Quote:

---

learningtofly said:
that is a science fiction story

---

Is it? Damn, all the good ideas are always already published

Quote:

---

OverdoseLiving said:
I believe its called the Matrix!

---

Quote:

---

Suppose that these simulated people are conscious (as they would be if the simulations were sufficiently fine-grained and if a certain quite widely accepted position in the philosophy of mind is correct).

---

Stopped reading after this. That's too much for me to "suppose."

After reading On Intelligence by Jeff Hawkins, it's impossible for me to believe computer simulation can ever achieve consciousness or even moderate intelligence.

Quote:

---

OverdoseLiving said:
I believe its called the Matrix!

---

Quote:

---

Zippy said: After reading On Intelligence by Jeff Hawkins, it's impossible for me to believe computer simulation can ever achieve consciousness or even moderate intelligence.

---

Quote:

---

deCypher said:

Quote:

---

Zippy said: After reading On Intelligence by Jeff Hawkins, it's impossible for me to believe computer simulation can ever achieve consciousness or even moderate intelligence.

---

Why?

---

Because the brain works in a fundamentally different way than a computer does.

A computer works by accepting an input of information, storing it, then retrieving it later. It does not develop schemas, it does not attach any meaning to any of the information, and it does not produce original thought or information.

A brain, on the other hand, works by accepting an input of information through the senses, tying it to previously absorbed information, and developing complex maps to remember all of it. Additionally, a neuron (in contrast to its often presumed equivalent the "computer chip") can grow to serve a multitude of functions. This explains how the occipital lobe of a blind person doesn't just shut down, it rewires itself to help with smell, touch, or hearing.

The brain makes predictions about things. I've come to think that's what consciousness is. When predictions are correct, we do not notice. When predictions are false, our attention is drawn to the discrepancy and we learn.

For example, say you walk down the hall and open the door. You feel your hand touch the doorknob, you pull, the door swings open. This does not seem unusual because everything you predicted would happen DID happen. Your brain does not take notice. Now let's say you walk down the same hallway, touch the doorknob, and pull. This time a pink elephant pops up in front of your face. Your prediction about the door swinging open is wrong and your brain has to justify what it encountered. Schemas and thought patterns change... and the ability to do this efficiently is what I think of as intelligence.

The idea of a computer having consciousness or intelligence is damn near impossible I say.

Quote:

---

A completely simulated brain running on fast hardware would be functionally identical to a biological brain; I see no reason to mandate that the one have consciousness while the other wouldn't.

---

Quote:

---

Rahz said:
There seems to be a difference between self-awareness, and information recognition. Can computers be programmed to feel pleasure and pain, or to simply emulate it to fool an observer?

---

Quote:

---

deCypher said:
Look into artificial neural networks, and particularly neural networks evolved by genetic algorithms, and I think you'll change your mind.  These types of programs are capable of learning, pattern recognition, and fuzzy logic... not to mention they operate in a very similar way to biological brains (particularly when you get into modular neural networks).

A completely simulated brain running on fast hardware would be functionally identical to a biological brain; I see no reason to mandate that the one have consciousness while the other wouldn't.

---

I work in a lab with a phd that has looked quite extensively into artificial neural networks, and he is strongly convinced they are taking the wrong approach. Though this area is not my personal focus, and I don't have hard evidence really to back up what he's told me (so I won't try to convey it to you... I'm sure to make a lot of false statements based on my misinterpretations), his opinion makes sense.

AI's current purpose is to create a simulated brain that fools an observer into thinking it's the real thing. But you have to remember it's just a simulation. It is NOT (and I am of the opinion never will be) "functionally identical."

Quote:

---

Zippy said:
AI's current purpose is to create a simulated brain that fools an observer into thinking it's the real thing. But you have to remember it's just a simulation. It is NOT (and I am of the opinion never will be) "functionally identical."

---

Quote:

---

Tranquil Toad said:
If nature can create a mind, why can't we? What if we mastered nano technology and could arrange things EXACTLY as they are in a human mind.

---

Quote:

---

I guess the question is where does consciousness come from. Is it a byproduct of matter and energy arranged in a certain fashion? If so, whether through computers or the manipulation of organic matter, theoretically we could create a mind.

---

Quote:

---

Zippy said:
Science can explain the mechanisms of how things happen, but it cannot explain why they happen. I think there is a logical explanation for consciousness, but we're not going to find it if we keep thinking of the mind as something we can create by merely using computers or manipulating organic matter.

---

Quote:

---

Cognitive_Shift said:
Just read this really interesting argument for living in a computer simulation.  Check it out y'all.

http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html


ARE YOU LIVING IN A COMPUTER SIMULATION?



BY NICK BOSTROM

Department of Philosophy, Oxford University


Published in Philosophical Quarterly (2003), Vol. 53, No. 211, pp. 243-255.



    ABSTRACT

                This paper argues that at least one of the following propositions is true: (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a �posthuman� stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof); (3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation. A number of other consequences of this result are also discussed.

---

Quote:

---

Rahz said:

Quote:

---

A completely simulated brain running on fast hardware would be functionally identical to a biological brain; I see no reason to mandate that the one have consciousness while the other wouldn't.

---

What about emotion? Perhaps that is needed for consciousness. You could build a biological computer, but you might as well call it life at that point. Could biological emotions be simulated with a non-biological computer?

There seems to be a difference between self-awareness, and information recognition. Can computers be programmed to feel pleasure and pain, or to simply emulate it to fool an observer?

---

Quote:

---

Qubit said:
Why does consciousness fall far, far outside the realm of the paradigm science?  And if it does, just what the hell are all those neuro scientists doing? 

---

Quote:

---

OrgoneConclusion said:
Does one have to be majorly stoned to get into the spirit of this thread?

---

Nah if we were stoned we'd be saying shit about how atoms have consciousness and how the alienz are coming in 2012 to show us "teh supercomput3r".

And someone would probably quote zeitgeist or loose change (even though neither have anything to do with what is being talked about).

Quote:

---

Tranquil Toad said:

Quote:

---

Qubit said:
Why does consciousness fall far, far outside the realm of the paradigm science?  And if it does, just what the hell are all those neuro scientists doing? 

---

All cultures throughout history have thought that they could explain the world/reality with their current model of thinking. To a certain extent, they could, but eventually they are forced into a paradigm shift to understand something that did not fit into their previous model. As humanity evolves, we must make drastic reorganizations of our world view, else we would still be viewing the world in terms of spirits, animism and gods. Science is our current model of thinking, yet because we are living in the middle of its paradigm, (most)people do not think to question it and hold it above skepticism. I'm sure primitive tribes believed that their spiritual animistic views were correct, and would apply to all future generations. Do you think we really "got it" this time, and that science is the one correct view that will extend and apply to all future generations?

Consciousness, thus far, has eluded science. We can make crude maps of the brain with EEG, yes, but I bet if you asked most neuro scientist how close they were to actually fully understanding what consciousness is they would tell you they aren't even remotely close. Therefore, it is my belief that our current way of thinking is insufficient to explain it. Neuroscience is like the ancient Egyptians looking up at the sun and explaining it in terms of Ra pulling it across the sky in his solar boat: they have come across something they don't comprehend, and are trying to apply their way of thinking to it, which will only lead to the most basic and crude form of understanding.

---

Quote:

---

Tranquil Toad said:
All cultures throughout history have thought that they could explain the world/reality with their current model of thinking. To a certain extent, they could, but eventually they are forced into a paradigm shift to understand something that did not fit into their previous model. As humanity evolves, we must make drastic reorganizations of our world view, else we would still be viewing the world in terms of spirits, animism and gods. Science is our current model of thinking, yet because we are living in the middle of its paradigm, (most)people do not think to question it and hold it above skepticism. I'm sure primitive tribes believed that their spiritual animistic views were correct, and would apply to all future generations. Do you think we really "got it" this time, and that science is the one correct view that will extend and apply to all future generations?

---

Quote:

---

Tranquil Toad said:
Do you think we really "got it" this time, and that science is the one correct view that will extend and apply to all future generations?

---

Quote:

---

Qubit said:
Im not sure you understand what science is.  Its not a world view, its a method of getting world views.  All scientific theories are tentative, none is ever claimed to be the one correct view.  Why again is science incapable of exploring and, at least partially, understanding consciousness?  Appealing to the ignorance of cultures past isnt evidence of anything.

---

Quote:

---

I think you just want consciousness to be a spiritual, mystical thing despite evidence to the contrary.

---

Quote:

---

Qubit said:
What does that mean, 'physical'?

---

physical: having substance or material existence; perceptible to the senses; "a physical manifestation"; "surrounded by tangible objects"


do i really have to keep looking up words for you? You have access to google too

Quote:

---

Qubit said:
I think we will be able to construct a computer simulation that exhibits characteristics of life and intelligence some day.  And if so then perhaps that simulation could build its own simulation and so forth...  Then most realities would be simulation is some higher reality with only the top one being what we would call 'real'.  Of course each simulation in the chain would be bound by the complexity and information of the simulation above it meaning nested simulations couldn't go on forever.  Im probably just repeating what some of what he wrote in teh paper... Ill check it out tonight if work is slow.

---

I like to ponder the idea of, instead of designing technology to "take our place", so to speak, in terms of awareness and intelligence, it might be quite likely that, as we continue to evolve further as a species, one or a few species around us that are capable of it will begin to evolve more towards our end as well.
Cats, I suspect, are well-suited to try this whole evolution of consciousness thing at a higher level than they already do.
The idea of computers doing simulations is intriguing as well though.

Quote:

---

Tranquil Toad said:

Quote:

---

learningtofly said:
that is a science fiction story

---

Is it? Damn, all the good ideas are always already published

---

Quote:

---

Tranquil Toad said:
Consciousness, thus far, has eluded science. We can make crude maps of the brain with EEG, yes, but I bet if you asked most neuro scientists how close they were to actually fully understanding what consciousness is they would tell you they aren't even remotely close.

---

Quote:

---

Zippy said:
physical: having substance or material existence; perceptible to the senses; "a physical manifestation"; "surrounded by tangible objects"

---

So you dont think consciousness is perceptible to the senses or surrounded by tangible objects?  Weird. 

Quote:

---

Qubit said:

Quote:

---

Tranquil Toad said:
Do you think we really "got it" this time, and that science is the one correct view that will extend and apply to all future generations?

---

Im not sure you understand what science is.  Its not a world view, its a method of getting world views.  All scientific theories are tentative, none is ever claimed to be the one correct view.  Why again is science incapable of exploring and, at least partially, understanding consciousness?  Appealing to the ignorance of cultures past isnt evidence of anything.

I think you just want consciousness to be a spiritual, mystical thing despite evidence to the contrary.

---

Quote:

---

I just operate on the premise that we don't know shit.

---

Quote:

---

jonathanseagull said:
Also, something else you guys may find interesting is the book by Frank J. Tipler called "The Physics of Immortality" which refers to his idea of the Omega Point.  To be extremely concise and abbreviated, basically we continue to become more technologically sophisticated towards the end of the universe (heat death or whatever happens).  Eventually, using an extremely complex simulation, we recalculate everything that ever happened in this universe, or even could have happened.  We can make it to be however we wish as well.  And adjusting the experience of time within the simulation, a zillion years may go by within 0.00001 seconds of real time, essentially creating an immortal state for us.  He argues that this is allegorically the resurrection of all people and the creation of a heaven for us, made by us.  It's a neat book.

---

Quote:

---

Qubit said:

Quote:

---

I just operate on the premise that we don't know shit.

---

Well that is not correct.  Just because we don't know it all or don't know it completely doesn't mean 'we don't know shit'.  All that operating on that premise is going to net you is personal ignorance since you disregard any knowledge others have gained.

---

We don't know shit.

Quote:

---

Qubit said:

Quote:

---

I just operate on the premise that we don't know shit.

---

Well that is not correct.  Just because we don't know it all or don't know it completely doesn't mean 'we don't know shit'.  All that operating on that premise is going to net you is personal ignorance since you disregard any knowledge others have gained.

---

Quote:

---

All right, don't know shit in compared to what actually is.

---

Quote:

---

Qubit said:
Maybe you dont...

---

Quote:

---

Qubit said:

Quote:

---

All right, don't know shit in compared to what actually is.

---

How can you possibly make that claim without knowing what 'actually is'?  This is more appeal to mysticism.

You then go on to make the claim that our current way of thinking will be drastically altered, yet you preface that with an example where the old theory (Newtonian physics) still works and isnt drastically altered at all.  Thats the way science works, we slowly hone in on what can and cant be known.  Mystics want drastic changes in our understanding of the universe so their preconceived notions can be supported (which at the moment they are not).

---

Quote:

---

Zippy said:
Ok asshole, then why don't YOU enlighten us all about the nature of consciousness? Please clearly explain the physical mechanisms responsible for conscious thought, the physical cause for self awareness, and the physical system that gives life any significance or meaning.

Thanks in advance.

---

A hell of a lot of electromagnetism and DNA-encoding Sun rays.

I'm glad you gave me your thanks in advance, it was definitely appreciated. Inspiration, if you will.

Quote:

---

Zippy said:

Quote:

---

Qubit said:
Maybe you dont...

---

Ok asshole, then why don't YOU enlighten us all about the nature of consciousness? Please clearly explain the physical mechanisms responsible for conscious thought, the physical cause for self awareness, and the physical system that gives life any significance or meaning.

Thanks in advance.

---

Quote:

---

fireworks_god said:
A hell of a lot of electromagnetism and DNA-encoding Sun rays.

I'm glad you gave me your thanks in advance, it was definitely appreciated. Inspiration, if you will.

---

Now why didn't I think of that!

Quote:

---

Tranquil Toad said:

Quote:

---

Qubit said:

Quote:

---

I just operate on the premise that we don't know shit.

---

Well that is not correct.  Just because we don't know it all or don't know it completely doesn't mean 'we don't know shit'.  All that operating on that premise is going to net you is personal ignorance since you disregard any knowledge others have gained.

---

All right, don't know shit in compared to what actually is. Most theories are not entirely wrong, yet they become outdated as our sphere of knowledge grows. Newtonian physics still works, but we now know it isn't an accurate model of how atoms really behave. So you have to assume that whatever we take for granted in our current way of thinking will be drastically altered as we grow in understanding. And right now, scientific materialism is what most people take for granted.

---

Quote:

---

zouden said:
But there's plenty of evidence for materialism.

---

Quote:

---

jonathanseagull said:
Someone mentioned finding the underlying code to the simulation and thus bending reality to our own will.

---

Quote:

---

zouden said:

Quote:

---

Tranquil Toad said:

Quote:

---

Qubit said:

Quote:

---

I just operate on the premise that we don't know shit.

---

Well that is not correct.  Just because we don't know it all or don't know it completely doesn't mean 'we don't know shit'.  All that operating on that premise is going to net you is personal ignorance since you disregard any knowledge others have gained.

---

All right, don't know shit in compared to what actually is. Most theories are not entirely wrong, yet they become outdated as our sphere of knowledge grows. Newtonian physics still works, but we now know it isn't an accurate model of how atoms really behave. So you have to assume that whatever we take for granted in our current way of thinking will be drastically altered as we grow in understanding. And right now, scientific materialism is what most people take for granted.

---

But there's plenty of evidence for materialism. We know more than just 'shit' when it comes to consciousness. For example, we know that being hit on the head really hard can cause you to fall unconscious. This shows that consciousness is at least somehow related to the physical reality of your head. Similarly, people who suffer brain damage seem to have an altered consciousness as a result, and we can actually look at damage in specific locations in the brain and see how that relates to the effect on the patient's consciousness. This indicates that the brain is somewhat critical to the function of your consciousness. Taking that further, we can look at the way that certain chemicals affect people, and hypothesise about the biochemical nature of consciousness. And so on.

Just because we don't know the full story it doesn't mean we know nothing.

---