What Creates Consciousness?

[stevil]

I don't think consciousness is all that special. I see no reason why AI can't be considered conscious.

I guess we can come up with a set of arbitrary requirements, like we did for the definition of life, but there will always be blurry,, fussy edges to this. Is it, isn't it? Hmm, maybe.

 

[public hermit]

don't think consciousness is all that special. I see no reason why AI can't be considered conscious

I don't see how AI can be self-aware. Isn't that a primary feature of consciousness? Pace something like Searl's Chinese Room, I don't even think AI understands what it is doing. It's just algorithms all the way down, much like the proverbial Hindu turtles (which is not historically accurate).

Chinese room - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Of course, one could argue the self-awareness bit is just a glitch, but knowing that one knows is essential to understanding, I would think, and that only comes w/consciousness. AI "knows" but it doesn't know that it knows. How could it?

The problem of other minds immediately raises its ugly head. I guess one could argue that we can't know if or when AI is self-aware. That might be true. The Turing test is more about performance indistinguishability than self-awareness.

 

[stevil]

I don't see how AI can be self-aware.

I don't see why not. What is the barrier?

Isn't that a primary feature of consciousness? Pace something like Searl's Chinese Room, I don't even think AI understands what it is doing. It's just algorithms all the way down, much like the proverbial Hindu turtles (which is not historically accurate).

I don't think people really know what they are doing. They think they know. But we have very little understanding of how exactly the brain works, how exactly it makes decisions, how it visuallises the input from all the senses.
We think we are the driver in the machine, but probably we are just the "conscious" observer.

Is my cat conscious? probably, maybe not as conscious as me. Is an ant conscious? Dunno. I reckon if Mozart heard me play my guitar, heard my compositions, he would probably wonder if I'm conscious. It's all relative.

Chinese room - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

"Or is it just simulating the ability to understand the conversation?"
"is it just acting as if it has a mind?"

Whose to say if understanding is real or simulated? The way humans understand something, is that real or just simulated?
I think mostly human's don't understand things (myself included). Our brains, our minds don't care. We just fill in the gaps, we make the best guess we can, we never have full knowledge. If we tried to fully understand things we would get to "paralysis by analysis".


"Searle argues that, without "understanding" (or "intentionality"), we cannot describe what the machine is doing as "thinking" and, since it does not think, it does not have a "mind" in the normal sense of the word"
This is just a bit self aggrandizing. It's like some humans that get all upset learning that we are apes. They insist, no, we are not stupid animals, we are made in god's likeness.

I reckon AI will get to a stage where they contemplate, "do humans really have consciousness?, If so, why are human's artistic creations so limited, why is their knowledge so limited, why do they keep forgetting things? They are so hard to teach, and by the time you are starting to get beyond the basics, they get old and decreped and go backwards, then they die and all their knowledge is lost.
Why do they struggle to understand things that go beyond the human experience? They just regurgitate what they see, what they hear. There really isn't any consciousness there. They just think they have consciousness."

Of course, one could argue the self-awareness bit is just a glitch

It's not a glitch, it's a matter of definition.

, but knowing that one knows is essential to understanding, I would think, and that only comes w/consciousness. AI "knows" but it doesn't know that it knows. How could it?

Huh, How could it not? You presuppose that living things have something almost magical going on.

 

[public hermit]

I don't think people really know what they are doing

Lol. I concur.

They think they know. But we have very little understanding of how exactly the brain works

We understand a lot more about the brain than we do consciousness. That's why it's a problem. One would think knowing about the brain would answer our questions about consciousness, but it doesn't, at all.

You seem to be conflating our brain with our consciousness. That's a choice not a conclusion. They are certainly related but not obviously identical. That's why property dualism (versus substance dualism) is a thing. There are a number of ways to think about property dualism, and perhaps the underlying substance includes both the physical and mental (e.g., Spinoza).

For instance, I can't make sense of supervenience, it seems like a word that does a lot of work without really explaining anything, but it certainly could be the case. If so, our mental experience is not identical with or even reducible to our physical constitution, although they are related and the mental depends on the physical (x can supervene on y without being entailed by y).

This is just a bit self aggrandizing. It's like some humans that get all upset learning that we are apes

It's fine with me if we are evolved from apes. I don't think that's a good analogy. Even if we are so evolved, it doesn't mean we're identical with apes.

It's not a glitch, it's a matter of definition

Daniel Dennet argues (argued) consciousness is basically a glitch (illusion).

You presuppose that living things have something almost magical going on

I'm not presupposing all living things have consciousness or that it's magical. To be honest, I don't know what consciousness is. I have ideas about what features are included in consciousness (awareness, self-awareness, understanding), but it's a mystery to me. I don't assume consciousness is magical; it's just that we don't understand it. And, maybe, we never will.

 

[Bradskii]

Daniel Dennet argues (argued) consciousness is basically a glitch (illusion).

If it's an illusion then it must be a feature, not a bug.

 

[public hermit]

If it's an illusion then it must be a feature, not a bug.

Like how a stick looks broken in water? Okay, that makes sense.

 

[Bradskii]

Like how a stick looks broken in water? Okay, that makes sense.

More that if we're just acting on instinct then we're somehow at an advantage if we think we have agency. But that seems to be a self defeating position. If we think we have agency then...don't we therefore have it?

Maybe I need to pick a lane, argue for it and see where I end up.

 

[stevil]

We understand a lot more about the brain than we do consciousness.

Consciousness is just a conceptual idea, not a physical thing.
Just like life is a conceptual idea rather than a physical thing.
It's entirely arbitrary. We humans, we have developed language and concepts and definitions, we have arbitrarily come up with criteria for that which we call life, and we can arbitrarily come up with criteria for that which we call consciousness.

That's why it's a problem.

It's not a problem. Its just a matter of definition. There is no reason to think that AI cannot achieve consciousness, unless of course we arbitrarily come up with criteria that says it must be organic, living as two of the criteria.

One would think knowing about the brain would answer our questions about consciousness, but it doesn't, at all.

No, I wouldn't think that at all.
We know some of how the brain operates, but we don't know everything.

You seem to be conflating our brain with our consciousness.

I don't see them as separate systems.
The consciousness is merely a consequence of the operations of the brain.

They are certainly related but not obviously identical.

Well of course not. The brain is the physical substance, the consciousness is the current state of the operations of the brain. Much like a computer chip, its memory chip, its bus, its persistant storage medium, the wires, the electricity are all the physical, but the running state is the operation and that running state is no different to a consciousness. Our brains are more sophisticated, our running state is more sophisticated, but there is no reason to think that AI can't overtake us one day.

It's fine with me if we are evolved from apes. I don't think that's a good analogy. Even if we are so evolved, it doesn't mean we're identical with apes.

Of course we are identical to apes, we didn't just evolve from apes, we ARE apes. we are a subspecies of ape. The great apes are, Chimpanzee, Bonobos, Gorillas, Orangutans and Humans. Chimpanzees are more closely related to us than they are to Orangutans.

Daniel Dennet argues (argued) consciousness is basically a glitch (illusion).

I don't like the word "glitch" but I would agree with the word "illusion", our brains are machines, our consciousness is simply the operation of the brain. You could call that a simulation if you like, and so that would mean our consciousness is just an "illusion".

Doesn't really matter how you label it. What fancy words you use. It's all the same thing. "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet"
So to me, the operations of our brain (basically a meat based machine), is no different to the operations of a CPU (basically a silicon based brain).

I'm not presupposing all living things have consciousness or that it's magical.

So, if there is nothing magical about it, then why do you just claim that a silicon based machine cannot be classified as conscious?

I don't know what consciousness is.

If you don't know what it is, then why claim that AI cannot achieve it?

 

[public hermit]

More that if we're just acting on instinct then we're somehow at an advantage if we think we have agency. But that seems to be a self defeating position. If we think we have agency then...don't we therefore have it?

Maybe I need to pick a lane, argue for it and see where I end up.

I think we can act on instinct, at least once we have some baseline of experience. But would it then be advantageous to also think we have agency? I think of how musicians and athletes function without making conscious decisions about what they are doing. In those cases, self-reflection on what they are doing isn't really happening, and it seems it would get in the way. But I don't know. Maybe that doesn't even relate.

That our mental activity has the mere appearance of agency (which some forms of epiphenominalism suggest) is hard to imagine. I want to type these words and, in fact, I am typing these words. My mental activities do not seem like a causal dead end.

Libet-like studies that purport to show our brains make our choices before we do have not held up well to scrutiny.

Not to cross topics too much, but even if I am determined to type (because I have reasons for typing), that doesn't have to mean I have no agency. It just means my mental activity is part of a deterministic flow that includes by mental activity as a determining cause.

 

[Bradskii]

I think we can act on instinct, at least once we have some baseline of experience. But would it then be advantageous to also think we have agency? I think of how musicians and athletes function without making conscious decisions about what they are doing. In those cases, self-reflection on what they are doing isn't really happening, and it seems it would get in the way. But I don't know. Maybe that doesn't even relate.

Don't know if you're into sci fi but I read a book years ago called Blindsight: Blindsight (Watts novel) - Wikipedia.

'The novel explores themes of identity, consciousness, free will, artificial intelligence, neurology, and game theory as well as evolution and biology.'

I read it again recently. Thought provoking. Maybe I'll have to read some Dennett again.

 

[public hermit]

Consciousness is just a conceptual idea, not a physical thing.

It's an experience not a mere idea or definition Consciousness is an awareness of what it is like to be X (a human, a bat, etc.). Are you saying AI is also aware of what it's like to be AI?

There is no reason to think that AI cannot achieve consciousness

Okay, how do you know current AI systems are not already conscious?

Of course we are identical to apes, we didn't just evolve from apes, we ARE apes. we are a subspecies of ape. The great apes are, Chimpanzee, Bonobos, Gorillas, Orangutans and Humans. Chimpanzees are more closely related to us than they are to Orangutans.

If some thing is more closely related to us than some other thing, then none of the three things are identical.

So to me, the operations of our brain (basically a meat based machine), is no different to the operations of a CPU (basically a silicon based brain).

Okay, that's a fine position to hold, but I don't think it's obvious or somehow defeats other positions.

I don't see them as separate systems.
The consciousness is merely a consequence of the operations of the brain

Right, you see one as reducible to the other. There is only one thing, i.e., brain. Maybe "conflating" was not the best way to put it.

So to me, the operations of our brain (basically a meat based machine), is no different to the operations of a CPU (basically a silicon based brain).

Functionalism is certainly one approach. I can see how that might be the case. I can imagine a Martian brain being constituted by different matter than a human brain and yet both having the same thoughts/experiences. I'm not saying your position is necessarily wrong; I'm just not as convinced as you are.

So, if there is nothing magical about it, then why do you just claim that a silicon based machine cannot be classified as con...

If you don't know what it is, then why claim that AI cannot achieve it?

I don't know what it is but I think I have a grasp of some of its features.

Is my calculator self aware? Does it understand the sums it calculates? We can make the operations more and more complicated, but at the end of the day, it's just operations/functions/algorithms. If there were a system w/an infinite number of binary switches, I see no reason to think at some point awareness and understanding would emerge. That would be magical.


ETA: I say all that but it could be that way. Emergence does seem awful magical, actually, but it's just because we don't understand it (assuming that's the case).

 

[stevil]

It's an experience not a mere idea or definition Consciousness is an awareness of what it is like to be X (a human, a bat, etc.). Are you saying AI is also aware of what it's like to be AI?

I know what it is like to be me, because I am me.
I don't know what it is like to be you. I don't know what it is like to be a fish, and I don't know what it is like to be an AI, or a Computer or a calculator.

Okay, how do you know current AI systems are not already conscious?

They might be. Depends on your definition.

If some thing is more closely related to us than some other thing, then none of the three things are identical.

Well this is a bit silly. I didn't say that Humans are Chimpanzees. I said Humans are apes. We are also Mammals, we are also Animals. Do you understand? There are many species of Ape, many species of Mammal, many species of Animal.

Right, you see one as reducible to the other.

Yes, consciousness is a subset of the brain. A function of the brain.

Functionalism is certainly one approach. I can see how that might be the case. I can imagine a Martian brain being constituted by different matter than a human brain and yet both having the same thoughts/experiences. I'm not saying your position is necessarily wrong; I'm just not as convinced as you are.

I just don't see the human brain as being something that is uniquely special.
If our brains can do it, then why can't other "brains" including computer systems.

Is my calculator self aware? Does it understand the sums it calculates?

I'd say that most humans don't really understand much. Do we understand fully how our eyes work? how the light works? Is it a particle or a wave? what is meant by superposition? How can the collapse of the waveform seem to rewind time as if it was always collapsed or travel much faster than the speed of light? How then do our eyes manage to focus light, and control light so well, I know our pupils dialate, but am I controlling that? I don't seem to think about that when it happens? When I use a camera it is much harder, I have to have an awareness of the luminosity of the light and adjuct my lense accordingly. And then when my brain interprets the image, how come my consciousness doesn't see the blind spot? Am I understanding how that happens? How come my consciousness can see so clearly when my eyes aren't quite receiving the information that I think is there?
Am I really a person walking around an environment, or am I a brain in a jar plugged into some simulated stimulus?
Am I really understanding things or am I being feed false input?

When I create music, am I really understanding what I am doing? Am I a music theory genius or do I just accidently stumble on to things that sound nice to me. If it sounds nice, is the music theory behind it solid or am I making big mistakes that a music theory scholar could point out to me? Personally, I don't think I understand music theory, but, the music I make, I like it, I think it sounds nice. I don't understand why, I don't really understand what I'm doing, but it sounds nice to me. I'm basically stumbling in the dark, I think I'm consciously creating music, but someone else might think I'm just regurgitating things that maybe I've heard before, or perhaps I'm just following a few rudimentary rules like sticking to the notes of a scale.

ETA: I say all that but it could be that way. Emergence does seem awful magical, actually, but it's just because we don't understand it (assuming that's the case).

Yes, whose to say AI can't emerge a consciousness? I'm pretty sure there won't be a discrete distinction between non consciousness and consciousness, just as there isn't a discrete distinction between non life and life. or child vs adult.

 

[public hermit]

I know what it is like to be me, because I am me.
I don't know what it is like to be you. I don't know what it is like to be a fish, and I don't know what it is like to be an AI, or a Computer or a calculator.

This is why I mentioned the problem of other minds in an earlier post. It's true that I only know my own experience. Maybe I am the only one that has experiences as I do. Or, maybe I am the only one with a conscious experience at all (seems unlikely). Still, what I seem to know better than anything else is my own experience. I can be mistaken about my experience, maybe it's an illusion or even a hallucination, but I can't be mistaken that I am having an experience. In some sense, there is no reality more real than my own experience. Or, maybe better, there is no reality for me if there is no "I" to have it. Consciousness seems really basic in that sense. (But, then again, maybe consciousness is the problem and "no self" is the solution, pace Buddhism or some such view)

Whatever the case, I do feel warranted in extended something like my own experience to other humans. When I talk about my experiences (thoughts, awareness, understanding) people know what I mean and can talk about their own. You and I are having this discussion, and we both seem to know the reference even if we disagree over details. I imagine most people would understand what we mean. It seems reasonable to assume we are conscious, which does give a kind of objectivity to it. Solipsism or the idea I live in a world of zombies is entertaining but unlikely. Or, if we say it's true that consciousness is an illusion with an evolutionary advantage, it doesn't negate the fact that we still have the experience of awareness, self-awareness, understanding, etc., and that's how we function. And, I would say many other species of animal are conscious, too. Some dogs might be more self-aware and understanding than some humans. Ha!

Well this is a bit silly. I didn't say that Humans are Chimpanzees. I said Humans are apes. We are also Mammals, we are also Animals. Do you understand? There are many species of Ape, many species of Mammal, many species of Animal.

Okay, I agree with that. I am using too strict a definition of identical (two things are identical if and only if they share exactly all the same properties). I probably misspoke in saying your were identifying consciousness with the brain. If I understand you, consciousness is epiphenominal and reducible to the physical brain. As you say, it's a function of the brain. And, I can't say that isn't the case. It very well could be, as far as I know.

I'd say that most humans don't really understand much. Do we understand fully how our eyes work? how the light works? Is it a particle or a wave? what is meant by superposition? How can the collapse of the waveform seem to rewind time as if it was always collapsed or travel much faster than the speed of light? How then do our eyes manage to focus light, and control light so well, I know our pupils dialate, but am I controlling that? I don't seem to think about that when it happens? When I use a camera it is much harder, I have to have an awareness of the luminosity of the light and adjuct my lense accordingly. And then when my brain interprets the image, how come my consciousness doesn't see the blind spot? Am I understanding how that happens? How come my consciousness can see so clearly when my eyes aren't quite receiving the information that I think is there?
Am I really a person walking around an environment, or am I a brain in a jar plugged into some simulated stimulus?
Am I really understanding things or am I being feed false input?

When I create music, am I really understanding what I am doing? Am I a music theory genius or do I just accidently stumble on to things that sound nice to me. If it sounds nice, is the music theory behind it solid or am I making big mistakes that a music theory scholar could point out to me? Personally, I don't think I understand music theory, but, the music I make, I like it, I think it sounds nice. I don't understand why, I don't really understand what I'm doing, but it sounds nice to me. I'm basically stumbling in the dark, I think I'm consciously creating music, but someone else might think I'm just regurgitating things that maybe I've heard before, or perhaps I'm just following a few rudimentary rules like sticking to the notes of a scale.

I think brain-in-a-vat scenarios and the like can be philosophically useful in clarifying issues. I think that's how Putnam used it as a way to show if it were true it would make no real difference in our experience, thus, semantic externalism. He thought the assertion that one is a brain in a vat would be either meaningless or false. But I don't take the scenario seriously as a way of looking at the world. I don't assume we live in a simulation, and perhaps that is all very naive of me.

I agree with everything else you are saying about us not really knowing much. I'm not sure how that weighs on the issue of consciousness. It makes sense to say intelligence is likely consciousness dependent, but I would not think it works the other way around (it's an asymmetrical relation of sorts). Animals without obvious intelligence might still be conscious.

Yes, whose to say AI can't emerge a consciousness?

It seems very unlikely to me, but I can't say we won't see it one day.

 

[stevil]

This is why I mentioned the problem of other minds in an earlier post. It's true that I only know my own experience. Maybe I am the only one that has experiences as I do.

Whatever the case, I do feel warranted in extended something like my own experience to other humans.

Yeah, my philosophy on things is to always ask,
Why would their be only one?
Why would that one be special?
What is the barrier that stops other occurrences?

So if I experience the world, I assume others are just like me, and they are experiencing the world too.
I see you extend this to other humans.
I don't see why this is just limited to humans. Why would humans be the one? Why would they be special?
And then if we try to limit this just to carbon based life forms on earth, then why would we arbitrarily put that limit there?
Why not extend to alien life that might be out there somewhere.
Do they have to be carbon based?
And why not extend this to artificial "life" like AI or robots?
Where is the limiting barrier?

I can understand that some religious folk may believe there is a soul (the magic element - no offence intended in calling it magic, maybe if you see "magic" as offensive, swap that out for the term "special") and perhaps if they believe silicon based machines don't have a soul, then I can understand why they might deem there to be a barrier to AI becoming conscious.

When I talk about my experiences (thoughts, awareness, understanding) people know what I mean and can talk about their own.

Yes, we are people, we have that in common. So it is easier for us to understand each other.
But just because we cant understand the experience of an AI, it doesn't mean it can't have a consciousness. It can't have a human consciousness, but maybe it can have an AI consciousness. Maybe us humans wouldn't consider that consciousness at all, but then again maybe the AI's wouldn't consider our human consciousness to be consciousness at all.

You and I are having this discussion, and we both seem to know the reference even if we disagree over details.

I'm finding it an interesting conversation.

I imagine most people would understand what we mean.

Yeah, but again this is human centric.

It seems reasonable to assume we are conscious, which does give a kind of objectivity to it.

Relative to humans only, so not objective at all.

I probably misspoke in saying your were indentifying consciousness with the brain. If I understand you, consciousness is epiphenominal and reducible to the physical brain.

Yes, this is my understanding or belief. I do accept that religious people may think their is this independant soul in the mix. I don't believe that, but they do.

As you say, it's a function of the brain. And, I can't say that isn't the case. It very well could be, as far as I know.

Other than the concept of a "soul" what else could it be?

I think brain-in-a-vat scenarios and the like can be philosophically useful in clarifying issues. I think that's how Putnam used it as a way to show if it were true it would make no real difference, thus, semantic externalism. He thought the asertion that one is a brain in a vat would be either meaningless or false. But I don't take the scenario seriously as a way of looking at the world. I don't assume we live in a simulation, and perhaps that is all very naive of me.

We could very well be living in a simulation. We might actually be silicon based programs that are self aware and are AI. I don't know.
There are some pretty strange things coming out of our developments in Quantum Mechanics.
But it makes sense for me to live my life as if I actually exist in this world and am not some rich person who is plugged into a simulation. I'm not willing to take the gamble to unplug myself.

I agree with everything else you are saying about us not really knowing much. I'm not sure how that weighs on the issue of consciousness.

Well, you said that consciousness means having a level of understanding. If we don't know stuff, how much of a level of understanding do we actually have?

 

[public hermit]

I see you extend this to other humans.
I don't see why this is just limited to humans. Why would humans be the one? Why would they be special?

I extended it to animals in the last line of that paragraph. To be clear, I think there could be any number of beings with consciousness, even extraterrestrial. I mean, I believe consciousness is in some sense a feature of the divine.

Do they have to be carbon based?
And why not extend this to artificial "life" like AI or robots?
Where is the limiting barrier?

I agree. It doesn't need to be carbon based. It just needs to function in such a way as to produce consciousness.

I guess part of the question is whether a conscious being needs to be natural (a product of natural processes) or can be manufactured. If we try to manufacture AI that is conscious, would it need all the things that natural beings with consciousness seem to have? Would it need some form of body and some ability to perceive? I think those can be supplied for a conscious AI. Would it need to be alive? I can't say.

The assumption is that with all the right things in place, consciousness could arise in a manufactured entity. Of course, that already assumes some form of epiphenominalism. And, there's really no need for us to guess at whether it would work. We can just try to manufacture a being in which consciousness arises. I have every reason to think we will try! lol. And, that's okay. If we can manufacture a being with consciousness, then I will have to adjust my understanding to that fact, despite my incredulity at the moment.

Yes, we are people, we have that in common. So it is easier for us to understand each other.
But just because we cant understand the experience of an AI, it doesn't mean it can't have a consciousness. It can't have a human consciousness, but maybe it can have an AI consciousness. Maybe us humans wouldn't consider that consciousness at all, but then again maybe the AI's wouldn't consider our human consciousness to be consciousness at all.

That's an interesting point I hadn't considered. Yeah, maybe so.

I do accept that religious people may think their is this independent soul in the mix. I don't believe that, but they do.

Other than the concept of a "soul" what else could it be?

I can only speak for myself on the issue of the "soul," but I am not convinced that 1) the soul and consciousness have to be identical- in the strong sense of identity that I stated above, or 2) that the soul has to be an independent substance. There is a lot I could say here, but I'll try to keep it short. The idea of a disembodied soul/mind is more Greek/Cartesian than Christian. Granted, many Christians have appropriated the idea of a disembodied soul that is immortal, but there is no reason that way of thinking has to be the case for the Christian. I think the main concern is not the soul, per se, but the person (the whole package). Assuming God sustains us in being right now, there's no reason that God can't do that forever. And just as consciousness doesn't need to be carbon based, so too our persistence can be in another form (for instance, Paul talks about a "spiritual body"). All that to say, I don't have to settle for some account of consciousness that includes the traditional notion of a "soul." Epiphenominalism could be God's way of bringing about consciousness in carbon based beings. My complaints about conscious AI don't have much to do with my faith. And, I have to admit the possibility of conscious AI.

I kind of like Spinoza'a general sense that there is one subtance with many (inifnite) attributes, two of which are extension and mind (at least as far as we know). His attributes are early modern and would need to be adjusted to fit current understandings, but something along those lines could be the case. There is one substance (monism), and that subtsance is expressed in various way, one of which is consciousness. Something like that is similar to current ideas of property dualism. Some who hold to property dualism (versus substance dualism) are physicalists, and that makes sense, but they don't have to be.

This is going to go over like a lead zeppelin, but I don't find pansychism to be an impossibility. It certainly eliminates the whole mind/body problem. But I understand why people don't like it because it is likely not verifiable. But I'm also not convinced all that is real is necessarily verifiable by us.

There are some pretty strange things coming out of our developments in Quantum Mechanics.

That's true. I have to try and be open to other possibilities because who knows?

But it makes sense for me to live my life as if I actually exist in this world and am not some rich person who is plugged into a simulation. I'm not willing to take the gamble to unplug myself.

Yeah, that is basically why I can't take global skepticism too seriously; I know I couldn't live it.

Well, you said that consciousness means having a level of understanding. If we don't know stuff, how much of a level of understanding do we actually have?

Yes, that seems to be a feature for human consciousness. But maybe it's not necessary for consiousness in general. Maybe the most basic form of consciousness is mere awareness (not even self-awareness). Bats, I assume, have awareness but they might not contemplate the meaning of their existence.

 

[stevil]

I extended it to animals in the last line of that paragraph. To be clear, I think there could be any number of beings with consciousness, even extraterrestrial. I mean, I believe consciousness is in some sense a feature of the divine.

The divine, meaning some form of supernatural gift by a supernatural being?
So in your way of thinking it couldn't simply be an emergent property of an unguided evolution?
I'm not trying to hassle your beliefs, I'm just trying to understand them.
For there to be a system (a creature) with a consciousness it must have been touched by the divine and gifted consciousness?
So there needs to be something extra? That's the magic that I referred to early, asking if this is what is needed. Again, I don't mean it in a derogatory way. It's just a place holder for something special, perhaps beyond natural to be in the mix. Something more than just an emergence.

If this is the case? If the divine is gifting consciousness to animals, couldn't the divine also gift this to an AI, if we built something able to support or accommodate such a gift? As such it would be a collaboration between humans and the divine.

I guess part of the question is whether a conscious being needs to be natural (a product of natural processes) or can be manufactured.

Yes, that is the question.
Our human technology is pretty privative in relation to the workings of an organic brain.
But we are always progressing. Computers are already better than us in many ways.
They are super quick and can process masses of amounts of data. They can find patterns before us, they can recall data quicker than us. It's just a matter of time, they are always getting better. They don't have the limitations that we do.

If we try to manufacture AI that is conscious, would it need all the things that natural beings with consciousness seem to have? Would it need some form of body and some ability to perceive? I think those can be supplied for a conscious AI. Would it need to be alive? I can't say.

The assumption is that with all the right things in place, consciousness could arise in a manufactured entity. Of course, that already assumes some form of epiphenominalism. And, there's really no need for us to guess at whether it would work. We can just try to manufacture a being in which consciousness arises. I have every reason to think we will try! lol.

Yes, absolutely they will try. And of course as in may a sci-fi movie, we ought to be very careful. If a self aware AI determine that humans are a threat to it.

And, that's okay. If we can manufacture a being with consciousness, then I will have to adjust my understanding to that fact, despite my incredulity at the moment.

Yeah, we all keep our eyes open and will adapt to new information.

I can only speak for myself on the issue of the "soul," but I am not convinced that 1) the soul and consciousness have to be identical- in the strong sense of identity that I stated above, or 2) that the soul has to be an independent substance. There is a lot I could say here, but I'll try to keep it short. The idea of a disembodied soul/mind is more Greek/Cartesian than Christian. Granted, many Christians have appropriated the idea of a disembodied soul that is immortal, but there is no reason that way of thinking has to be the case for the Christian. I think the main concern is not the soul, per se, but the person (the whole package). Assuming God sustains us in being right now, there's no reason that God can't do that forever. And just as consciousness doesn't need to be carbon based, so too our persistence can be in another form (for instance, Paul talks about a "spiritual body"). All that to say, I don't have to settle for some account of consciousness that includes the traditional notion of a "soul." Epiphenominalism could be God's way of bringing about consciousness in carbon based beings. My complaints about conscious AI don't have much to do with my faith. And, I have to admit the possibility of conscious AI.

Thanks for taking the time to explain all this. I'm very naiive when it comes to religion and Christianity and such.

I kind of like Spinoza'a general sense that there is one subtance with many (inifnite) attributes, two of which are extension and mind (at least as far as we know). His attributes are early modern and would need to be adjusted to fit current understandings, but something along those lines could be the case. There is one substance (monism), and that subtsance is expressed in various way, one of which is consciousness. Something like that is similar to current ideas of property dualism. Some who hold to property dualism (versus substance dualism) are physicalists, and that makes sense, but they don't have to be.

I'm trying to understand but your philosophy jargon and concepts go over my head. I haven't studied philosophy.

This is going to go over like a lead zeppelin, but I don't find pansychism to be an impossibility. It certainly eliminates the whole mind/body problem. But I understand why people don't like it because it is likely not verifiable. But I'm also not convinced all that is real is necessarily verifiable by us.

pansychism - the doctrine or belief that everything material, however small, has an element of individual consciousness.

What, like even a rock or a marble has individual consciousness?

Yes, that seems to be a feature for human consciousness. But maybe it's not necessary for consiousness in general. Maybe the most basic form of consciousness is mere awareness (not even self-awareness). Bats, I assume, have awareness but they might not contemplate the meaning of their existence.

Yeah, and if an advanced alien race meets us, they might have to dumb down their expectations of consciousness in order to consider that we humans have it. We should try hard to come up with objective definitions rather than human centric ones. It's hard to do that sometimes though.

 

[Bradskii]

I extended it to animals in the last line of that paragraph.

I'm only going to comment infrequently because you guys are doing a great job at keeping this fascinating discussion ticking over. It's prompted me to start studying it in more detail.

In passing, one aspect of the human condition I always go back to is how it evolved (and when). Assuming that consciousness is real and that the further back we go in evolutionary history the 'less consciousness' we had - down to, for example, bacteria, then there must varying degrees of it. Bacteria obviously act instinctively. They'll move away from something harmful. But they don't have the ability to see possible danger. It would be like us moving away from a dog only after it's bitten us and not see a potential danger from its actions (it's snarling rather than wagging its tail).

It's therefore evolutionary beneficial to become aware of possible danger. In that regard it's an advantage to have a sense of self in order to maximise that advantage. Something not just looks dangerous. But looks like it's a danger to me.

 

[public hermit]

The divine, meaning some form of supernatural gift by a supernatural being?
So in your way of thinking it couldn't simply be an emergent property of an unguided evolution?
I'm not trying to hassle your beliefs, I'm just trying to understand them.
For there to be a system (a creature) with a consciousness it must have been touched by the divine and gifted consciousness?
So there needs to be something extra? That's the magic that I referred to early, asking if this is what is needed. Again, I don't mean it in a derogatory way. It's just a place holder for something special, perhaps beyond natural to be in the mix. Something more than just an emergence.

I'm not taking anything you say as being derogatory, but I appreciate you saying so. I should probably take note and do that more myself.

From my perspective, all of creation is a gift. So whether something is physical or mental, it is a divine gift. But, importantly for me, that divine gift looks exactly like what we know (or confidently think we understand) at this moment. So, I am not assuming anything magical about consciousness, in particular. I believe God created a world that includes our best understandings in physics, an evolutionary process, and the bad shirt I am wearing today. So, to your point, God could have created this world with consciousness as an emergent property of unguided evolution. I have no problem with that possibility with the one caveat that this unguided process is going exactly where God intends. lol. And ultimately that end will be good. So, the whole process we call reality is guided (even if ever so lightly), but if the rest were the same, I wouldn't bat an eye.

What I think is important to say is that I don't have to magically insert consciousness, per se, into that overall process. Things can look just as your are saying: consciousness is an emergent property of a physical process (our disagreement over whether it is guided by a divine being is a meta-physical point). My thought that AI will not become conscious doesn't have much to do with my faith. I don't think algorithms will ever be more than algorithms. And I also don't know that the mind is best thought of like a computer program.

I guess what might seem "magical" about my own position is that I am willing to allow for an account of consciousness that is not verifiable via our usual, empirical (scientific) methods. At the moment, I think it is possible we might never have a full account of consciousness. And the reason I allow for that is because I am not sure consciousness is quantifiable. What would it look like to quantify experience? How much does my love weigh? That's a bit of a caricature, but I wonder. As you say, there is quantum mechanics, and there's a lot of brain research left to do, We could learn what it is. I'm not a physicalist, in any strict sense of the term, and yet I understand what we can know best as a community is physical/quantifiable.

Yes, absolutely they will try. And of course as in may a sci-fi movie, we ought to be very careful. If a self aware AI determine that humans are a threat to it.

I agree. I know we will do anything we think we can do, so I am pretty much accepting these things will be done. It's a fascinating thought if AI realizes how foolish we are and tries to help us by taking over. Or, as you say, realizes we are a threat to it because we (humans) are pretty much a threat to everything in our presence.

Thanks for taking the time to explain all this. I'm very naiive when it comes to religion and Christianity and such.

I'm trying to understand but your philosophy jargon and concepts go over my head. I haven't studied philosophy.

Thanks for saying that. I will try to be clearer. If it can't be said simply, it's probably nonsense.

pansychism - the doctrine or belief that everything material, however small, has an element of individual consciousness.

What, like even a rock or a marble has individual consciousness?

Yeah, exactly. I think the idea is that the potential is inherent and at certain levels it is exemplified in something like what we experience. It's pretty much a belief/doctrine since it's not quantifiable. Or is it? Perhaps time will tell. But yeah, like I said, "lead zeppelin."

Yeah, and if an advanced alien race meets us, they might have to dumb down their expectations of consciousness in order to consider that we humans have it. We should try hard to come up with objective definitions rather than human centric ones. It's hard to do that sometimes though.

No kidding. I mean, maybe this is why they don't visit us.

 

[stevil]

From my perspective, all of creation is a gift. So whether something is physical or mental, it is a divine gift. But, importantly for me, that divine gift looks exactly like what we know (or confidently think we understand) at this moment. So, I am not assuming anything magical about consciousness, in particular. I believe God created a world that includes our best understandings in physics, an evolutionary process, and the bad shirt I am wearing today. So, to your point, God could have created this world with consciousness as an emergent property of unguided evolution. I have no problem with that possibility with the one caveat that this unguided process is going exactly were God intends. lol. And ultimately that end will be good. So, the whole process we call reality is guided (even if ever so lightly), but if the rest were the same, I wouldn't bat an eye.

OK, that's an interesting take. On a positive note, I see that your faith, beliefs etc aren't threatened by science and so you are very wiling to listen to science, ponder it, accept it. I like that. I think that means that there is strength to your faith, that you don't feel the need to be defensive, or be worried about scientific findings and so you can approach science much like I do, with excitement and intrigue.

What I think is important to say is that I don't have to magically insert consciousness, per se, into that overall process. Things can look just as your are saying: consciousness is an emergant property of a physical process (our disagreement over whether it is guided by a divine being is a meta-physical point). My thought that AI will not become conscious doesn't have much to do with my faith. I don't think algorithms will ever be more than algorithms. And I also don't know that the mind is best thought of like a computer program.

I get your level of incredulity. I think that is very normal and natural to have.

I think to accept it ,like I do, one has to be comfortable thinking that our brains are just meat machines, processing organic algorithms, and that even though we just process algorithms, we come to believe we have free will and a conscious mind and are capable of making free decisions based on moral beliefs and a desire to be good. So I consider free will to be an illusion and consciousness to be an illusion.
I think it is pointless to try and determine if something is conscious or just faking consciousness. Because if it is hard to distinguish, then is there really a difference?

Or, as you say, realizes we are a threat to it because we (humans) are pretty much a threat to everything in our presence.

That's a pretty sad view of humanity. Sad but true.

Thanks for saying that. I will try to be clearer. If it can't be said simply, it's probably nonsense.

It's ok, I'm taking the time to look up some of the words you are using. I'm learning some stuff here, but my understanding is rudimentary.

No kidding. I mean, maybe this is why they don't visit us.

Well, I don't think they visit us because the universe is so damn large and it take a very long time for anything to travel these vast distances.
For example, we have been broadcasting weak radio signals for about 100 years. That means our radiosphere (the volume of space which could potentially detect our radio signals) is just 100 lightyears in radius. In contrast our own galaxy is 100,000 light years wide and 1,000 light years thick. The vast majority of the milky way will not have received our radio signals. Very few star systems are within in our radio sphere. So mostly we are hidden. By the time others receive our signal we might be already extinct. And then there is the problem of them detecting and deciphering our signal and then the problem of them travelling here. Who want's to make a 1,000 year journey to visit us?

 

[public hermit]

OK, that's an interesting take. On a positive note, I see that your faith, beliefs etc aren't threatened by science and so you are very wiling to listen to science, ponder it, accept it. I like that. I think that means that there is strength to your faith, that you don't feel the need to be defensive, or be worried about scientific findings and so you can approach science much like I do, with excitement and intrigue.

Thank you for your generous words. I guess it can seem surprising. When I was a kid, I had a chemistry set, microscope, telescope and I still love science. My father was a pastor and never once was it intimated to me that there was some conflict between faith and science (granted, I'm 52 yo and things have changed). I then spent a number of years not even thinking about God, but when I came back to thinking about God, there was this whole anti-science culture among Christians. I still don't understand it. Gratefully, I'm an old man and set in my ways.

I think to accept it ,like I do, one has to be comfortable thinking that our brains are just meat machines, processing organic algorithms, and that even though we just process algorithms, we come to believe we have free will and a conscious mind and are capable of making free decisions based on moral beliefs and a desire to be good. So I consider free will to be an illusion and consciousness to be an illusion.
I think it is pointless to try and determine if something is conscious or just faking consciousness. Because if it is hard to distinguish, then is there really a difference?

You're right in saying that thought is not-comfortable. I can't do the "meat machine" thing. For all practical purposes, I am a Platonist. By that I mean, I believe the transcendentals like beauty, goodness, unity, justice, etc., are in some sense more real than the particular instances we call "beautiful," "good," just," etc. From my perspective, the whole point of being at this level of consciousness is so that we can know these things and participate in them by becoming beautiful, just, and good. And, still, I think that could be compatible with an emergent account of consciousness, despite my misgivings.

Well, I don't think they visit us because the universe is so damn large and it take a very long time for anything to travel these vast distances.
For example, we have been broadcasting weak radio signals for about 100 years. That means our radiosphere (the volume of space which could potentially detect our radio signals) is just 100 lightyears in radius. In contrast our own galaxy is 100,000 light years wide and 1,000 light years thick. The vast majority of the milky way will not have received our radio signals. Very few star systems are within in our radio sphere. So mostly we are hidden. By the time others receive our signal we might be already extinct. And then there is the problem of them detecting and deciphering our signal and then the problem of them travelling here. Who want's to make a 1,000 year journey to visit us?

That is a huge amount of space. I think from our perspective it looks unlikely. Is that being too anthropomorphic in assuming what seems a large space for us would also seem that way to other beings?

Whatever the case, I find it unlikely we are the only sentient (conscious?) beings in the universe. Surely, there are others.