Only That Which Came About By Itself Is Real

[desiresjab]

I have my own definition of consciousness: the ability to daydream. That ability does not demand the dreamer be self aware, as far as I can tell. Is there any potential for a conscious state without subjectivity? Does consciousness demand self awareness? Bothersome questions.

Our new theoretical form of consciousness would be able to daydream without any sense of self. All that activity would be subjective, but the subject would be unaware of it, and unaware of itself as an entity. It would simply daydream. Do you think that is possible? We can say the words, but can it actually ever be?

[desiresjab]

Right here on earth I believe we have different grades of consciousness. I should have said: High consciousness is the ability to daydream.

The consciousness of the grizzly bear and the mosquito seem quite different at first glance. I suspect the grizzly bear can daydream and the mosquito cannot, yet I assume the mosquito has a higher grade of consciousnees than the amoeba. Seeing consciousness as a gradation might eliminate some of the dualism that seems to bother people but which never bothered me.

[YesNo]

There are many ways around Searle's argument, which is not established fact anyway, but wildly controversial. The easiest way is to step out of the computing paradigm we are familiar with. Searles admits the possibility of biological systems different from our own that might be able to simulate consciousness.

AI as a way to artificially simulate consciousness is wildly controversial. Searle's position is just an argument against it. It is like the argument that says you cannot square the circle using a straightedge and compass. Searle's argument only applies to algorithms.

After the argument there will be people who will continue to try. There is nothing wrong with trying. They might find something interesting and they may help people understand better why they will not succeed.

It does not have to be a direct assault. The problem can be come at obliquely. Various combinations of organic and inorganic components should produce biological systems "different from our own." Brains integrated with internal quantum computers will be one unified system that can be said to be conscious. This is not different from ourselves. We do not require that our spinal columns and toenails be conscious to name ourselves conscious. The internal computer will be in perfect harmony with the firing synapses of the human brain that for sure is conscious. These internal quantum computers may be constructed out of our own junk DNA.

The argument against this would be take away the brain and the computer is no longer conscious, if it ever was, but take away the computer and the brain is still conscious. It is not the same integrated system of consciousness, though. The consciousness we simulate will not be copies of our own. It will be a new kind.

I expect the manufacture of brains in isolation late this century. Any "experience" whatsoever may be imprinted on these manufactured brains. Their imprinted experiences will not be human experiences but computational and organizational ones. The nature of computational science will undergo a revolution, and will at that point be far beyond the reaches of Searle's objections to strong AI.

Part of the problem is we do not have a clear idea what consciousness is or what subjectivity is. I don't think "daydreaming" is broad enough to describe consciousness. It has to include even life forms that do not have a nervous system. It may even have to include what is not thought to be alive such as a quantum reality.

I tend to think at the moment that subjectivity is how consciousness participates in a specific perspective. The view of reality it creates is what is known as the objective (or artificial). What is subjective is primary. There is no other way we know anything except through subjectivity and we cannot reduce subjectivity, the "real", to something objective.

Even under the current paradigm, many of earth's technical philosophers are concerned with the rise of AI. I think they can see beyond Searle's horizon as well. He has a compelling argument for the short term, but that is all it is to me.

There are a lot of problems with using machines that have nothing to do with consciousness. Sometimes machines pollute or cause human damage and one has to protect against that.


Edit: Something occurred to me that I want to eliminate from the discussion. In none of this are we talking about a spirit possessing a computer. AI proponents would not consider that possible anyway. However, given Searle's argument, that is the only way I can see at the moment that a computer using deterministic or random algorithms could obtain a conscious subjectivity as a computer. Some spirit would have to choose to possess it. The AI proponent would want to force that spirit to be there just by running some algorithms (deterministic or random).

[desiresjab]

It is like the argument that says you cannot square the circle using a straightedge and compass. Searle's argument only applies to algorithms.

Except that one is proven.

I don't think "daydreaming" is broad enough to describe consciousness. It has to include even life forms that do not have a nervous system. It may even have to include what is not thought to be alive such as a quantum reality.

I no longer think "daydreaming" is good enough either. That goes for my former definition as well, of catching oneself thinking. These are things I would expect a consciousness to do, characteristics, but not inclusive enough to be good definitions.

I would be satisfied for now with a definition of consciousness as we know it. Beings without nervous systems and thinking rocks can wait.

Edit: Something occurred to me that I want to eliminate from the discussion. In none of this are we talking about a spirit possessing a computer. AI proponents would not consider that possible anyway. However, given Searle's argument, that is the only way I can see at the moment that a computer using deterministic or random algorithms could obtain a conscious subjectivity as a computer. Some spirit would have to choose to possess it. The AI proponent would want to force that spirit to be there just by running some algorithms (deterministic or random).

It's too bad that occurred to you, dang it. I wish it hadn't. All we need are spirits in the conversation. Like you say, let's eliminante them.

Let's also eliminate all unknown forms of consciousness, such as beings without nervous systems and thinking asteroids et al. Not to say they do not exist, or that they do. By concentrating on mosquitos, grizzly bears and humans, we might actually find a definitioin we like.

Of course, we do not literally have to create consciousness to create consciousness. What? How's that?

We set out to simulate a universe, right? If we simulate the universe well enough consciousness will be part of it. We do not have to separately create consciousness, the universe (simulated) does that for us. Nifty. Now all we have to do is simulate the universe properly. An afternoon's work for men like us.

Really, it is like what we do when we make a baby. We do not set out to make a consciousness by some set of rules. We make a baby and expect the baby to have consciousness. I am not suggesting you and I make a baby.

[desiresjab]

Yes/No, in case you have not seen this I think you will like it. Self organizing processes and quantum vibrations in microtubules of brain neurons.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0116085105.htm

How about that last sentence?

"Consciousness depends on anharmonic vibrations of microtubules inside neurons, similar to certain kinds of Indian music, but unlike Western music which is harmonic."

[YesNo]

Except that one is proven.

They have both been proven. Not everyone accepts them. I am sure there are some looking to show both proofs are false.

I no longer think "daydreaming" is good enough either. That goes for my former definition as well, of catching oneself thinking. These are things I would expect a consciousness to do, characteristics, but not inclusive enough to be good definitions.

I would be satisfied for now with a definition of consciousness as we know it. Beings without nervous systems and thinking rocks can wait.

The problem with that is that you may miss the big picture and confuse some correlate of consciousness that one has observed with consciousness itself.

There are people who claim they see ghosts. These forms of consciousness do not have a nervous system. They have no material correlate to their consciousness. There are also people who claim out of body experiences. These are also independent of a nervous system.

It's too bad that occurred to you, dang it. I wish it hadn't. All we need are spirits in the conversation. Like you say, let's eliminante them.

The reason to eliminate them is to make the AI issue more falsifiable. AI would have to show that it can generate consciousness through deterministic or random processes. That generation of consciousness allows for no free will. I would expect spirits possessing bodies do want to keep their free will which is why I don't expect them to possess the computer I am using or the table the computer is on.

Let's also eliminate all unknown forms of consciousness, such as beings without nervous systems and thinking asteroids et al. Not to say they do not exist, or that they do. By concentrating on mosquitos, grizzly bears and humans, we might actually find a definitioin we like.

Of course, we do not literally have to create consciousness to create consciousness. What? How's that?

We set out to simulate a universe, right? If we simulate the universe well enough consciousness will be part of it. We do not have to separately create consciousness, the universe (simulated) does that for us. Nifty. Now all we have to do is simulate the universe properly. An afternoon's work for men like us.

Really, it is like what we do when we make a baby. We do not set out to make a consciousness by some set of rules. We make a baby and expect the baby to have consciousness. I am not suggesting you and I make a baby.

I like to think of consciousness being present if the object is able to make a choice that can be reduced to neither a deterministic nor a random process. That would include humans, cats, insects, quantum reality and non-materialized spirits.

When we have children, we don't make their consciousness. We are just providing a place where consciousness can be specialized having a specific viewpoint where its participation in subjectivity allows it to create an objective world around it to which it responds.

By the way, the universe is not a simulation. It is the real thing or rather the real subjectivity.

[desiresjab]

The universe may be as real as it gets to us, but that does not make it real, since I believe it was created, and is therefore artificial. Only that which came about by itself is not artificial. Now, it's just a definition, a distinction I make personally. If the universe was created then nothing in it is real, either, for it violates causation that it could be there without a universe being there first. Simulate our universe correctly and all its emergent properties will be there, including consciousness.

It is possible you and I were actual beings at one time, now we only believe we are. We died long ago. In the simulations we must have had other wives and other professions, and other fates, so to speak. Or maybe not. That is one thing the simulations would clarify--that little matter of fate and determinism, the butterfly effect.

I do not rule out that we were created by an "Almighty" of religion. In that case our consciousness and our universe are in lowly contrast to the reality promised by God to the faithful in the afterlife.

[desiresjab]

Back to basics. We are not have consciousness at all moments. We are part time conscious beings.

[YesNo]

The universe may be as real as it gets to us, but that does not make it real, since I believe it was created, and is therefore artificial. Only that which came about by itself is not artificial. Now, it's just a definition, a distinction I make personally. If the universe was created then nothing in it is real, either, for it violates causation that it could be there without a universe being there first. Simulate our universe correctly and all its emergent properties will be there, including consciousness.

I will assume consciousness is real and it is what creates the objective universe in which it participates.

It is possible you and I were actual beings at one time, now we only believe we are. We died long ago. In the simulations we must have had other wives and other professions, and other fates, so to speak. Or maybe not. That is one thing the simulations would clarify--that little matter of fate and determinism, the butterfly effect.

I don't believe in the butterfly effect so as an argument it won't work.

It is sort of like telling me, "Since Santa came down the chimney, we have the presents under the tree." I mean, it is an argument of sorts, but unless one accepts the assumption about Santa, it is not likely to be convincing.

I do not rule out that we were created by an "Almighty" of religion. In that case our consciousness and our universe are in lowly contrast to the reality promised by God to the faithful in the afterlife.

All you have to do is change your view of what that consciousness is so it is not lowly.

[desiresjab]

I will assume consciousness is real and it is what creates the objective universe in which it participates.

I have been preaching a variation of this for some time, using a Yeats quote: Whatever flames upon the night, man's own resinous heart has fed, but I always find myself playing devil's advocate because you are such an unrestrained fanatic.

I don't believe in the butterfly effect so as an argument it won't work.

All right. Then you are a determinist after all. The butterfly effect is a representative of the type of non-determinism you are constantly promoting. What bugs you, perhaps, is that it works in models, it works in simulations. When some parameters are tweaked ever so slightly, they produce major changes in the behavior of the simulation down the line, and hence the name of the effect because the butterfly flapping its wings in south America is responsible for a hurricane off Florida two weeks later. This is merely a metaphor to illustrate how sensitive models of chaotic systems are to slight changes in initial conditions, weather systems being chaotic. If you have never read a book on chaos theory, you should read Gleick. Chaos is no longer described as random. There is a certain amount of order in chaos, a kind of predictability but not determinism. I know you are a well read fellow, and have probably read this author. What I cannot understand is why you would not have sucked up these ideas for use in your own theory, since they seem a good fit. Chaos is the medium lying somewhere between full determinism and full randomness. That is the same medium you say we are in.

If I were to agree with you and profess that consciousness is the ability to make a choice, I see nothing to further compel me to add the constraint that the choice must be non-deterministic and non-random. I guess you are saying it cannot be a true choice if it is either. However, it also means you are saying consciousness cannot exist without free will.

[YesNo]

I have been preaching a variation of this for some time, using a Yeats quote: Whatever flames upon the night, man's own resinous heart has fed, but I always find myself playing devil's advocate because you are such an unrestrained fanatic.

Playing devil's advocate is useful. One has to consider the other side as well. I suppose I am doing something smilar, but I am not interested in showing you are a fanatic or even wrong. I just want to clarify what I think is the case.

All right. Then you are a determinist after all. The butterfly effect is a representative of the type of non-determinism you are constantly promoting.

Sometimes we think we can list all the possibilities and then eliminate those that don't work. The last possibility remaining must then be true. That is an effective approach provided we have actually listed all the possibilities. Usually we are too blinded to do that.

Non-determinism contains a lot of possibilities. It is not just the butterfly effect which I think is too deterministic for even chaos theory. For example is the hurricane so determined that only the random change in a single butterfly will determine if it exists or not? It would seem that chaos theory needs a lot more randomness than that.

What bugs you, perhaps, is that it works in models, it works in simulations. When some parameters are tweaked ever so slightly, they produce major changes in the behavior of the simulation down the line, and hence the name of the effect because the butterfly flapping its wings in south America is responsible for a hurricane off Florida two weeks later. This is merely a metaphor to illustrate how sensitive models of chaotic systems are to slight changes in initial conditions, weather systems being chaotic. If you have never read a book on chaos theory, you should read Gleick. Chaos is no longer described as random. There is a certain amount of order in chaos, a kind of predictability but not determinism. I know you are a well read fellow, and have probably read this author. What I cannot understand is why you would not have sucked up these ideas for use in your own theory, since they seem a good fit. Chaos is the medium lying somewhere between full determinism and full randomness. That is the same medium you say we are in.

Although I have Gleick's book I have not read it. I am reading Bergson's "Creative Evolution" at the moment. However, I wouldn't mind learning more about chaos theory when I get back to Chicago.

If chaos lies between full determinism and full randomness then it is not how I view reality. Reality contains neither determinism nor randomness as I see it so there is no way for reality to be some middle ground between a little bit of determinism and a little bit of randomness. Reality contains various forms of subjective consciousness making choices under constraints. At least, that is how I see it.

Models and simulations on the other hand (not reality) can contain various forms of determinism and randomness. And these models can be very useful, but they are not reality. They just model reality. Constructing models is a scientific activity based on experimental testing whose accuracy is limited by the precision of the instruments available for the tests. Claiming that reality is the model or simulation is metaphysics, not science. To confuse reality with a simulation of reality is like confusing a meal with the menu, to use an old saying.

If I were to agree with you and profess that consciousness is the ability to make a choice, I see nothing to further compel me to add the constraint that the choice must be non-deterministic and non-random. I guess you are saying it cannot be a true choice if it is either. However, it also means you are saying consciousness cannot exist without free will.

That is close to what I am saying. However, people might argue that we do not have complete free will and we don't. We are somewhat predictable based on our "dispositions". But we have enough free will to make a choice which allows something new and intentional to appear.

You mentioned Penrose and Hameroff's quantum vibrations. These could be accepted as correlates of consciousness in humans. They are sometimes easier to work with than saying consciousness implies the existence of choice. It might not be easy to show that a choice was made. Suppose one accepts that finding these quantum vibrations implies that the being having them was conscious. It is easy to find these quantum vibrations. Then we could see what other species also had quantum vibrations and say they too are conscious. That is where I see the usefulness of correlates of consciousness.

Some people look at correlations differently. They find a correlate of consciousness and think they can reduce consciousness to that correlate. That would be like finding a footprint in a forest (a correlate of some animal walking in the forest) and claiming the footprint made the animal rather than saying that the animal made the footprint.

[desiresjab]

I fear that choice making may be another of what you call a correlate and I would probably have called an artifact.

And your theoretical human being that has just enough choice to give him free will within constraints, sounds like he falls between two notions, too, though you seem to object that chaos lies somewhere between randomness and determinism. Not so much an objection as a distinction. With chaos theory it may be that it contains just enough determinism to make it useful.

The concept of strange attractors is something I believe you will pull a lot of fascination from, and acts as a of focus for metaphorical insights. The brain is stirred to see these tiny and huge invisible structures our reality is swimming in, that were not known before. We get floored that the behavior of cotton prices, weather systems, static and dripping water, along with many other diverse phenomena we would never have thought so of, share a deep structural kinship, and we get to see the birth (or at least the public debut) of a new mathematical constant, the Feigenbaum constant. I got a little off tangent here. The first sentence.

[YesNo]

I fear that choice making may be another of what you call a correlate and I would probably have called an artifact.

I suspect most people restrict a "correlate of consciousness" to something in the neurons, perhaps even of a quantum nature. And the interest is to provide a base on which to find a deterministic theory that explains consciousness in terms of those correlates. In this sense making a choice would have to have a correlate if a deterministic explanation were to ultimately succeed.

In my view, I look at all reality as a correlate of consciousness. It need not be neural. However, that doesn't help someone measure anything. It is just a perspective on consciousness even the type that is not centered in a brain with neurons. What I am unclear about is differences between consciousness, subjectivity and awareness. They all seem to describe something similar. Being aware depends on a specific type of body that one has.

And your theoretical human being that has just enough choice to give him free will within constraints, sounds like he falls between two notions, too, though you seem to object that chaos lies somewhere between randomness and determinism. Not so much an objection as a distinction. With chaos theory it may be that it contains just enough determinism to make it useful.

Chaos theory relies on determinism and randomness. I have no problem with that. It is a way to measure what we observe. However, does what one is measuring rely on determinism and randomness is what I doubt. We observe patterns and put them on a map. Is the map we construct, that is, the simulation of that reality that we construct, the reality itself?

The concept of strange attractors is something I believe you will pull a lot of fascination from, and acts as a of focus for metaphorical insights. The brain is stirred to see these tiny and huge invisible structures our reality is swimming in, that were not known before. We get floored that the behavior of cotton prices, weather systems, static and dripping water, along with many other diverse phenomena we would never have thought so of, share a deep structural kinship, and we get to see the birth (or at least the public debut) of a new mathematical constant, the Feigenbaum constant. I got a little off tangent here. The first sentence.

After checking Wikipedia, I see that the Feigenbaum constant is a mathematical constant so it could be used in a model of reality. That model works or not depending on its ability to make accurate predictions. If predictions work, that does not mean that reality contains a Feigenbaum constant. The model contains that constant. If the constant is irrational then at some number of decimal places I would expect the predictability of the simulation and reality to break down. That is, predictions will fail to be useful. One will have to replace the determinism with a probabilistic model. Why do I expect that to happen? Because that is what happened with quantum physics.

[desiresjab]

If I were a God, down to what scale would I make my simulation understandable and the universe rational to its simulated hosts? Could their quest go on interminably, always with progress? Or has the scientific quest into finer and finer scales finally come to no man's land where there is no longer anything for rationality to work with, where order as we define it does not and cannot exist?

Our discussions continually encounter many of the things I touch in poetry. I have not shown any of these pieces out. I guess I will.

[YesNo]

I would be interested in reading those poems. Maybe I would understand your position better.

Perhaps part of the problem is the word "create". We think creating means taking something unconscious as raw material and making something out of it equally unconscious.

When I think of the Big Bang I see the universe as coming out of "nothing", that is, nothing unconscious. Since it happened, there was a conscious choice involved outside the universe to start it. But what did that choice do? Did it create unconsciousness out of nothing or out of itself? I don't think there is any more unconsciousness now than there was before the universe began. There is still nothing unconscious in the universe.

When we look at the universe we create a simulation of it to help understand its orderliness. Our subjective view of the universe creates an objective and unconscious universe, a simulation. Our creation is something artificial. If it is a simulation of reality, what is real? The only reality is that consciousness that manifests itself through a universe of which we are a part. We are a manifestation of consciousness, not a simulation. We in turn make simulations using more primitive tools such as mathematics and experimental science. Mystics would use more advanced tools realizing that reality is not the objective unconscious world we think it is.