Jump to content
Science Forums

Machine Consciousness Experiments


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, SteveKlinko said:

What do you think of this company and Machine Consciousness? 

Well for one, I won't click on a link from a post that doesn't in any way discuss the content.

3 hours ago, JeffreysTubes8 said:

A machine can never be sentient.

I suppose that depends on your definitions, but this seems to me to be just an unbacked assertion.

3 hours ago, JeffreysTubes8 said:

By definition a machine is a collection of data and an AI is a compilation of mimicries

That's an incredibly poor definition of a machine, and seems rather to describe a database. A phone book is a collection of data, but it isn't a machine. My can opener is a machine, but isn't a collection of data.

A computer is indeed a machine that operates on electrical circuits and switches, but so are you, so if by definition such a device cannot be sentient, then neither can you.

An AI is not necessarily a 'compilation of mimicries'. There's no necessary requirement put on it to mimic any particular thing. For instance, the most successful chess/go playing computer was not programmed with any strategy or hints from humans. Most prior implementations were programmed by experts in the games, and those all turned out to be inferior implementations. The best AI figured everything out itself after having only the rules conveyed to it. The rules of no particular game were part of the programming.

Yea, I know, game playing is pretty easy for a machine, and they've surpassed us some time ago in this regard. Turing defined a test based on imitation, and I've yet to see a decent imitation of a human, but just because you cannot sufficiently imitate a squirrel to convince one that you're one of them doesn't mean you're not as intelligent (sentient?) as a squirrel.

Personally, I'd like to see a machine take over as a software developer, churning out better designs from a functional spec than can an educated human. It would seem like a natural fit, and yet I've read very little about this. On the other hand, I'd not like to see this since a great deal of jobs could potentially be lost to such an entity, which by definition would bring about the singularity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, JeffreysTubes8 said:

A machine can never be sentient. By definition a machine is a collection of data and an AI is a compilation of mimicries. 

From the perspective of Connectism a Machine or a Brain is not Sentient. But a Brain is Connected to Consciousness and a Machine could theoretically be Connected to Consciousness. But the concept of a separate Physical Space and a separate Conscious Space (Connectism) is the key. The Machine Consciousness Experiments are an attempt to prove Connectism. Maybe it's true or maybe it's not true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Halc said:

Well for one, I won't click on a link from a post that doesn't in any way discuss the content.

 

It's your prerogative not to click.

Game playing is irrelevant. A Brain or a Machine can perform the required algorithms. (Learning is just another Algorithm) But a Brain can know it won a Game and can enjoy winning the Game because it is Connected to Consciousness. A machine does not know it won the Game and cannot enjoy winning the Game because it is not Connected to Consciousness. The Machine Consciousness Experiments are an attempt to Connect Machines to Consciousness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Halc said:

Well for one, I won't click on a link from a post that doesn't in any way discuss the content.

I suppose that depends on your definitions, but this seems to me to be just an unbacked assertion.

That's an incredibly poor definition of a machine, and seems rather to describe a database. A phone book is a collection of data, but it isn't a machine. My can opener is a machine, but isn't a collection of data.

A computer is indeed a machine that operates on electrical circuits and switches, but so are you, so if by definition such a device cannot be sentient, then neither can you.

An AI is not necessarily a 'compilation of mimicries'. There's no necessary requirement put on it to mimic any particular thing. For instance, the most successful chess/go playing computer was not programmed with any strategy or hints from humans. Most prior implementations were programmed by experts in the games, and those all turned out to be inferior implementations. The best AI figured everything out itself after having only the rules conveyed to it. The rules of no particular game were part of the programming.

Yea, I know, game playing is pretty easy for a machine, and they've surpassed us some time ago in this regard. Turing defined a test based on imitation, and I've yet to see a decent imitation of a human, but just because you cannot sufficiently imitate a squirrel to convince one that you're one of them doesn't mean you're not as intelligent (sentient?) as a squirrel.

Personally, I'd like to see a machine take over as a software developer, churning out better designs from a functional spec than can an educated human. It would seem like a natural fit, and yet I've read very little about this. On the other hand, I'd not like to see this since a great deal of jobs could potentially be lost to such an entity, which by definition would bring about the singularity.

Okay fair enough a machine is, physically, the interaction of components. An AI IS so far, a compilation of mimicries you can’t really deny that. Algorithms of human behavior. Not genuine, no feeling behind them, broken, inaccurate.

You can’t really go from binary to a thousand connections per cell, and if you do you need the same molecules and then it’s not AI or a machine it’s just a clone or lab grown person.

I believe the Androids in the Aliens/Prometheus movies are the closest we could get to real AI, but by that point we’d have nanites to rewrite genes with less complications than building an entire artificial brain. We see movies such as Iron Man and James Bond No Time to Die. And in fact these nanites would be necessary to finish mapping the human and inter species genomes etc before we could have the know-how for the chemical arrangement of an Android.

But a Hal-9000, or a Jupiter brain or other algorithm based AI (such as the Source from the Matrix) could never be sentient no.

Edited by JeffreysTubes8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, SteveKlinko said:

It's your prerogative not to click.

Game playing is irrelevant. A Brain or a Machine can perform the required algorithms. (Learning is just another Algorithm) But a Brain can know it won a Game and can enjoy winning the Game because it is Connected to Consciousness. A machine does not know it won the Game and cannot enjoy winning the Game because it is not Connected to Consciousness. The Machine Consciousness Experiments are an attempt to Connect Machines to Consciousness.

These bolded are psychobabble pseudoscientific terminology, you sound the author of those Line Theory threads here. At least with listing Hollywood movies I'm creating some context to at least shoot at something based in real CONCRETE scientific discussions had in the 21st century, albeit sci fi. Don't forget Stanley Kubrick's 2001 A Space Odyssey I've already referenced (Hal 9000) is somewhat based on science because of the author of that book it was based on (Arthur C. Clarke). 

0

Edited by JeffreysTubes8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

9 hours ago, SteveKlinko said:

From the perspective of Connectism a Machine or a Brain is not Sentient.

A word you made up or does it come from this website that didn't turn up immediately when I googled the word?

9 hours ago, SteveKlinko said:

But a Brain is Connected to Consciousness and a Machine could theoretically be Connected to Consciousness.

OK, so you use 'consciousness' as a name for a supernatural entity. What all has a connection to such a thing? A dog?  Bug?  Starfish?  Plant? Bacteria? Anything not biological?

Does this assertion of yours make any empirical predictions or is this just evangelism? I guess that's what these experiments are trying to do, but what exactly do they test/expect?

9 hours ago, SteveKlinko said:

But a Brain can know it won a Game and can enjoy winning the Game because it is Connected to Consciousness.

A machine does not know it won the Game and cannot enjoy winning the Game because it is not Connected to Consciousness.

This just seems like a language choice. You refuse to apply the word 'know' or 'enjoy' to what the machine is doing, even if the machine can do exactly what the human does. I also won't use any of those words for a brain. A brain isn't sentient or conscious. A person is, and it's the person that enjoys the victory. A brain is but a part, but I don't see any requirement to add something in addition to the physical parts. Consciousness isn't a thing, it's a process, sort of like combustion.

 

6 hours ago, JeffreysTubes8 said:

Okay fair enough a machine is, physically, the interaction of components.

Well, a machine is the aggregate of its components. The interaction between those components is process of some kind.

6 hours ago, JeffreysTubes8 said:

An AI IS so far, a compilation of mimicries you can’t really deny that.

I actually do deny that. I am an intelligence, and I don't mimic anything most of the time. An artificial one need not do that either. Maybe it can just be itself instead of trying to convince something that it is something else. An AI certainly need not mimic a human. Humans are pretty useless at some tasks and an AI might be a better choice. Trying to mimic the human can only lead to failure if the human fails at it.

6 hours ago, JeffreysTubes8 said:

You can’t really go from binary to a thousand connections per cell

Some non-biological machines can have thousands of connections. Not all circuits are binary. An arrangement of biological cells (yes, with thousands of connections) can be simulated by a binary machine, but a biological machine has serious trouble simulating a arrangement of simple logic gates, which is why debugging is so much a part of circuit design. So your assertion seems backwards.

6 hours ago, JeffreysTubes8 said:

I believe the Androids in the Aliens/Prometheus movies are the closest we could get to real AI

They were human actors (even HAL). If you want examples of close, look at real AI and not works of fiction, none of which use actual AI.

So far, most actual AI are slaves: They do the task assigned to them. There were a few exceptions like one robot that wanted to learn more than it wanted to do its job, and it kept trying to escape, with varying levels of success.

Edited by Halc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, JeffreysTubes8 said:

These bolded are psychobabble pseudoscientific terminology, you sound the author of those Line Theory threads here. At least with listing Hollywood movies I'm creating some context to at least shoot at something based in real CONCRETE scientific discussions had in the 21st century, albeit sci fi. Don't forget Stanley Kubrick's 2001 A Space Odyssey I've already referenced (Hal 9000) is somewhat based on science because of the author of that book it was based on (Arthur C. Clarke). 

0

First of all, this is a Philosophy sub forum. This should be where new concepts, that might be outside the Scientific Box, are discussed. Concepts in these kinds of Forums may one day be welcomed into the Scientific Box. Consciousness is a particularly Embarrassing topic for Science because, let's face it, Science has no Clue. I have always said the anything and everything is still on the table when it comes to Consciousness. If a Machine Consciousness Experiment is feasible then it should be conducted. It will either be successful or not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Halc said:

 

A word you made up or does it come from this website that didn't turn up immediately when I googled the word?

Connectism is my Ism. I have always promoted the Connection Perspective, but Connectism is a more compact way to express the concept.  Connectism is the concept that stipulates a Physical Space (the one you know), but also stipulates a Conscious Space where Conscious Experiences happen. Also Stipulated are that the two Spaces are Connected to each other. The connection is accomplished by an Inter Mind concept that translates Neural Activity into Conscious Experience for the Conscious Mind. The Inter Mind also translates Conscious Volition from Conscious Space into Neural Activity for Movement in Physical Space.

14 hours ago, Halc said:

OK, so you use 'consciousness' as a name for a supernatural entity. What all has a connection to such a thing? A dog?  Bug?  Starfish?  Plant? Bacteria? Anything not biological?

Yes, from a Connectist point of view this Conscious Space could be Connected to anything that has a compatible Connecting Mechanism. 

14 hours ago, Halc said:

Does this assertion of yours make any empirical predictions or is this just evangelism? I guess that's what these experiments are trying to do, but what exactly do they test/expect?

Connectism actually predicts that there should be a Sub Conscious Mind. Since it is proposed that the Connection is primarily to the Cortical Areas of the Brain it makes sense that the other parts of the Brain will be able to do Algorithmic Processes that are not immediately Conscious. In fact, Connectism supposes that no part of the Brain is actually Conscious, but rather the Connection to Consciousness makes it seem Conscious.

The Machine Consciousness Experiments assume the following:

1) There is a separate Physical Space and a separate Conscious Space.
2) There is a Conscious Volition concept that originates in Conscious Space.
3) This Conscious Volition can affect Physical Space given the right Connection mechanism.
4) Quantum Tunneling might be affected by this Conscious Volition.
5) Measure a Current or Frequency that is dependent on the Quantum Tunneling.
6) Look for Non Random aspects in the Current or Frequency that might be an indicator of a Volitional affect.

14 hours ago, Halc said:

This just seems like a language choice. You refuse to apply the word 'know' or 'enjoy' to what the machine is doing, even if the machine can do exactly what the human does. I also won't use any of those words for a brain. A brain isn't sentient or conscious. A person is, and it's the person that enjoys the victory. A brain is but a part, but I don't see any requirement to add something in addition to the physical parts. Consciousness isn't a thing, it's a process, sort of like combustion.

You have a Huge Explanatory Gap in asserting that Consciousness is a Process sort of like Combustion. That is just Pull It Out Of The Air kind of Science. It is actually quite Incoherent.

14 hours ago, Halc said:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, SteveKlinko said:

Yes, from a Connectist point of view this Conscious Space could be Connected to anything that has a compatible Connecting Mechanism. 

It wasn't a yes/no question. I had asked which of the list dog,bug,starfish,plant,bacteria,robot do you believe currently has such a connecting mechanism. An answer of 'yes' might mean all of them, but your full answer suggests that any of them could only if such a mechanism were to be put in place, not that the mechanism is already there. What might the mechanism be? It can't involve neurons if bacteria are part of the yes list.

You mention below that said connection is only to the 'cortical areas', which is another made-up word that I suspect means cerebral cortex. With the exception of the dog, the things in my list don't have one of those. It's also a funny place to put it since most volition doesn't come from there.

 

21 hours ago, SteveKlinko said:

Connectism actually predicts that there should be a Sub Conscious Mind.

A subconscious mind is already well know. You capitalize a lot of words in you posts, suggesting you are using them as proper nouns meaning something totally different. If it's totally different than what the rest of the world means by the term, then you should really come up with a different term for it to avoid confusion. One such word is connectism itself, which is a new word to mean something new, which is good. But then you don't have to capitalize it each time you type it. So in that light I just think it is a bad habit on your part and you just normally capitalize random words like 'Stipulated', 'Experience', 'Brain' and 'Space'.

I'm quite aware of my subconscious mind. It thinks much faster than the conscious one, and the two noticeably (and necessarily) talk to each other. In my case, they hold contradictory beliefs. It took me quite a while to figure some of this out. Somehow I suspect this is what you're talking about, so yes, you should give it unique name and not one that already means something else. 

 

21 hours ago, SteveKlinko said:

2) There is a Conscious Volition concept that originates in Conscious Space.
3) This Conscious Volition can affect Physical Space given the right Connection mechanism.

There you go. You have a falsification test for the prevailing theory. All you have to do is show where this sort of effect is going on, a non-random effect without physical cause.

All the quantum tunneling talk just seems to be an attempt to obfuscate. Consciousness, per the naturalist theory, isn't dependent on any quantum effect, even if at some level it is indispensable. I mean, without quantum effects, atoms would not exist. But biological processes work at the molecular/chemical level, not the subatomic level. Any of them could be replaced with wooden gears or whatever and if it the communication between the components was still there, so would be the process involved.

 

21 hours ago, SteveKlinko said:

You have a Huge Explanatory Gap in asserting that Consciousness is a Process sort of like Combustion.

That's just a statement that consciousness is a process, not an object, similar to the way combustion is a process and not an object. I suppose you might deny this, given your post, but you've hardly explained anything even a 10th as much as the scientists that you claim have 'no clue'. No mention of how it works at all. You've just shoved it all into a black box that is somewhat less accessible than the physical not-so-black box. Thing is, it isn't sufficiently inaccessible, and you make predictions, and those predictions fail.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/13/2022 at 7:41 PM, Halc said:

It wasn't a yes/no question. I had asked which of the list dog,bug,starfish,plant,bacteria,robot do you believe currently has such a connecting mechanism. An answer of 'yes' might mean all of them, but your full answer suggests that any of them could only if such a mechanism were to be put in place, not that the mechanism is already there. What might the mechanism be? It can't involve neurons if bacteria are part of the yes list.

Nobody knows anything about the Consciousness of Dogs (probable), Fish (less but probable), Bugs (even less and low probability), Bacteria (probably not). I can say no to Robots. I am certain because Designers don't know how to design the Interfaces. I am working on that.

On 11/13/2022 at 7:41 PM, Halc said:

You mention below that said connection is only to the 'cortical areas', which is another made-up word that I suspect means cerebral cortex. With the exception of the dog, the things in my list don't have one of those. It's also a funny place to put it since most volition doesn't come from there.

From the Connectist view Volition comes from Conscious Space which is not even in the Brain, but rather Connects to the Brain.

On 11/13/2022 at 7:41 PM, Halc said:

 

A subconscious mind is already well know. You capitalize a lot of words in you posts, suggesting you are using them as proper nouns meaning something totally different. If it's totally different than what the rest of the world means by the term, then you should really come up with a different term for it to avoid confusion. One such word is connectism itself, which is a new word to mean something new, which is good. But then you don't have to capitalize it each time you type it. So in that light I just think it is a bad habit on your part and you just normally capitalize random words like 'Stipulated', 'Experience', 'Brain' and 'Space'.

You must be the dedicated Grammar and Spelling Zombie for this Forum. Good to meet you.

On 11/13/2022 at 7:41 PM, Halc said:

I'm quite aware of my subconscious mind. It thinks much faster than the conscious one, and the two noticeably (and necessarily) talk to each other. In my case, they hold contradictory beliefs. It took me quite a while to figure some of this out. Somehow I suspect this is what you're talking about, so yes, you should give it unique name and not one that already means something else.

There you go. You have a falsification test for the prevailing theory. All you have to do is show where this sort of effect is going on, a non-random effect without physical cause.

All the quantum tunneling talk just seems to be an attempt to obfuscate. Consciousness, per the naturalist theory, isn't dependent on any quantum effect, even if at some level it is indispensable. I mean, without quantum effects, atoms would not exist. But biological processes work at the molecular/chemical level, not the subatomic level. Any of them could be replaced with wooden gears or whatever and if it the communication between the components was still there, so would be the process involved.

That's just a statement that consciousness is a process, not an object, similar to the way combustion is a process and not an object. I suppose you might deny this, given your post, but you've hardly explained anything even a 10th as much as the scientists that you claim have 'no clue'. No mention of how it works at all. You've just shoved it all into a black box that is somewhat less accessible than the physical not-so-black box. Thing is, it isn't sufficiently inaccessible, and you make predictions, and those predictions fail.

 

On 11/13/2022 at 7:41 PM, Halc said:

The Scientific and Physicalist Perspective is that Consciousness is somehow located in the Neurons or is an Emergent Property of Neural Activity. This is called Physicalism, and this is a reasonable assumption, given that Conscious Activity is Correlated with Neural Activity. But Science has no Theory, Hypothesis, or even a Speculation about how Consciousness could be in the Neurons or an Emergent Property. Science has not been able to show for example, how something like the Experience of Redness is some kind of effect of Neural Activity. In fact, the more you think about the Redness Experience and then think about Neural Activity, the less likely it seems that the Redness Experience is actually some sort of Neural Activity. Science has tried in vain for a hundred years to figure this out. If the Experience of Redness actually was in the Neurons, Science would have had a lot to say about it by now. Something has got to be wrong with the Physicalist Perspective on the problem. Science needs to adopt the new 21st Century Connectist Perspective and put aside the outdated last Century Physicalist Perspective.

The Inter Mind Model (IMM) can accommodate Consciousness as being in the Neurons or an Emergent Property, but it can also accommodate other concepts of Consciousness. The IMM is structurally a Connection Model, in the sense that the Physical Mind (PM) is connected to the Inter Mind (IM) which is connected to the Conscious Mind (CM). These Connections might be conceptual where all three Minds are actually in the Neurons or an Emergent Property. But these Connections might have more reality to them where the PM, the IM, and the CM are separate things. I will Speculate that the situation is more like the latter than the former. In that case the PM, which is in Physical Space (PSp), uses the IM to create a Connection to the CM, which is in Conscious Space (CSp). The important Perspective change here is that the PM is Connected to the CM, rather than assuming that the PM contains the CM as part of the PM. This allows the CM to be a thing in itself existing in it’s own CSp. This is called Connectism

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/18/2022 at 9:45 AM, SteveKlinko said:

Nobody knows anything about the Consciousness of Dogs (probable), Fish (less but probable), Bugs (even less and low probability), Bacteria (probably not). I can say no to Robots. I am certain because Designers don't know how to design the Interfaces. I am working on that.

Actually they know quite a bit about the consciousness of dogs, etc, despite your assertions to the contrary. Perhaps you're talking about your personal definition of those words, in which case indeed nobody knows about it since they don't know about you.

It seems you are the one that knows nothing about how it works except perhaps to give a different answer to where it is. No mention in any of your posts about how it works, a better explanation than these not-knowing experts. These things are actually easily researched, and your assertions readily falsified.

Are you asserting that biological things (people say) are designed by something that knows how to implement the interface? Are you on the ID bandwagon? Your post seems to indicate this, suggesting that the connection can only be had by a knowing designer. You used the term 'cortical areas'. I asked before, but what is that? I had guessed cerebral cortex, but a fish hasn't one of those, and you list a fish as probable, so my guess was wrong. Is it just a made up term then? What if we just gave one group of chips in a robot the designation 'cortical area'. Would that be enough?

If you don't have any clue how the connection works, how can you design one for a machine? That's like trying to design a car when the wheel hasn't yet been discovered.

 

On 11/18/2022 at 9:45 AM, SteveKlinko said:

From the Connectist view Volition comes from Conscious Space which is not even in the Brain, but rather Connects to the Brain.

Pretty much all the things on my list have volition, including bugs, plants and robots. Do you deny the theory of evolution? The ID folks do, and I asked about that above. It's relevant because if you don't deny the theory, then you evolved from something with volition but without this consciousness connection, and at some point all the benefits gained from being in control of ones self is discarded in favor of letting an external entity take over. I call that possession, but if the possessing demon does a better job of making good decisions, evolution is not going to stand in its way.

On that note, why do humans have such expensive energy-hogging brains? If the consciousness layer is doing all the work that lets us make the better decisions, why can't we have a much smaller brain like say deer have?  Millions of people have died because of the energy requirements for an organ that could be implemented with a 10th the cost like the other animals do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Halc said:

Actually they know quite a bit about the consciousness of dogs, etc, despite your assertions to the contrary. Perhaps you're talking about your personal definition of those words, in which case indeed nobody knows about it since they don't know about you.

It seems you are the one that knows nothing about how it works except perhaps to give a different answer to where it is. No mention in any of your posts about how it works, a better explanation than these not-knowing experts. These things are actually easily researched, and your assertions readily falsified.

Are you asserting that biological things (people say) are designed by something that knows how to implement the interface? Are you on the ID bandwagon? Your post seems to indicate this, suggesting that the connection can only be had by a knowing designer. You used the term 'cortical areas'. I asked before, but what is that? I had guessed cerebral cortex, but a fish hasn't one of those, and you list a fish as probable, so my guess was wrong. Is it just a made up term then? What if we just gave one group of chips in a robot the designation 'cortical area'. Would that be enough?

If you don't have any clue how the connection works, how can you design one for a machine? That's like trying to design a car when the wheel hasn't yet been discovered.

https://www.neuromedia.ca/cortical-areas-and-their-functions/

Remember that the greatest Minds in Science have tried to show that Consciousness is in the Neurons, but they have come up with Zero explanations for how it could happen. It could be said that the greatest Minds of Science have concluded that it is Inconceivable how Consciousness actually is in the Neurons, or is a result of Neural Activity, or is Emergent from the Neurons. The obvious realization is to conclude that Consciousness is not in the Neurons. It can be speculated that Consciousness is Connected to the Neurons. With Connectism it is not necessary, at first, to understand Consciousness itself but only to understand the Connection mechanism. With Physicalism the whole concept of Consciousness must be understood and Explained as being somehow in the Neurons. There is no easier Connection mechanism to understand with Physicalism.

The Connection Perspective of the Inter Mind Model (IMM) enables the conceivability of actually designing Experiments for Machine Consciousness (MachCon). The Connection Perspective stipulates that there is a separate Conscious Space (CSp) concept apart from normal Physical Space (PSp). The IMM also stipulates that there is an Inter Mind (IM) concept that bridges the Gap between PSp and CSp. The basic premise of any MachCon Experiment having this structure is that something in CSp is able to affect something in PSp. This would correspond to a Conscious Volition (CV) concept existing in CSp. The CV will need the resources of an IM in order to have an effect on anything in PSp. There are two Quantum Mechanical (QM) phenomena that can be considered as a resource that the IM might implement. The first QM phenomena involves the Wave Function of an Electron and the second QM phenomenon involves the effect of Quantum Fluctuations on Electron

17 hours ago, Halc said:

Pretty much all the things on my list have volition, including bugs, plants and robots. Do you deny the theory of evolution? The ID folks do, and I asked about that above. It's relevant because if you don't deny the theory, then you evolved from something with volition but without this consciousness connection, and at some point all the benefits gained from being in control of ones self is discarded in favor of letting an external entity take over. I call that possession, but if the possessing demon does a better job of making good decisions, evolution is not going to stand in its way.

On that note, why do humans have such expensive energy-hogging brains? If the consciousness layer is doing all the work that lets us make the better decisions, why can't we have a much smaller brain like say deer have?  Millions of people have died because of the energy requirements for an organ that could be implemented with a 10th the cost like the other animals do. 

From a Signal Processing perspective, Conscious Experience appears to be a further processing stage after the Neural Processing. Conscious Experience also appears to be a different and separate kind of phenomenon than the Neural Activity. So first, let us qualify the normal space that we know and call it Physical Space. Next, let us introduce a new concept and call it Conscious Space. Let Conscious Space be the abstract place where our Conscious Experiences and therefore our Conscious Minds are located. Our Conscious Minds are our own little pieces of Conscious Space. We can say that our Brains are located in Physical Space and our Conscious Minds are located in Conscious Space. Therefore, from a Systems Engineering perspective, this means that Brains must make a Connection to Conscious Space in some way.

With this Connection Perspective, it is not necessary, at first, to understand Consciousness itself but only to understand the Connection mechanism. With Physicalism the whole concept of Consciousness must be understood and explained as being somehow in the Neurons. There is no easier Connection mechanism to understand.

I make the claim that any Physicalist explanation about the effect of Anesthesia, Brain Injuries, Congenital conditions, etc. can also be explained using the Connection Perspective. Interestingly, the Connection Perspective predicts that there should be a Sub Conscious aspect to the Brain.

Most Researchers expect that Consciousness will be found to be some Biochemical process in the Neurons. But please let me ask you to speculate and suppose that the Brain is not Conscious, and that the Brain Connects to Consciousness. This invites the suspicion that if Consciousness can Connect to unconscious Brains, then Consciousness might be able to Connect to unconscious Machines, given the right Technology.

The Connection from Brain to Consciousness must be a two-way communication. Neural Activity in the Brain must be transformed into an Experience in Conscious Space. We can view this as an Outgoing Signal from the Brain to Conscious Space, and we can call a device that implements this for a Machine an Experience Portal or ExPort. Also, Volition from Conscious Space must be transformed into Neural Activity in the Brain that can produce Movement. This can be viewed as an Incoming Signal from Conscious Space to the Brain, and we can call a device that implements this for a Machine a Volition Portal or VoPort.

Of course, this is all very speculative right now. The only way we will ever know if it is correct or not is by conducting appropriate Experiments. The fascinating thing is that it is feasible to conduct such Experiments. That is what I will be trying to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edit: My apologies that the html tags don't work on this site. I'll try to fix it. A preview button would really help.

The link does at least show the usage of the term ‘cortical area’, defining it to be the cerebral cortex region. Remember that fish (any non-mammal) don’t have a cerebral cortex, and yet they see, have volition, etc. This means that these processes can take place without a cerebral cortex, and indeed are initially processed by us in non-cerebral areas.

On 11/21/2022 at 10:29 AM, SteveKlinko said:

It could be said that the greatest Minds of Science have concluded that it is Inconceivable how Consciousness actually is in the Neurons, or is a result of Neural Activity, or is Emergent from the Neurons.

Similarly it could be said that the greatest Minds of Science have concluded that it is Inconceivable how people could have evolved from sponges, but neither statement would be true.

On 11/21/2022 at 10:29 AM, SteveKlinko said:

With Connectism it is not necessary, at first, to understand Consciousness itself but only to understand the Connection mechanism.

This seems to be an admission that it is in fact you that understands nothing about consciousness itself. At best you have a location for it, which is simply 'elsewhere'. For some reason you propose that this somehow relieves the burden of having to explain how it works.

On 11/21/2022 at 10:29 AM, SteveKlinko said:

The first QM phenomena involves the Wave Function of an Electron

A wave function is not a phenomenon, but rather a description of the state of a system. One does not measure a wave function.

On 11/21/2022 at 10:29 AM, SteveKlinko said:

let us introduce a new concept and call it Conscious Space. Let Conscious Space be the abstract place where our Conscious Experiences and therefore our Conscious Minds are located.

What does it mean that you call it a ‘Space’? Is there a location to entities (minds?) in it? Do they accelerate to keep up with the physical movement, perhaps towed around by the IM which acts as a leash of sorts? I mean, what if they get too far apart for the IM to span?

On 11/21/2022 at 10:29 AM, SteveKlinko said:

Our Conscious Minds are our own little pieces of Conscious Space.

Pieces of Space? That’s like calling a rock a piece of physical space, instead of simply an object occupying a location in that space. Space isn’t something that things are made of, at least not by the usual definition. Perhaps you envision something different for conscious space, but maybe you should use a new word then.

On 11/21/2022 at 10:29 AM, SteveKlinko said:

Therefore, from a Systems Engineering perspective, this means that Brains must make a Connection to Conscious Space in some way.

Yes, that's one of the necessary requirements. You seem to describe a mind and an avatar (body). The avatar is like a drone with a camera giving continuous feed to you, holding a controller (the IM).

On 11/21/2022 at 10:29 AM, SteveKlinko said:

I make the claim that any Physicalist explanation about the effect of Anesthesia, Brain Injuries, Congenital conditions, etc. can also be explained using the Connection Perspective.

Anesthesia is like the batteries being removed from the drone. It sends no signal, so your vision is lost, and there's nothing to control. This results in sensory deprivation, but not loss of consciousness. You should still continue to experience time, be able to perform mental tasks, and should be able to remember the blank period after the batteries are recharged and the drone is active again.

Similarly, a fault in the IM (the remote control) should sever the connection. The drone should continue on, but without volition. It would just hover or in some way go into some sort of safe mode, awaiting instruction. People don't do this. Remember, the drone sends video feed back through the IM, but doesn't itself see anything. I don't know if it can say use the video feed to avoid obstacles as it attempts to hover at low altitude.

A fault in the mind would be like the guy controlling the drone suddenly not being there. The IM would still function, but no instructions would be send through it, and the video image would go unnoticed. I can't think of an analogous scenario for the mind/body thing in this case.

Anyway, you made the claim, so please correct my analysis, which is probably begging something other than what you have in mind. Why isn't the person/remote-control/drone relationship not analogous to mind/IM/avatar?

 

In short, your claim asserts a falsification test for what you call the physicalist view. There must be a violation of natural physics if what you say is true, so all you have to do is demonstrate it, which should be fairly easy since you assert it being in the cortical areas, which is right on the surface, not inaccessible like Descartes’ pineal gland.

 

On 11/21/2022 at 10:29 AM, SteveKlinko said:

Also, Volition from Conscious Space must be transformed into Neural Activity in the Brain that can produce Movement.

That’s the thing I’m talking about. If you find that violation of physics, then the monist view has been falsified. If you don’t, you’re nothing on which to base your VoPort design.

 

On 11/21/2022 at 10:29 AM, SteveKlinko said:

But please let me ask you to speculate and suppose that the Brain is not Conscious, and that the Brain Connects to Consciousness.

Oh I’m trying. Hence the questions. Please answer them. Evasion indicates an implausible idea. The Jehovah’s witnesses for instance forbid actually thinking about the inconsistencies of the teachings. It is a sin to discuss it, the only defense against something obviously wrong.

Edited by Halc
formatting
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Halc said:
Quote

 

Edit: My apologies that the html tags don't work on this site. I'll try to fix it. A preview button would really help.

The link does at least show the usage of the term ‘cortical area’, defining it to be the cerebral cortex region. Remember that fish (any non-mammal) don’t have a cerebral cortex, and yet they see, have volition, etc. This means that these processes can take place without a cerebral cortex, and indeed are initially processed by us in non-cerebral areas.


 

I don't study animal Brains. Let's stick with Human Brains. But I can speculate that the Connections are probably different in Animal Brains and that as Brains evolve then Connections evolve.

Quote

 

Similarly it could be said that the greatest Minds of Science have concluded that it is Inconceivable how people could have evolved from sponges, but neither statement would be true.


 

Science has a very advanced understanding about how people Evolved from lower forms. But Science has no Clue about Consciousness, even though they claim that they do.

 

Quote

This seems to be an admission that it is in fact you that understands nothing about consciousness itself. At best you have a location for it, which is simply 'elsewhere'. For some reason you propose that this somehow relieves the burden of having to explain how it works.

Wrong a mundo. I said that we don' have to understand it before we can design Connection Experiments. I never said we don't have to ever understand it. 

 

Quote

A wave function is not a phenomenon, but rather a description of the state of a system. One does not measure a wave function.

Nobody can say anything about the true nature of a Wave Function. It seems to be a Mathematical contrivance, but there is probably more existential reality to it.

 

Quote

 

What does it mean that you call it a ‘Space’? Is there a location to entities (minds?) in it? Do they accelerate to keep up with the physical movement, perhaps towed around by the IM which acts as a leash of sorts? I mean, what if they get too far apart for the IM to span?

Pieces of Space? That’s like calling a rock a piece of physical space, instead of simply an object occupying a location in that space. Space isn’t something that things are made of, at least not by the usual definition. Perhaps you envision something different for conscious space, but maybe you should use a new word then.

 

You have to understand that this is all speculation but:

Conscious Space is Dimensionless: https://theintermind.com/?SourceTag=None#Dimensionlessness

Conscious Space is Timeless: https://theintermind.com/?SourceTag=None#Timelessness

 

Quote

Yes, that's one of the necessary requirements. You seem to describe a mind and an avatar (body). The avatar is like a drone with a camera giving continuous feed to you, holding a controller (the IM).

I am saying that for the sake of the Experiments that the Human Body including the Brain is an Unconscious Thing. The only Consciousness you have is in Conscious Space. This Consciousness Connects with the Body/Brain (probably only the Brain).

 

Quote

 

Anesthesia is like the batteries being removed from the drone. It sends no signal, so your vision is lost, and there's nothing to control. This results in sensory deprivation, but not loss of consciousness. You should still continue to experience time, be able to perform mental tasks, and should be able to remember the blank period after the batteries are recharged and the drone is active again.

Similarly, a fault in the IM (the remote control) should sever the connection. The drone should continue on, but without volition. It would just hover or in some way go into some sort of safe mode, awaiting instruction. People don't do this. Remember, the drone sends video feed back through the IM, but doesn't itself see anything. I don't know if it can say use the video feed to avoid obstacles as it attempts to hover at low altitude.

A fault in the mind would be like the guy controlling the drone suddenly not being there. The IM would still function, but no instructions would be send through it, and the video image would go unnoticed. I can't think of an analogous scenario for the mind/body thing in this case.

Anyway, you made the claim, so please correct my analysis, which is probably begging something other than what you have in mind. Why isn't the person/remote-control/drone relationship not analogous to mind/IM/avatar?

 

Separating the Conscious Mind (CM) from the Physical Mind (PM) allows a whole new Perspective for understanding various operational aspects of Consciousness. Some previous experimental deductions and conclusions about Consciousness, using the Physicalist Perspective, may have to be overturned when using this new Perspective. For example, this separation provides a new way of understanding the effect of Anesthesia. With the old Perspective the reasoning was like this: The Neural Activity was halted and Consciousness seemed to also be halted, so therefore Consciousness must be in the Neurons. With the new Perspective the reasoning would be: The Neural Activity was halted and Consciousness seemed to be halted, so therefore the Connection must have been interrupted. With this new Perspective, Consciousness itself was not halted but rather the Connection from the PM to the CM was interrupted. We don't know what the CM does during an interruption. But since Anesthesia can halt Memory operations, the PM will not have been able to save any Memories of the interruption, that could be accessed by the CM after the Connection is reestablished.

The old Physicalist assumptions about how PM injuries affect Consciousness will have new interpretations using the Connection Perspective. After a PM injury, the Connections between the PM and the CM can be disrupted. Memories may be difficult to retrieve, Volitional control of the body may become erratic, and the Personality might even be changed. But these are PM degradations and not CM degradations. The CM will not be affected because the CM is connected through the IM to the PM. The IM protects and buffers the CM from PM damages. The CM will effectively be Connected to something different after a PM injury. The CM will try to do the best it can with whatever PM it is Connected to, regardless of the PM degenerations that exist.

This separation of CM from PM also presents a new Perspective for thinking about the Sub-CM versus the CM. It is logical to speculate that the Sub-CM is completely implemented in the PM. Many of the actions we do everyday are controlled by Sub-Conscious Brain Programs that run in the background, out of view of our Conscious awareness. The IM needs to make the Processing decisions for which of the Activities in the PM should be Translated into Conscious Experiences. The IM implements the Binding Processing necessary to create a usable Conscious Experience of the External world for the CM to operate in. It would be very confusing and inefficient if the IM had to Translate all Neural Activity, including the Background Brain Programs, into Conscious Experiences. There has always been an intuition that there was a separate Conscious Mind and Sub-Conscious Mind. It is now easy to see how this PM to CM separation logically and naturally predicts a Sub-Conscious Mind concept separate from the CM.

There are much faster things and slower things than our Consciousness. The CM Experience of the world is as fast as the PM will allow. We can't perceive a speeding bullet because it is faster than the PM can operate. Some people will argue that this means Consciousness is a PM limited phenomenon and proves that Consciousness IS the PM and nothing more. But this Physicalist assumption is Naive. This does not mean the CM itself is limited, but just that when the CM is correlating with a PM, it is limited to what the PM can do. Remember that the Connectist view considers the PM as just a Tool that the CM uses. The CM might be capable of much more and since I am suggesting that the CM is not even in Physical Space but in Conscious Space.  we don’t know what the limits really are. We may be very surprised by our limitations someday after we shed our Sluggish Human Brains and transfer our CMs to artificial versions of a Brain.

 

Quote

 

In short, your claim asserts a falsification test for what you call the physicalist view. There must be a violation of natural physics if what you say is true, so all you have to do is demonstrate it, which should be fairly easy since you assert it being in the cortical areas, which is right on the surface, not inaccessible like Descartes’ pineal gland.

 

That’s the thing I’m talking about. If you find that violation of physics, then the monist view has been falsified. If you don’t, you’re nothing on which to base your VoPort design.

 

Yes, that is what I want to prove or disprove. But there may not have to be a violation of Physics. It might not take any Energy (if that's your concern) for Consciousness to affect the Wave Function of an Electron. In the case of Quantum Vacuum Fluctuations we have a phenomenon that is Fluctuating little spikes of Energy and or Particles into Physical Space. Maybe Consciousness can direct these Fluctuations to affect the Brain at the Electron or Microtubule level.

8 hours ago, Halc said:

Oh I’m trying. Hence the questions. Please answer them. Evasion indicates an implausible idea. The Jehovah’s witnesses for instance forbid actually thinking about the inconsistencies of the teachings. It is a sin to discuss it, the only defense against something obviously wrong.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SteveKlinko said:

I don't study animal Brains. Let's stick with Human Brains.

Well, you seem to actually study nothing at all. It's not like you're sticking probes into human brains here. You've provided no evidence so far, which makes it mere philosophy at best, and pseudoscience at worst. Neither of those is going to help you try to get a designed device to do it.

1 hour ago, SteveKlinko said:

I said that we don' have to understand it before we can design Connection Experiments.

I actually agree with that, but you do need something to get this design, and you don't have that. You need to know how the biological connection works, and there's apparently zero evidence of even the presence of one at all, let alone something that shows how this hypothetical connection works.

You're apparently jumping straight to the design of a wardrobe that gets you to Narnia when you still have zero evidence of the existence of Narnia, let alone a clue how the wardrobe should accomplish the portal.

1 hour ago, SteveKlinko said:

Nobody can say anything about the true nature of a Wave Function.

And yet your comment was saying something about its true nature. You're contradicting yourself now.

1 hour ago, SteveKlinko said:

Conscious Space is Timeless

How can anything that exists in a timeless realm make a decision, complete a concept, or be impatient?

1 hour ago, SteveKlinko said:

I am saying that for the sake of the Experiments that the Human Body including the Brain is an Unconscious Thing.

This is what I was calling an avatar. My drone was the example, not conscious (unconscious means something else), externally controlled by the controller from which the commands come (volition), and at which the video feed is displayed (experience). You didn't disagree with the terminology.

1 hour ago, SteveKlinko said:

With the old Perspective the reasoning was like this: The Neural Activity was halted and Consciousness seemed to also be halted, so therefore Consciousness must be in the Neurons.

Careful. Halting neural activity would be fatal unless the body was say frozen. I don't think you understand what anesthesia does. I claim no expertise myself.

1 hour ago, SteveKlinko said:

After a PM injury, the Connections between the PM and the CM can be disrupted. Memories may be difficult to retrieve, Volitional control of the body may become erratic, and the Personality might even be changed.

Loss of connection would still leave the mind conscious, but in a sort of sensory deprivation state. If memories are difficult to retrieve, does that mean that memories are stored in physical space and not with the consciousness? The personality would be nonexistent since the avatar is now mindless without the connection. OK, you're maybe talking about partial disruption, but still, a full disruption should have completely different experience. You assert that the CM is unaffected, and yet it obviously is.

1 hour ago, SteveKlinko said:

Many of the actions we do everyday are controlled by Sub-Conscious Brain Programs that run in the background, out of view of our Conscious awareness.

You ignored my first response to this. Why is the human brain so large and inefficient if it doesn't do anything that isn't done by a similar mass animal like a deer, which accomplishes the task at under a quarter of the metabolic cost.

It's also not totally out of view. I pay attention to mine and am quite aware of at least the communications. It's much faster for instance at calculus than the conscious mind, but it doesn't speak the mathematical language one is taught in school.

1 hour ago, SteveKlinko said:

Yes, that is what I want to prove or disprove. But there may not have to be a violation of Physics.

There has to be, or naturalistic physics would be sufficient to explain all behavior. There could be no supernatural volition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...