Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bauglir]

i'll be honest, i think he's got a useful insight on the model-building theory, it's just not a terribly original one and it's not immune to the objections he wants it to be >_______________>

[i2amroy]

RE: Consciousness Article
Honestly I don't know if I agree that we in fact have "consciousness" at all. I mean at a base level consciousness really just comes down to being aware of what's going on around and in yourself, which is something that exists in any life form all of the way down to bacteria, and in computers as well (since many systems are more complex than the aforementioned bacteria). To state that complexity has something to do with it would mean you would have to draw a line somewhere where things are "no longer conscious". Are dogs conscious? What about squirrels? Dolphins with their high intelligence? If we define consciousness as a simple process and awareness than it's already something that computers and somesuch have, albeit in a vastly different and reduced fashion than our own.

The other common way to define consciousness, as some sort of metaphysical special thing that humans have and other things don't, opens up a whole other can of worms. What if we modeled an entire human brain in metal, or some vast mechanical logic machine? Would that incredible machine have this "consciousness"? I mean we've already done it with chunks of a rat's brain (specifically it's visual cortex) to the point where it reacted very similar to the way a real rat's visual cortex would to stimulus (albeit in a much slower fashion due to the processing time that it took), and with improving technology it's only a matter of time till we get ever closer to that supposedly special "human" mark. Do other creatures have this special "consciousness" that we claim? What about the great apes, some of which have learned sign language before and are able to communicate with us on the level of very young children? Are they conscious? What magic boundary differentiates them from us if they aren't, or them from non-conscious things if they are?

He claims that the study of the field of consciousness is filled with so called "phlegm" theories, but honestly the way I see it is that the very idea of consciousness itself is nothing more than a "phlegm" theory; a place in science where we have some how elevated ourselves onto a pedestal over other things for no reason actually based in fact.

[SirQuiamus]

1. If the mind is like a web server, consciousness is the loopback interface.

2. If the brain is like a computer, consciousness is like a blinking light bulb on the front panel.

3. The brain is not a computer, it is a gland. It secretes thought and reason like the nasal epithelium secretes phlegm.

4. If phlegm is reason and reason is truth, Phlegmatism is The Way of Truth.

5. If the human condition is a nose and the mind is a sneeze, Phlegmatism is The Almighty Kleenex.

6. Phlegm is the sacred protoplasm that giveth life to all things. Thou shalt not spill thy phlegm on the ground.

7. Thou shalt donate all thy phlegm to the PIRI, and we shall create a benevolent God to blow thy nose for thee.

8. That'll be $8000.99, thank you very much.

[Reelya]

Oh! I suppose I hadn't thought of the necessity of distinguishing between a mind and consciousness.

My general conclusion is that consciousness is the actual evolutionary adaptation. If you could have a proper working mind without consciousness, I would see no need for a consciousness to "attach" itself to a mind for no reason.

i.e. if you could simulate (or emulate) a human brain to a sufficient level that it acts like it thinks it is a conscious person, it probably actually is, based on the Occam's Razor idea that if consciousness was an unnecessary addendum to the workings of the mind, then it would never have evolved.

[SirQuiamus]

If you could have a proper working mind without consciousness, I would see no need for a consciousness to "attach" itself to a mind for no reason.

You can have a proper working mind without consciousness, that's the whole point. Have you ever caught yourself performing a complex task, like making a cup of coffee, without consciously intending to do it? Have you ever reflexively done something, like caught a falling object, and then wondered what the hell even happened?

And what about sleepwalkers? Or hypnotized people? Or polydrug users like yours truly? I can assure you that altered states of consciousness range all the way from "tripping balls" to "unconscious but wide awake," and cognitive research has also shown that the brain/mind is capable of doing all sorts of things without a glimmer of subjective consciousness. One study (was it Damasio et al?) has even shown that consciousness always lacks half a second behind the things that the body does at the brain's command – consciousness is never the one to initiate action, it merely reacts to things that the brain does and explains them as its own doing.

The way I see it, consciousness does not need to have an evolutionarily defined purpose, because it is at most a causally-inefficacious by-product – a spandrel, not an adaptation.




...and phlegm is the interface between the body-soul and the universal world-soul.

[Descan]

The problem I have is that consciousness is one of those undefined words. Like does it mean being awake? Then those people who say "By the same logic, you die every time you sleep!" have a leg to stand on. But that's not what -I- mean when -I- say the word or read the word, I think in terms of having a personal experience, (and in terms of brain uploading) a logically-continuous personal experience. Dreams are still experiences, and even if I don't remember all my dreams, I still probably had them! And even if I had amnesia, I'd still likely feel like I am, at the core, me. The same person writing these words would be that same person, even if they don't remember ever writing these.

And this STILL doesn't get at what I think consciousness is. That all feels like it's beside the point, that it's talking about something irrelevant. More importantly to me, my idea of the underlying action of continuous consciousness, the thing that connects one moments "I" to the next, is the never-ending loop of activity in the brain. One neuron talks to another neuron talks to another, x1e10 in terms of complication and connections. Once you break THAT loop, THAT'S when I feel one person dies and another person begins. Whether it's destroy-and-recreate teleportation, or scan-and-recreate brain uploading, or brain death followed by resuscitation, there's still that break. Technically this isn't consciousness! I'll admit that! But it's what I feel makes a person a person and not another person who think's they're the original person.

That's why I support brain uploading in terms of connecting the computer to the brain and allowing the brain to migrate in over time, or replacing constituent parts of the brain over time either chunks at a time, or nano-machines converting neurons one-at-a-time. The loop of communication never breaks, it just starts talking to things that aren't neurons, and eventually that loop consists entirely within the machinery. It's still got loop-continuity back to the meaty origins.

[Bauglir]

Well, sure. Consciousness, like most words and phrases that describe our states of mind, is a suitcase word. That is, it has lots of different ideas packed into it, which are useful to combine because doing so reflects our intuition and helps us communicate far more efficiently, effectively, and expressively than an unambiguous and precise set of definitions, chained to our muddled senses, reason, and emotions, ever could (among other reasons). And, like most suitcase words, it's very easy to equivocate by accident when you're trying to use it as part of a philosophical structure or something.

edit: language isn't a one-to-one mapping of concepts to noises and it's better that way, but it does create situations like this

[SirQuiamus]

The problem I have is that consciousness is one of those undefined words. Like does it mean being awake? Then those people who say "By the same logic, you die every time you sleep!" have a leg to stand on.

Consciousness is like love or anger: sometimes you feel it, sometimes you don't.

But that's not what -I- mean when -I- say the word or read the word, I think in terms of having a personal experience, (and in terms of brain uploading) a logically-continuous personal experience.

Logically conti-what? How do you define that? Would a robot who "feels" like Descan be Descan?

Dreams are still experiences, and even if I don't remember all my dreams, I still probably had them! And even if I had amnesia, I'd still likely feel like I am, at the core, me. The same person writing these words would be that same person, even if they don't remember ever writing these.

Well, keep dreaming then. Don't believe the people who say that you're really robo-Descan.

And this STILL doesn't get at what I think consciousness is. That all feels like it's beside the point, that it's talking about something irrelevant. More importantly to me, my idea of the underlying action of continuous consciousness, the thing that connects one moments "I" to the next, is the never-ending loop of activity in the brain. One neuron talks to another neuron talks to another, x1e10 in terms of complication and connections.

But that's not what consciousness is – there's constant neuronal activity going on inside your head that you're in no way conscious of, and it's by no means unthinkable that you might permanently lose your self-awareness, for whatever mysterious reason, while your neurons go on talking to each other like business as usual. If consciousness is really the only thing that constitutes your self, you're already as good as a philosophical zombie.

Once you break THAT loop, THAT'S when I feel one person dies and another person begins. Whether it's destroy-and-recreate teleportation, or scan-and-recreate brain uploading, or brain death followed by resuscitation, there's still that break. Technically this isn't consciousness! I'll admit that! But it's what I feel makes a person a person and not another person who think's they're the original person.

Mere causality does not create a magical connection between you and your digital copy. If you equate your self with the seamless continuity of your self-image, you're as good as dead. See what happened to Dorian Gray, man.

That's why I support brain uploading in terms of connecting the computer to the brain and allowing the brain to migrate in over time, or replacing constituent parts of the brain over time either chunks at a time, or nano-machines converting neurons one-at-a-time. The loop of communication never breaks, it just starts talking to things that aren't neurons, and eventually that loop consists entirely within the machinery. It's still got loop-continuity back to the meaty origins.

But that kind of continuity does not mean a thing! It's like saying that "my Dear Diary allows me to live forever because there's a causal connection between my brain and the marks on paper" – sure, it's poetic as fuck, but it isn't real. It's just wishful thinking.

[LordBucket]

Going to dig this back up due to a fascinating article that I read that... really, really shows some light into the content of this thread. Article's right here. Seems to sum up this thread really well, actually, in that the reason the discussion was so frustrating was because nothing that we were discussing was... well, concrete.

I basically agree. I think I said it previously in the thread: this idea that brain produces consciousness is cargo cult science. "There's a brain! It's doing stuff! There is consciousness! Clearly the brain doing stuff results in consciousness!" Just like people on a desert island watching people build runways and towers and assuming that building runways and towers causes cargo planes to land.

It's bad thinking.

[LordBucket]

I wouldn't get digitally uploaded, but I would try and mess with everyone who did.

Apologies for the personal promotion, but since we're discussing consciousness and uploading again...it happens that I recently published a story on fimfiction that is relevant to this topic. Story assumes the reader is familiar with the Optimalverse.

It does not have a happy ending.

[wierd]

Comparative analysis of manufactured brains vs organic ones would be more closely approximated in the cargocult analogy, as examining real airports with the manufactured ones.

If you send out broadcasts giving clearance to land, the chances of somebody landing increases. The more like a real airport your constructions become, the more likely to be used your construction is. Eventually, the difference becomes academic.

Right now our neural network simulations are beyond just crude. They really are made of sticks and mud (by analogy.)

Give it some time and some refinement. It will get there eventually.

[HAMMERMILL]

I think they could develop a computer program that emulates the human mind, but 'uploading' consciousness makes no realistic sense to me.

Consciousness and free will are illusions. Your brain really is a sort of meat-based computer and it makes decisions before you are aware that you made a decision. That doesn't mean that any awareness of 'you' will exist after you are 'uploaded' on the internet to play WoW forever. Any upload would be a copy and if one copy of your brain can transfer consciousness, than multiple copies are possible too. Why not duplicate it a million times so you can raid the dungeons all with clones of your mind that you all have simultaneous conscious experience with?

I feel like anyone trying to tell you to 'upload your mind into a virtual environment' is really just trying to kill you off to make room for them. A sort of voluntary self-extinction.

[Bauglir]

Consciousness and free will are illusions.

I don't understand what this means. Would you care to elaborate? I've never seen this used in a way other than as a catchphrase.

[HAMMERMILL]

Consciousness and free will are illusions.

I don't understand what this means. Would you care to elaborate? I've never seen this used in a way other than as a catchphrase.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will

Current understanding of neuroscience suggests the brain arrives to a decision before you are consciously aware that you have made a decision. Consider that if someone throws pocket-sand at you, your eyes will close before you actively thought to do so. Same thing with every other decision you've ever made in life, your brain makes a decision, then 'you' are aware of it and you think you made the decision, There is a non-trivial time-gap. This suggests free-will and consciousness are just illusions or by-products of how the brain functions or how it evolved to to function, for humans at least.

 It's all theory, but nothing else around besides philosophical schools to debunk it.

[Descan]

That doesn't mean that any awareness of 'you' will exist after you are 'uploaded' on the internet to play WoW forever. Any upload would be a copy and if one copy of your brain can transfer consciousness, than multiple copies are possible too. Why not duplicate it a million times so you can raid the dungeons all with clones of your mind that you all have simultaneous conscious experience with?

I feel like anyone trying to tell you to 'upload your mind into a virtual environment' is really just trying to kill you off to make room for them. A sort of voluntary self-extinction.

That's why I support brain uploading in terms of connecting the computer to the brain and allowing the brain to migrate in over time, or replacing constituent parts of the brain over time either chunks at a time, or nano-machines converting neurons one-at-a-time. The loop of communication never breaks, it just starts talking to things that aren't neurons, and eventually that loop consists entirely within the machinery. It's still got loop-continuity back to the meaty origins.