Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As I said so many post ago ... If a machine acts exactly like you do ... it is you.
I'm assuming you don't mean this literally, so I'll try to rephrase:
Do you mean: A machine that acts like a conscious person is a conscious being.
If this is what you mean, I disagree. I still say there is an important distinction between mimicking conscious behavior and being a conscious entity. But I've already discussed this quite a lot, so I won't regurgitate it all again. (I'm sure you'll be grateful for that!)
Quote:
I suggest studying proteins very deeply and all they entail. Sorry if you did already. Real sorry! Believe it or not they unlock many idea's that can be taken to the fabric of space itself all the way up to the cosmic web. They are not the end all, but darn do they open up the mind. And they anchor any idea you may have in what is known. Not was is not.
I was just two classes short of a Bachelor's degree in biology before I switched my major to philosophy, so I have roughly a college-level introductory knowledge of proteins. The complexities of protein-folding have some amazing mathematical properties, but I'm not aware of any reputable scientist talking about proteins unlocking deep mysteries about the fabric of space itself. I think I might vaguely recall someone comparing protein-folding to the complexity of the cosmos, but my impression is that this was just a metaphor used to express the outrageous levels of complexity that can emerge from a handful of amino acids (mostly relevant to debates in abiogenesis, as I recall).
Anyway, if I've missed something about proteins, I'd love some references to books or articles that explain what you mean.
This is one of the strangest ideas I have heard atheists state. That human consciousness is no different than something which could evolve into being inside a man-made machine or computer.
Do some really believe that a machine can have conscious feelings?
Whatever, whenever and however we find out about the way our cranial stodge produces our mind the bods with hammers and soldering wire will have to find out a way of duplicating it or something that does it a different way, even.
My guess would be to engineer self-organizing nano-molecules that are capable of self-organizing into self-replicating/self-repairing complex systems that begin to model their external environment and, in this way, facilitate the emergence of self-referencing activity. The ability to model the world implies the possibility of modeling a "self" interacting with the world-model, and this (according to me) is there "qualia" emerge. A quale is a constituent element in the self-model that carries information about the world or body via the "nervous system" (or whatever fulfills this function) of the system doing the world-modeling.
Since self-reference is at the heart of the quale's nature, some aspects of the quale can only be known subjectively by the system that is engaged in world-modeling - specifically, those aspects of the quale that are specifically self-referential (relative to other aspects of the quale that support the self-referencing functions without being entirely limited to just self-referencing processes). Thus some aspects of the quale are publicly perceivable (neuroscience) while other aspects are only subjectively knowable (indexical phenomenology/introspection).
The fact that each of us is, in our own right, a subjective/qualitative experiencer gives us access to the qualitative nature of qualia. I can study the public aspects of your qualia (and probably tell you far more about your qualia than you yourself can know via introspection), but only you can study the subjective/qualitative aspects of your qualia (because only you can do your own self-referencing). Eventually some concepts from neuroscience (which can get a grip on qualia via physical correlates) will need to seep down to the level of physics if we want to explain the emergence of qualia from the Big Bang without accepting any magical emergences along the way. Current physics seemingly can (in principle) explain the emergence of self-organizing, self-referencing systems from rocks, water and sunlight, and thus it can explain almost everything we need to know about qualia - including the fact of subjectivity - but it falls short of explaining the intuitive feel of being a self-referencing system. Physics outlines the realm within which subjective/qualitative experience emerges, but currently it can't pinpoint the "feel" of what it is that emerges (thus we can seemingly imagine "zombies" in which the self-referencing activity occurs, but there's nobody home" so to speak).
In effect, we are in a situation analogous to the mathematical realization that we can know certain mathematical theorems to be true, even though we also know (via Gödel's proof) that we cannot prove these theorems to be true within mathematics itself. Analogy: Objective science can show the potential existence of knowledge that cannot be reduced to objective concepts. The only way to know that this potential for knowledge is not an empty set (i.e., is not "zombie-esque") is to access non-objective ways of knowing - i.e., subjective introspection of our own qualitative experiences. GOFAI machines won't open up the space within which subjective/qualitative knowledge can exist, but nano-engineered molecules will probably be able to do so.
(2) I presume that it is agreed that qualia and an explanation of the Hard question is not now regarded as disproving the consciousness could be a physically -engineered product of our brain?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
I agree with this, once we make a few tweaks at the level of fundamental physics, and, of course, I'm still saying that GOFAI won't be a sufficient approach for engineering consciousness.
There never has been a question that consciousness is "a physically -engineered product of our brain," Arq. The question is about what form of energy the "product" is in and where it resides within the universe. Consciousness is central to experience, to the creation of the "experiencer" and to the creation of all models that attempt to define and explain it. Therefore the experiential models cannot be the "experiencer" that creates them no matter how sophisticated. Consciousness is produced by the neurology of the brain, but what is produced is not resident there. Consciousness is an aggregate composite or summary of all the neural states across the entire brain at any point in time. As E. Roy John describes it, consciousness is the composite awareness that arises within a resonant neural field across all participating neurons. Consciousness summarizes into a composite awareness the neural states across the entire brain at any point in time. This means that the brain itself cannot simultaneously contain the summary of the states without losing the states to be summarized. This tends to validate B.Libet's and E. Roy John's field conceptions of consciousness.The brain is a state machine with the neural activity producing the inputs to an abstraction in the unified field . . . consciousness. I have tried frujitlessly to use another abstraction . . . melody . . . to illustrate the different loci.
To try again, a melody is an abstract composite of a sequence of notes that only exists within a consciousness field. The notes exist separately and phenomenologically as individual sound waves. But the composite melody does not reside in the individual activity of the sound waves. Melody needs an "experiencer" to experience it. The melody only interacts with reality as individual sound wave activity . . . NOT as a composite. That is why it is ONLY an abstraction. The problem with true abstractions like melody is that they ARE illusions. They are just content within a consciousness and do not interact with reality as a composite. But our conscious Self IS an "experiencer" and it does interact with reality as an identifiable composite.
As a field phenomenon, consciousness becomes a composite abstraction. This is what leads to the misconception that it and the Self are illusory. Our consciousness is an abstract composite of the individual neural activity that comprises it . . . but unlike melody it does interact with reality as an identifiable composite . . . as here in the forum. The cognitive products in this forum evidence that unique and identifiable interaction . . . as they carry the unique output of each of its named contributors. The combination of its existence as a field phenomenon and its abstract but interactive status as a composite require that consciousness be a unique form of energy. Only forms of energy can interact with reality in identifiable ways.
The existence of an "experiencer" (or Self) as the embodiment of the ubiquitous pronouns we use is what removes consciousness from the machine that produces it. It is important to distinguish any specific memorial content of the Self from the Self. Since our only access to the memorial content in this physical form is through the content recorded in the brain . . . any interference with that content can alter the Self that is played back. But the essential sense of "being and experiencing" remains. It is that essential sense of "being and experiencing" that is the core of our composite consciousness produced by the brain. You and I (the "consciousnesses-in-process" that are communicating in this forum . . . NOT our physical beings) actually exist as composite resonant neural field phenomena within the universal field. It is produced in a field form of energy (a separate level of being) from this physical one. In short, we are NOT our physical body at all. We are the "experiencer" produced by it. Since a sense of Self is integral to what is produced (as we experience it) is a field energy form.of some kind . . . it is hard to imagine why or how that would ever cease to be.
Of course we can only experience this sense of Self . . . not currently measure the "experiencer" . . . so it is speculative. But we cannot measure what comprises 95+% of our reality so that hardly seems a compelling basis to reject what we cannot measure. While the composite consciousness field is speculative . . . there is nothing speculative about fields, per se. They provide the very attributes of our reality that the SM USES to investigate our hypotheses. Even the newly found Higgs Boson is a "particle event" verifying the existence of the Higgs field in the Standard Model. Currently we have identified separate "sub-fields" to account for the "forces" used in our physical models to explain macro processes and events. It is our current ignorance that is unable to model the unified field that subsumes and integrates all of the current ones into a TOE . . . but field phenomena are ALL that exist in their myriad manifestations that we call reality and life. But I still see no way to instantiate an "experiencer" into a mere machine of any kind.
I don't get what you guys don't see. Name one input device that we have on our bodies that has not been made "better" by us? Then, couple that with the understanding that we have made "recording" devices better than the brain. I mean even people that can remember every note played alter the music to some degree.
When we hit 10^14-ish events per second that will equal the brain. Then when it goes more (pun intended) then that with the better input devices it will tap into your quali field more than us. For the life of me it is that simple.
There is only "one leap of faith" to made now guys. It aint rocket science ya know. The next step is to make a program that can handle error as well as the brain. And you think that is not possible? I find that fascinating. what does that say about some of the humans that seem rational enough?
They will be more consciousness then us. We are not that special. I hate to say it but the "two birds" and "surface of a smooth sphere" fit here. I aint even hyndu.
Since self-reference is at the heart of the quale's nature, some aspects of the quale can only be known subjectively by the system that is engaged in world-modeling
Or translating this from Philosophy into English - feelings are felt by the thing feeling them. Things seem a lot less magical when you cut out the jargon made up to try and provide rationalizations for the feeling that our minds must be special because they feel like they must be.
Quote:
The fact that each of us is, in our own right, a subjective/qualitative experiencer gives us access to the qualitative nature of qualia.
Translation - things who feel things about things feel things about things when they feel things about those things.
Quote:
I can study the public aspects of your qualia
No, you'd be studying behavior at that point. That's quite far removed from the raw feel of what it is like to have something happen to you.
Quote:
(and probably tell you far more about your qualia than you yourself can know via introspection), but only you can study the subjective/qualitative aspects of your qualia (because only you can do your own self-referencing).
"You can only feel what it feels like for you to feel something when you're feeling something about feeling it."
Quote:
Physics outlines the realm within which subjective/qualitative experience emerges, but currently it can't pinpoint the "feel" of what it is that emerges
Can anything? The problem here is a language issue - how to describe something to someone else without a shared reference point. Good luck with that, but it doesn't mean that physics is incomplete if you can't do the impossible.
Quote:
Objective science can show the potential existence of knowledge that cannot be reduced to objective concepts.
Cannot? That's a pretty strong claim. I'm sure researchers around the world would love to see your complete well tested model of brain function which proves that whatever "knowledge" you're talking about is impossible in principle to access through any 3rd party means.
You and I ...actually exist as composite resonant neural field phenomena within the universal field. It is produced in a field form of energy (a separate level of being) from this physical one. In short, we are NOT our physical body at all. We are the "experiencer" produced by it. Since a sense of Self is integral to what is produced (as we experience it) is a field energy form.of some kind . . . it is hard to imagine why or how that would ever cease to be.
Obviously you're metaphysics is different than most of the others in this group. But what I don't yet understand is exactly how your metaphysics implies that machines cannot be conscious. Apparently a human being is a "resonant neural field phenomena within the universal field," but on what basis do you say that only neural field phenomena can resonate with the universal field? What, specifically, is it about neurons that allows them to resonate with the universal field, whereas, presumably, other types of information processing systems would not? I'm going to make some guesses, and speculate for the fun of it, although I will probably go off track from your perspective.
I expect you will say that neurons are alive, and only living cells can be in resonance with the universal field. So then my question would be: What are the essential criteria that make neurons count as "alive"? E.g., is carbon essential, or could a living thing be made of something else? In other words, is it the material itself that contributes to the aliveness, or does it have more to do with functional capacities?
For my next question I'm going to need a distinction between organic life created by humans, and synthetic life. By "organic life" I mean living organisms that are chemically the same as - or extremely similar to - natural living organisms, but, in this case, created in a lab by processes meant to reproduce types of processes that could explain abiogenesis on earth. By "synthetic life" I mean organisms that are chemically very different from natural organisms (perhaps engineered though nanotechnology?), but are capable of self-maintenance, reproduction, metabolism, etc.
Could synthetic living cells potentially constitute a brain that could resonate with the universal field?
Personally, I don't think that algorithmically-driven electrical circuitry - no matter how complex - will ever be conscious (even though I will grant that, with really clever programming, such circuitry might someday be able to roughly simulate (i.e., model) human brain processes.). I say this because I think that qualia are indexical perspective-based (i.e., subjective because they are self-referencing) phenomena that emerge via spontaneously self-organizing physical processes, where the concept of "physical" depends on an advanced from of physics in which qualitative (or proto-qualitative) properties are logically "built in" to the elements and principles of fundamental physics (probably in the form of modifications to current quantum models needed to explain quantum behavior within living systems). A model of a quale is not a quale, thus the ability to model a quale does not imply that there is anything it is like to be the machine that models the quale.
If by the word "machine" you mean something that is "algorithmically-driven" then I would say that "machines" will never be conscious. If the word 'machine' includes nano-engineered self-organizing systems composed of elements that are capable of self-maintaining, self-reproducing, self-referencing functions, then I would say that machines can be conscious.
I have not adequately justified how/why the subjective perspective (as defined above) should "feel like" anything (I have not fully solved the hard problem). I've simply posited what I see as some minimal requirements for the type of system capable of sentient experience. My own form of accepting a "promissory note" is to suggest that a future physics that somehow manages to incorporate qualitative properties will somehow help us understand this. I suspect that something more or less like a "primordial proto-qualitative field" (what I've called a "primordial qualitative chaos") might have to be accepted as a fundamental premise if we are ever to solve the hard problem. I suppose that something along the lines of resonance with this field could serve as a basis for explanation of qualitative "raw feels" of experience, although, at the moment, I'm not sure what that even means.
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof: Objective science can show the potential existence of knowledge that cannot be reduced to objective concepts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCfromNC
Cannot? That's a pretty strong claim. I'm sure researchers around the world would love to see your complete well tested model of brain function which proves that whatever "knowledge" you're talking about is impossible in principle to access through any 3rd party means.
I'm puzzled by your last sentence because it seems to me that everything you said just prior to this sentence establishes the "cannot":
Quote:
Originally Posted by KCfromNC:
...feelings are felt by the thing feeling them.
No, you'd be studying behavior at that point. That's quite far removed from the raw feel of what it is like to have something happen to you.
The problem here is a language issue - how to describe something to someone else without a shared reference point. Good luck with that, but it doesn't mean that physics is incomplete if you can't do the impossible.
What you are getting at in these 3 sentences is essentially what I was getting at when I used the word "cannot" in my initial quote above.
I would go back to my analogy with Gödel's theorem. Gödel showed that mathematics is incomplete. If math is incomplete, why should it be such a shock, or a problem, if current physics turns out to be incomplete? In this case, saying that current physics is "incomplete" just means that there are certain truths that can be subjectively known (the "raw feels" of qualia) that cannot be fully reduced to the objective models of physics. (For roughly the same logical self-reference-based reason that not all true theorems in math can be expressed mathematically.)
This doesn't mean that we have to give up on naturalistic explanation and become theists. It simply means that future physics may have to accept another fundamental premise (one that it currently does not address). I can't say exactly what this new fundamental premise has to be; all I can do is point to the general ballpark and say it will need to be "qualitative" or "proto-qualitative". It simply accepts that self-referencing systems of certain types have subjective properties (phenomenal raw feels) that cannot be fully reduced to objective models. Nothing has to be added, ontologically, to the fundamental stuff of the universe. Qualia are not some sorts of things in addition to physical entities; qualia are simply aspects of the physical world that cannot be fully understood purely in terms of objective models. It is, as you say, largely a problem of language - or "epistemology" more generally: Qualia are not non-physical entities outside of the universe; qualia are simply aspects of the physical world that cannot be experienced except subjectively by individuals who experience them directly for themselves, and thus we have an epistemological problem explaining them using purely objective mathematical models or terminology. (We can reference their objective aspects - they are, after all, physical processes - we just have trouble referencing their subjective aspects using objective models and language. The only way we can reference their subjective aspects is subjectively - via our own introspective means.)
Just as we can know the truth of mathematical theorems that we can't prove within the formal system of math, we can subjectively experience properties of reality that we can't objectively model within the formal system of current physics. It's a profoundly interesting insight, but it is not devastating to physics, nor is it any reason to give up on naturalistic explanation. It's just a logical aspect of existence to be appreciated (perhaps in a "poetic" or "spiritual" sort of way?) for what it is. That's all.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 01-07-2015 at 09:10 AM..
So where did this ability to refer objectively within a subjective frame ( intuitive self referencing) come from ?
The human self, apart from the setting and experience would be in a state of ongoing unification. The mind is equipped within both, effecting subjective and objective self referencing, all at once, although..
Man can only focus on one equation at a time. Its not possible to have a subjective experience with the setting while considering what to have for lunch, sandwich or maybe some left overs from last night.
Therefore intuitive self referencing while connected to the self subjective truth would be detached from it because it is illusory or imagined. What we consider in the imaginative is not a subjective truth but an objective consideration in the imagination. Iow..another part of this world within this world. It may have to do with this world and things to do with the day to day, but..it cannot be marked in as a subjective experience because experience assumes, to be an experience in this real world, it may be an experience in the imagine, but ..this would not be a subjective experience in this world, but another imagined world because we know it is not real and used to model this world for model and ideas. Allowing to not just learn but choose whether or not beneficial . Objective / subjective self referencing.
The intuitive self referencing is the unification of these two worlds attempting to exist in harmony. that being the finite and the constant represented by light or infinite. So man is in a unifying process in motion and time, capable and ready by common ground association to ultimately unify with experience and the setting. (The species being unified collectively by virtue of a species and the setting or world by both the world in a state of achieving itself which supposes a unifying principal and then the earth and the world all its inhabitants etc.
So my thought for today is there is an ongoing unification going on for attribute consciousness to explore its origin. May have missed a few things in earlier posts but seemed to be distracted by the curious way things are described( complimentary). That was a good post Mystic and interesting. So it looks like everybody is right in opinion for now Mystic and the waves and Gaylen with the elements or quarks and things , don't have any science so maybe I will look at those interesting links and posts etc later , another time and look forward to them in a hobby light way. I think man already fully knows and is aware and its nothing new insofar as describing . This approach would also be in keeping with what I was trying to explain in the other area a week or so ago, Patience is the virtue which reigns over all because it is gathered from the infinite , unbounded.. and also essential in the math , and allows the communication of to man, the unifying in the conscious attribute and a quest for mankind by virtue connected with peace.
Last edited by Sophronius; 01-07-2015 at 10:39 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
