'm just lucky I'm not a bacterium. Maybe you are too, though from my perspective it was inevitable that "you" would be, since you exist.
Sometimes I wonder if this differentiation of consciousnesses into indivisible entities "I", "You", etc. is something that we should give up on. There isn't even really any reason to assume consciousness is continuous within yourself. The only evidence you have that you are the same person you were yesterday is your memories, but obviously you would still have them even if you aren't the same person you were yesterday. Ahhh, philosophy is confusing and I don't think this is even directly related...
Anyway. going off on a tangent. And too many long words...