Like I said, there is the possibility if we’re not really in disagreement. If you want to tell a story about planet-sized computers with magical gnomes who run the powerplants with an inter-dimensional underpants framework, have at it. Woo woo to you too. A giant, magik computer that is just soooo sophisticated that it simply must create consciousness is a wonderful fantasy. I personally prefer more cheerleaders and Scotch in my fantasies, but this is a fun diversion.
No one said that a big-assed computer couldn’t simulate consciousness or track the position of peas in a galactic-sized cannery. But claiming that a column of numbers adds up to the correct total and closing your eyes and imagining that the numbers means something are two different things. You’re trying to say that super-duper calculators magikally gain consciousness at some point, simply because they have lots and lots and LOTS of wires. That leap, from really big spreadsheet to conscious entity requires either woo woo or such an absurd redefinition of consciousness so as to render the whole question moot.
Who said anything about mystic forces? I’m claiming that your Tinkertoy fetish is just that – an overly optimistic infatuation with wires and batteries to the point where your making up imaginary friends where there’s nothing but electricity and lights. Was Teddy Ruxpin conscious? Why not? At what point would he be? What about the Sims? They are something of a model of reality. Do they have proto-consciousness? Is it just a matter of a few more lines of code? Or does their consciousness exist in the imaginations of their fans?
If you want to bastardize definitions to the point where a computer is just a simple brain and a brain is just a complicated computer, well, have your woo woo – just enjoy your seat with the intelligent designers. No need to gather straw to fill “vitalism,” “life force,” or “mysticism,” for none of that is offered. All that’s offered are a host of questions, for so far it’s a rather threadbare woo woo world.
Why don’t you start with where the difference between the Sims of today, tomorrow, a decade from now, and a hundred years. When does consciousness get created? When will you go to jail for killing a Sim? How many wires does it take to “create” consciousness–not just add up a column of numbers you pretend is a simulation, but one with actual consciousness.
Can you leave this planet? Are you not limited by the resolution of your optics?
We do have virtual reality in every home, they are called video games. The only thing that is missing are the heads up displays and motion capture suits, both of which you could have if you wanted to spend several thousand bucks. Most people in advanced societies DO use VR on a daily basis, they just don’t have the fancier more expensive interfaces that are probably what you’re referring to when you say, “VR”. If you had the cash you could turn your entire body into a Wii-mote if you wanted to. I play VR games every single day, my favorites at the moment are Team Fortress 2 and Eve Online.
Cool, what patterns of activity are they exactly? Can you link me to some wikipedia articles about these patterns? Or even some academic journals where these “patterns of activity” that lead to consciousness have been studied?
No no, see, you’re doing it again. You’re asking me to prove a negative, but dressing it up in the hope that I can’t spot that you’re asking me to prove a negative.
I make no claim to understand what brings about consciousness. You are. Please provide some evidence, with cites.
No, it simply requires treating the mind as what it it, a physical process; a pattern in the brain. You also seem to be operating under the impression that computers are filled with actual numbers.
I am NOT saying that just being complex will make a program conscious, despite your insistence that I am. I’m saying that barring magic a simulation of a human mind must be conscious, because it is doing exactly what a brain based human mind is doing with a different substrate; process information in a particular way.
You did, by implication. You are insisting that a machine that does what the human mind does, a perfect copy, won’t be conscious like a human mind. You are claiming that human minds have some sort of mystic vital spark.
Garbage. I’m the one insisting that there IS no woo-woo; you are the one clutching it with a death grip. You are the one insisting that human minds have some carefully undefined magic something or other that makes them impossible to copy.
No, YOU are the one making a fantastic claim. You are claiming, without evidence and without even bothering to define it that something exists beyond the knowledge of science that is responsible for consciousness.
You’re kidding me, aren’t you? Not interested in articles that talk about things that can affect consciousness (by whatever definition is being used), I want to know where consciousness comes from, what is its basis, how is it formed. What you are doing is akin to claiming that we understand where gravity comes from, because we can experiment with its properties.
You must have missed the part where I wrote that I make no claim whatsoever to know or understand where consciousness comes from. You seem to think that “patterns of behaviour” or some other vague concept is responsible. Please provide the cites, or stop wasting my time.
Funny, I’ll go all in and claim that I believe this 100%. As of yet the knowledge of science lacks a sufficient explanation as to how consciousness can derive from matter. That this is even a controversial statement is kind of mind-boggling.
By rejecting the hypothesis Der Trihs has put forth you are making a claim of knowledge.
Der Trihs: The brain is a chemical machine that emulates conciousness.
KellyCriterion: You are wrong - but I don’t know anything about conciousness.
So, for the rest of us in this thread, please explain why you don’t think conciousness is the result of a chemical machine. You can’t take both the position of ignorance and the position of rejection. I expect you will either admit complete ignorance on the topic, or disprove Der Trihs by adequately proving that conciousness is external to the brain/body.
Like I said upthread, if the definition of “computer” is so contorted as to go from current concepts to “chemical machines,” then we’re just playing a trite semantics game. Yeah, sure, a planetary-sized chemical computer with unobtanium circuitry and PhillipKDickinsonian logic panels based on HBPiper Fuzzy logic is sure to first emulate, then obtain consciousness because in this woo woo world of science fiction we get to define computer any way we want. And since it’s our woo woo, we have complete authority to set the rules about consciousness and when and why something goes from an interplanetary shipping manifest to a sentient, conscious being. But don’t try to suggest that in doing so you’re not firmly in the woo woo.
Look, I *like *playing make-believe, I really do. But I think it’s worthwhile to notice when we’ve crossed the line from science fiction to science fantasy. You might as well also be arguing in favour of the Gaia Hypothesis.
In the meantime I’m still waiting for some sort of rationale as to why the Sims aren’t proto-conscious and how many more lines of code it will take for full consciousness to occur.
You can simulate a neural net with standard x86, arm, ppc, etc. hardware, and even java VMs. The only limitation is processing capacity.
Conciseness from hardware isn’t magic, or woo woo as you claim (ironic cause you’re the only writing woo woo filled screeds). It’s just an emergent property of a sufficiently complex and rightly organized system.
You didn’t just wish post #24 out of existence, did you? Crap, does that mean we’re down to only two dimensions?
Ok, fine. Your Sims really do dream of electric sheep. Your Teddy Ruxpin really was alive. Gaia is real too. “Computer” means whatever you want it to mean.
Why must a future computer be anything like our “current concept” of a computer?
A computer is just an arrangement of matter, put together by humans, that results in computations that are geared towards a desired outcome.
If in the future chemical is the way to go, why not?
Just because we can’t produce consciousness on a Windows 7 or Mac OS X machine doesn’t mean that no future machine will ever be able to produce consciousness.
Do you think the brain produces consciousness by the way matter interacts, or is consciousness something that comes from “outside”, e.g. from a soul that exists on another plane of existence?
If the brain can produce consciousness why is it out of the question to posit future machines capable of the same?
What are these “rules about consciousness”? How is a computer made of chemicals “contorting” the definition? As long as the device computes, what does it matter what it is made of?
Rhythmdvl , you’re arguing so strongly for your side that you are failing to see your inconsistency. What makes a brain different from a computer? There is nothing “woo woo” about acknowledging the known functions of the brain - that it is a collection of matter that happens to compute information through a process of electro-chemical signals. Out of that system consciousness arises. Why couldn’t it arise out of a completely electric system, or a completely chemical system as imagined above?
In short: what makes the human brain so unique that consciousness can only exist in the meat between our ears?
I think arguing that the universe cannot be a simulation because of the magnitude of power required to run the computer is kind of silly. The magnitude of power is not relevant as magnitude of power is a subset relative to the rules of the system. You are trying to judge the computational might of God’s PC by the rules of the operating system that runs on it.
