What else is there?Quote:
Originally Posted by tkdyo
Printable View
What else is there?Quote:
Originally Posted by tkdyo
Non-physical processes?Quote:
Originally Posted by Scatterbrain
To give a hint for what that could be:
See yourself living in a virtual reality, in a computed reality. The computer that is running the virtual reality is in this context non-physical. Physicality is a question of perspective. When you are in the non-physical from the perspective of here, it is no longer non-physical but physical, when you are "there" "here" is non-physical.
One can also see it as different causal systems, they are all interconnected but they are still in different systems.
Consciousness does not arise in physical processes, it is only expressed in this virtual reality in physical processes. It (the brain) is a virtual representation of the consciousness of the being.
Thoughts and experience modify the brain, the mind leads and the body follows.
What you experience here as consciousness is a data stream of information. It creates the illusion of the physical being the fundamental, when it's not.
It could also be god, or reality and then there would be a dreamer outside. Except that we have yet to discover such "non-physical" processes. How is this relevant?Quote:
Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia
I honestly don't understand where you're going with this. If anything, the brain is a representation of our ancestry and of our life experience, not of "consciousness".Quote:
Consciousness does not arise in physical processes, it is only expressed in this virtual reality in physical processes. It (the brain) is a virtual representation of the consciousness of the being.
Thoughts and experience modify the brain, the mind leads and the body follows.
What you experience here as consciousness is a data stream of information. It creates the illusion of the physical being the fundamental, when it's not.
Saying that "consciousness" is somehow channelled from a source external to the universe only raises more questions than it answers.
mm I think that was worded a bit wrong, I meant...why cant the consciousness itself be transferred if it purely arises from a physical process when all the parts can be transferred.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scatterbrain
There's no "it" to transfer. If a weather system exists over Iowa, and you manage to engineer a weather system over Spain that is, for a moment, identical, have you transferred the storm from Iowa to Spain? Does it remotely matter whether or not you dissipate the original storm? Is it even sensible to call it "the same storm" if it's traveling over and being shaped by a different landscape?Quote:
Originally Posted by tkdyo
Well put.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taosaur
of course it doesnt make sense. It is a separate storm made out of similar conditions just like if you make a separate clone who has a similar consciousness to mine. By contrast, it does make sense to call a storm "the same" as it travels over and changes with the landscape...in fact that is what our consciousness does save the landscape being experience. I dont think that was quite the right analogy :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Taosaur
Well, I got bored around page 3. And yea sure if I' m going to put forth my own opinion I should read everyone else's. And I don't know if someone else already said something like this but:
Are we a body with a soul? Or a soul with a body?
Not scientific at all ;) but still. If we were just neuron pathways (or whatever) in the brain, would we really be capable of such complex feelings? Of lucid dreaming :P?
I think it's still on topic. We're not computers because we are souls :D
Credit to my sig :D
C.S. Lewis is awesome.
First: prove the soul exists.
Second: the brain is an incredibly complex organ. It learns, grows, and adapts. It forms new connections, actively processes and stores data, and interprets sensory experiences...and yes, certain parts of the brain have been directly linked to emotion, as well as lucid dreaming and critical thinking.
Well I said it wasn't scientific, so I can't. :P
Yea, brains are pretty cool. Probably if I went and read anything or researched I'd change my opinion. oh well.
Can computers do abstract art? Or write a song about what Christmas feels like? Or make up a game?
This is what defines us from computers, as well as Consicoussness. It is Creativity, the ability to make up stuff, like songs, games, art…
Of course, at the moment a computer could possibly recreate Picasso or Motzart, but that is Copying, not Creativity. Creativity is about Creating.
And does a computer have emphathy, the ability to understand how other people are feeling? Can they communicate, and understand what they are saying?
Biologically, our neurons do not function like computer transistors. Yes, they fire signals, but they make new connections, and they can fire in an infinate number of ways. A computer will pass signals as 1 or 0, but we can have partial signals, like ‘nearly halfway open’ or ‘partway closed’.
There's nothing stopping us from recreating neurons. We have already done it really. It's just a matter of complexity. Everything you mentioned can be done with a computer, we just haven't made it yet, because it is so advanced.Quote:
Originally Posted by hgld1234
Indeed. There's an obvious conflation in that post between can meaning 'can computers do this now' or can meaning 'can computers do this hypothetically'.
If we had the right software, there's no reason a computer couldn't do it right now. They're turing complete; they can emulate any deterministic system.
Which is to say, any simulation of reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
They can't do that now. However, as Marvo said, there's nothing stopping them from doing so at any point in the future. We as humans just need to figure it out. Consciousness is something being studied actively, and as of now, it appears that the source of consciousness is, indeed, the brain, rather than any outside identity like a soul.Quote:
Originally Posted by hgld1234
Agreed. And I can assure you that one day, computers will be creative and will create.Quote:
Of course, at the moment a computer could possibly recreate Picasso or Motzart, but that is Copying, not Creativity. Creativity is about Creating.
They will. Again, emotion is derived from the brain. We just have to figure out how to recreate that inside a computer, which we will.Quote:
And does a computer have emphathy, the ability to understand how other people are feeling? Can they communicate, and understand what they are saying?
You are correct in that traditional computer circuitry does not act like a human brain, which is likely why we'll be seeing new technologies develop as progress is made with artificial intelligence. Something will be made that allows the computer to change its own wiring, so to speak, in order to learn and retain what is valuable and eliminate the crap. We have seen robotics that actually do learn and do alter their behavior with experience. That technology exists. As for computer signals, neurons really are a one-way street. Ions jump the synapse. That action can't be undone. In a normally-functioning neuron, the message will be transmitted as a one or a zero, so to speak. What can happen, though, is if a signal is poorly received. This usually occurs in damaged neurons. And who's to say that computer pieces don't get damaged or wear out? We're more like a computer than I think you think. Granted, not like most or any computers in existence today, but the way in which our brains operate is surprisingly similar. Perhaps a more accurate statement would be that computers are like us.Quote:
Biologically, our neurons do not function like computer transistors. Yes, they fire signals, but they make new connections, and they can fire in an infinate number of ways. A computer will pass signals as 1 or 0, but we can have partial signals, like ‘nearly halfway open’ or ‘partway closed’.
I've never heard anyone give me any semblance of an argument that a conscious system embedded in silicon and electrons is more absurd than a conscious system embedded in water, fat, protein, salt and sugar.Quote:
Which is to say, any simulation of reality.
Still not accurate. How well can a computer multitask? In such a way that they can continually record and download a hi def movie, as well as being able to kick a ball around, and imagine themselves playing for the world cup? How well would they manage? Chances are, they crash. Can't handle the data overload. We don't crash when we do that.Quote:
Perhaps a more accurate statement would be that computers are like us.
And let's say our robot fell over? Let's say it didn't cause much of an impact, but now our robot-guy is on the floor, he can't do the complex motor movements to pick himself up. We, on the other hand, can, given the same circumstances.
I guess this can all be answered on many different levels. If I could say it briefly, I'd say "we" are part of it all as observers, and seemingly as human beings, and can interact with the landscape of phenomena before us, but we have no volition over why it is all here. This means not even a superdupa-computer can ever possibly demonstrate it as it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by ClouD
@ Mario92 - You're still missing that as such humans cannot create consciousness - that which is the substrate of knowing that they are created in the first place! You may think that everything about the matter that can be explained in conceptual terms can be created and formed in causal systems, however this never grasps the essential context in which it has the capacity to exist - which is doing so spontaneously and cannot be affected or caused. Thus it follows that it cannot be programmed either, because it is not tangible. In trying to program consciousness, one is actually trying to play God. Well if computers could be exactly the same as conscious human beings, they wouldn't be computers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
I can tell you how this is more absurd:Quote:
I've never heard anyone give me any semblance of an argument that a conscious system embedded in silicon and electrons is more absurd than a conscious system embedded in water, fat, protein, salt and sugar.
One is a system that scientists can easily identify with, prove, measure, emulate and simulate. This system is of the world and universe as we know it, and what is part of this includes the human body, the earth, even to beyond the galaxies, to name a few things. I will stress that, although this system has almost an infinite number of components, it is still subject to the error in human interpretation.
The other is an improvable, diffuse, non-linear, unpredictable "system" and precedes everything we can speak of. That system is consciousness. I cannot show you what it is, but without it, nothing exists whatsoever.
The main difference between a conscious system in silicon and electrons, and one in water, fat, protein, salt and sugar, is that the former system supposedly needs consciousness to be "embedded". In the latter system - in what is actually the case of living human species - there was no consciousness "embedded" to begin with, but it is intrinsic. It has always been here since we were born, as far as we can remember, and it's beyond our comprehension why; the implication is that it is beyond all cause.
You keep ignoring everybody's responses. Three people have said to you know why they think this is wrong but you're still posting your original argument.Quote:
Still not accurate. How well can a computer multitask? In such a way that they can continually record and download a hi def movie, as well as being able to kick a ball around, and imagine themselves playing for the world cup? How well would they manage? Chances are, they crash. Can't handle the data overload. We don't crash when we do that.
And let's say our robot fell over? Let's say it didn't cause much of an impact, but now our robot-guy is on the floor, he can't do the complex motor movements to pick himself up. We, on the other hand, can, given the same circumstances.
At the moment I don't understand your point; could you elaborate on what you mean by this?Quote:
the former system supposedly needs consciousness to be "embedded".
I was referring to what you said:Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
"I've never heard anyone give me any semblance of an argument that a conscious system embedded in silicon and electrons is more absurd than a conscious system embedded in water, fat, protein, salt and sugar. "
Consciousness embedded, or consciousness system embedded, maybe you can explain more on this?
We have already made robots that are perfectly capable of falling over and standing up again, repeatedly. If such a "data overload" actually happened, the only thing it would prove is that the robot isn't very well happened. And you don't have to look very far to find situations where humans feel overwhelmed with input, resulting in them shutting out certain factors of a situation, so mistakes are made, or more accurately I guess, the humans crash.Quote:
Originally Posted by hgld1234
'Our consciousness is embedded in our brains' means that the physical processes in our brains are what lead to our consciousness.
What is consciousness? Is it just the element of our psyche we could recognise as the "observer", the elementary thing behind all thoughts? Or is it a collection of computations raging from what we call memories, language, concepts etc. After assuming (which in this case hopefully isn't seen as some giant leap of faith) the fact that we are just a part of this universe, then it's not too absurd to speculate on other things being conscious like us, if the situation allows. And we usually do... see certain other animals about as conscious as us. Why stop at computers?Quote:
Originally Posted by really
You said that biological computers have an intrinsic consciousness... well firstly, the way orgainc computers emerged is completely different from the way technological ones did. And anything they might lack can easily be attributed to a different evolutionary path. Secondly, where is this intrinsic consciousness you say biological things have? As far as I know, a real sense of self emerges in a later stage of a childs development. And even if we're talking about the "mysterious elementary observer", as far as we know it's something that emerges in our brains and if we dare to continue, in the brains of other creatures, still not making it exclusive for biological life... Saying that a consciousness from a biological computer is grounded in reality, but at the same without cause, is absurd. Either you decide to be a solipsist or you agree to a reality. You can't have it both ways.
We don't know if computers are conscious, because we aren't conditioned to percieve them that way, if they don't act and look like us. And the only reason we might say we have to embed consciousness into a computer, is because we want a specific kind of consciousness, a human one. We want to create an AI that can tell us it is conscious. Because that's the level at which we define and percieve it. It's possible that the Earth is somehow metaphysically "conscious" and that you serve it as a bit of information, or that the communication and collective actions of a bacterial colony becomes "conscious"... it just doesn't help us because we need it to interact at our level. Anyway i've gone a bit of course, but the point is that I still haven't been given an actual reason to see artificial consciousness as impossible.
Yeah, but name one football-kicking robot that can listen to crowd roars and video what is happening all at the same time…Quote:
We have already made robots that are perfectly capable of falling over and standing up again, repeatedly. If such a "data overload" actually happened, the only thing it would prove is that the robot isn't very well happened. And you don't have to look very far to find situations where humans feel overwhelmed with input, resulting in them shutting out certain factors of a situation, so mistakes are made, or more accurately I guess, the humans crash.
But I have just read somewhere that people have created a robot where people can pick themselves up with.
Also, most of the time, if humans get too much sensory input to them (I think) they can block out stuff they don't need. But they then can do the other stuff fine, usually. I can stop listining to bird tweet if it is annoying me, and do homework ok. But a computer would try to process the bird tweet, to a point where it can't work properly. And s l o w s d o w n t o a p o I n t w h e r e I t j u s t b e c o m e s s o A N N O Y I N G.
Alright, sometimes two things don't mix eg pneumatic drill and homework. But we can decide what to do so we don't ‘crash’.
Also, I tried to have three programs happening at once on my computer this morning, and it couldn't do any of them. The programs just crashed. However, people can do three things EASY! At the moment, I am reading on the screen, typing and thinking about what to write next. Three things- can Mr Computer do that?
But in some ways, computers are similar to people in raw processing power in logical situations eg maths. But is a brilliant answer in a burning house the smartest move? And yes, AI could make computers more like us, with consciousness, but it's not here yet. If it ever will be is beyond our present knoweldge. And I am talking about the present, not some to-come future. For that is what AI is. In the future.
You clearly have absolutely no grasp, at all, of how computers work.Quote:
Originally Posted by hgld1234
Additionally, if your computer can't run three programs, you've got a horrible computer. My computer currently has 68 proccesses running, as an example of what a computer can do, just when under low pressure.