An artificial brain cannot produce consciousness, can an organic one?
jayson give me food for thought, so here’s my fist bash at this…
Mind grid [of neurons etc]
if we could build artificial neurons and the other aspects of the brain [I think its more than likely], we could craft them onto a grid equalling the human brain [stretched out]. Lets imagine that all these parts can be switched on/off, certain test could then be made to see what different configurations do and how they {supposedly} create consciousness.
Without actually building it I think we can ascertain some answers from thought experiments:
1.how small on the grid would one have to go [how many neurons switched on] before we can determine the artificial brain to be either conscious or without consciousness. My guess is that will be impossible to determine!
2.If we switch all parts off then on again, do we create consciousness? The same consciousness? Assumedly yes; the arrangement of parts on the grid being the same when on then switched on again. Hence consciousness can move through a space [gap] in time.
3.If the same arrangement was on another grid [a second artificial brain] that was switched on just after the first was switched off, surely the consciousness would move from grid to grid using the same principle of like attracts like going on here?
Cut a long story short:
you end up with too many contradicting aspects of consciousness!
and no means of creating or taking away distinct consciousness.
I would primarily conclude that consciousness is a separate entity to the brain or any amount, pattern or configuration of its aspects.
The consciousness of somebody other than yourself can’t be discovered, it can only be inferred. That has two big consequences for debates like this:
1.) We have no possible rigorous test to determine consciousness, and,
2.) We have no way to know if consciousness is a necessary result of any particular physical state.
Consequently, answering a question like this can only be an expression of one’s beliefs about materialism and etc. that one brings to the table as a result of OTHER investigations. I Don’t think this investigation itself can produce anything.
yea I jumped that part. The artificial mind-grid would test such things, hence I went straight to the idea that 1 & 2 have already been arrived at. If they cannot be arrived at then yes the thought experiment fails.
IF we can at some point create an artificial brain, then after much experiment we arrive at an impasse where a correlation between consciousness and the brain cannot be arrived at.
That is true but most intellectuals and scientiests believe otherwise.
No, even that cannot.
The right order is - Consciousness - Mind - Brain - Rest of the body.
Amorphos,
There is no absolutely no If is required here. All this has been attempted millions of times since 1950 onwards. The only reason why nobody talk abouth this publiclly because it failed all the times and would continuue to be so.
I don’t understand why you guys are so sure, especially in the face of intellectuals and scientists believing otherwise.
I mean, I totally understand the intuition. I understand that it seems intuitively impossible.
But you guys aren’t saying ‘It seems impossible.’ You guys are saying, ‘It’s impossible, fuck what scientists and intellectuals think.’
And you may be totally justified in saying that…but I haven’t seen that justification. I understand the intuitive doubt of the idea, but I don’t understand your certainty.
Are you two perhaps a bit overconfident? I don’t think scientists and intellectuals are any sort of perfect metric for ideas, but I do think that if you’re going to say ‘I’m certain that they’re wrong,’ you should have some pretty good evidence. Certainty is not easy to achieve. It shouldn’t be, anyway. And scientists do have a pretty good track record, relatively speaking, so…you know… you can totally be certain that they’re wrong on a specific problem, but you should really reserve that level of certainty for situations where you have more to go on than your intuition.
In other words, I’m not saying you’re wrong, or your intuition is wrong, or even that you’re wrong for believing your intuition over scientists. I’m saying that you’re wrong for believing it to the point of apparent certainty. Just…you know…keep believing it, I suppose, but maybe a bit less? Unless, of course, you do actually have some really awesome evidence that scientists just haven’t seen yet. That’s a genuine possibility. Unlikely, but possible.
I personally don’t see why consciousness has any particular reliance on smooshy gooey matter. That happens to be the only instance of concsiouness we’re aware of at the moment - consciousness embodied in smooshy gooey matter - but there was also a time when the only material substance capable of playing chess at expert levels was smooshy and gooey matter. And then Deep Blue came along…so I don’t know. I don’t see a compelling reason to think consciousness has to be limited in that way.
You may believe me or not. That depends on you and i cannot put any proof forth either, at least now.
But, it is also true that its existence can be proved empirically. And, i have a rough idea how it could be done. It requires some means and i am on that way, though not sure whether would succeed or not. But, i am trying and trying hard.
As far as my certainty is concerned, it is niether by intution, belief, assumption nor reasoning either. It is a fact to me. As i can say with confidence that i have two eyes or two hands, in the same way, i can also say that i have a consciousness too.
Then comes the default question how can i be so sure?
There is no instant or short answer of that. But, this post may give you some idea -
What consciousness is or isn’t, is a pointless argument. The question should be, what effects does it have, to be able to make the claim for it’s existence? And is consciousness inside or outside the neural matter of the brain? Recognition is not the only requisite to awareness, there are unrecognised patterns, things, faces, and yet it’s easy to become conscious of them. If. Its un known what something is, it can still be an object of consciousness? That it has no location in terms of inside or outside the brain relates to the notion of arbitrary association of things with their learned names. Things are not inside , only the concept of things are. The sense of the in- between breaks down reductively, so the object’s differentiation from what it really is, is a learning process through the various levels of sensed and recognised data. Therefore recognition relates to data which in turn defines what the object is. Sensation and recognition are not consciousness, and neither are the concepts as objects. Consciousness is the sum total of many levels of neural maps like stils l of a movie, spliced together to from effects. These effects are what consciousness consist of.
I look more at information than the gooeyness. Cant see any aspect of mind or consciousness [I think consciousness is a product of mind ~ where mind interacts with informations communicating] in particles, so how can it ‘appear’ when those same particles combine to become the gooey stuff.
The only conclusion after many threads is that mind occurs where there is information communicating, and it may be plausible to create artificial instances of that. So the problem here seems to be building up to consciousness from matter or anything existent, where my alternative gives us a way to build down to it.
due to the reasons in post above, I can only see consciousness being at a similar level to information ~ and ‘separate’ from the biological brain in a similar way. ‘effects’ [“these effects are what consciousness consist of”] equally require information.
Mostly because consciousness does things that particles and chemicals don’t; perceive/see, experience, feel [perhaps all the same thing as perception at root].
Certainly ‘seeing’/perceiving in whatever context doesn’t exist in nature, except that it is similar to observing which can be achieved mechanistically [at which point it is not seeing but affecting or interacting].
I do think there is a level at which we can possibly deconstruct everything until we find their root aspects. Kinda like an empty space where info is on its surface [similar to the information background] and makes connections across the void forming localised communications. The mind/brain consciousness could be seen as body-less, and those localised communications as thought, it just so happens that there is a brain at those locations too.
Sanjay: consciousness is what the word implies, to be conscious. We are tempted to assign some data, or objectivity to it by widening the definition, but all we can really assert is the narrow definition: which is more than "being conscious.
Of what? Of some sense-data. This is a cornerstone of the regression Russell found himself in, by trying to objectify by extension what it is.
I agree with you, there must be some thing of which we become conscious, but the only thing we can become conscious of is our own sensations, thoughts, feelings.
Descartes’s tried to prove otherwise, but failed, because as you imply, there is more to what we call consciousness then our thoughts.
We would like to extend our thoughts to include consciousness, and exclude it, however we cannot because even inclusion/exclusion are only words to try to differentiate/integrate the object/ subject, whereas it is more probable, that if there is the kind of phenomenon which enimates from the navel, the inside and outside may not be differentiable/integrable in terms of archetypes.
Finally, let’s say that something like what we call “consciousness” is a verifiable entity, then it may be the inflexibility of reality what jung sees as being conscious of me being conscious of relflexivity.
Whether this kind of phenomenon can ever be recreated virtually, is still a mute endeavour, but theoretically why not create a thinking machine within a thinking machine, where simulations of these types of processes can be re created?
Until otherwise proven negative that notion, this is as uncertain as any other assertion about this type of process.
This response is based on a superficial reading, allow me another day to be able to read your argument more in depth, and answer in accordance of more point by point specificity, especially as relating to religious conceptions. Thank you
Why would anyone want to create an artificial brain, unless they were trying to take over human kinds real brain?
If you took over human kinds brain, then obviously it would be destroyed.
Human brains do not communicate brain to brain, we communicate as a message sent. Mind contact is different to mind control, as mind control itself is the cell it was developed from and you cannot remove the human cell.
For any Scientist to try to remove the state of the human cell to a beginning, would then eradicate what it had evolved into. This might be demonstrated in the many manifesting results of humanity losing their cellular conditions, such as what is being displayed in the alien attacks, the blood disorders resulting from lost signals, human beings demonstrating that cellular matter is being removed in alien attacks.
I would be concerned that such discussions as this might actually involve Scientific pursuits already been applied.
Why would anyone want to create an artificial brain, wendy? Well they are already doing it,and the existence of computers show why. Data processing is more effective and reliable,with more memory keeping ability, for application to a wide range of problems.
The artificial mind will not replace or destroy the human mind, since it is in the very far future that a computer or systems of supercomputers can even begin to approach the complexity of the human mind. Even if this stage is reached, safety features would conceivably built to prevent a nasty “evil” artificial mind to overrule a human control of it’s systems. And to assume that such a super-artificial mind would by itself overrule any human control is inconceivable on any level except maybe for creations of fiction. The computer Hal in 2004 a space Odyssey is an example of this.
To reiterate the post above me: creating artifical brains / consciousness / intelligence is a field that is being intensely researched as we speak, and perhaps some of those people are researching it with the goal of taking over ‘human kind’s real brain’ (I’m not entirely sure what you mean by that - if you mean an individual human’s brain, or…some sort of collective brain, idk), but most people aren’t doing it for that purpose.
So, what you should do if you want to find out the motivations for creating artificial brains/consciousness/intelligence, is you should google it. I’d suggest googling ‘artificial intelligence’, and more specifically ‘friendly artificial intelligence’. That should get you well on your way.
uhhh…it would? Obviously? It’s not obvious to me. Idk what you think the phrase ‘human kind’s brain’ means though, so maybe if you clarified that it would be more obvious.
What does this mean?
You’re really speaking really strangely here. Is it just me who finds this really strange? What is this person saying? I’m flabbergasted.
To reiterate the post above me: creating artifical brains / consciousness / intelligence is a field that is being intensely researched as we speak, and perhaps some of those people are researching it with the goal of taking over ‘human kind’s real brain’ (I’m not entirely sure what you mean by that - if you mean an individual human’s brain, or…some sort of collective brain, idk), but most people aren’t doing it for that purpose.
Most people aren’t doing it for that purpose but SOME ARE. I am flabbergasted myself that human beings would presume technological advancement at the cost of their own life style and human rights. Would you give the right of personal choice to enable the study of advancement. NO. If you knew your personal choice was already being controlled, how would you feel? Would you then agree or disagree with advanced technology? Only when you are a victim of the crime of technology will you then regret what you supported.
If a personal signal in the atmosphere (as demonstrated in possession cases and personal alien attacks) and a Scientist observed the contact methods and then applied a computer program to enable themselves that contact method, to employ the method of take over, would you agree? That is the personal situation that has happened.
uhhh…it would? Obviously? It’s not obvious to me. Idk what you think the phrase ‘human kind’s brain’ means though, so maybe if you clarified that it would be more obvious.
If Scientists created a fake intelligence system that emulated the cellular function of a brain, the transmitted sequences of the brain, then they would take out of the atmosphere the SIGNALS that support the FUNCTION OF THE NATURAL HUMAN BRAIN. Our brain would become defunct and who knows what sort of being we would actually be…I think something so evil that it should be stopped, shouldn’t it???