4 ms·

Because subjective experience is not a one way affair. It clearly plays at least some functional role. The proof of that is that we're having a conversation abo

Because subjective experience is not a one way affair. It clearly plays at least some functional role. The proof of that is that we're having a conversation about it.

tux1968 9y ago
But the same conversation could be had with a synthetic brain. It's no more important than any other feature of brain functionality. What I don't understand is how this concern about subjectivity limits us in understanding consciousness and brain functionality. It doesn't mean we can experience the subjective states of a synthetic brain or another human, but we can definitely replicate the physical aspects of the brain that produce them.
- marcoperaza 9y ago
  I think it's likely that the brain violates the Church-Turing thesis. It doesn't seem possible that a Turing machine can produce subjective/conscious experience. This strongly limits our ability to make a synthetic brain via solely computation. Update: I'm not sure I'd say supernatural. I think consciousness is different in kind from the rest of how we understand the universe to work. It seems likely that it's a fundamental property of the universe. I see this all pretty much the same way that the philosopher David Chalmers does. He probably does a better job of explaining it than me. It's worth looking at his thinking on the matter.
  - tux1968 9y ago
    So you believe that consciousness is supernatural and not the product of a physical brain. I don't see any reason to believe that, but it definitely makes it clear why we hold differing opinions. Edit: I think all that philosophy is going to have to be updated when we eventually start having conversations with synthetic brains that can tell us about their sense of consciousness ;-) Edit 2: If we had a device that could instantly make a carbon-copy (unintended pun) of a human (let's say me), identical down to the last atom, what you're saying is that copy would NOT be conscious. That it is not enough to capture the physical nature of someone to capture the state of consciousness.. that it is beyond physical. I just don't know how to come to terms with that idea. To me consciousness simply must be a product of our physical bodies and thus within the purview of rational study and comprehension.
    - marcoperaza 9y ago
      That's not what I mean actually. If we could make a carbon copy of a person, it would be presumably be conscious too. But I do think that an attempt to model the brain mathematically and run a computer simulation of it would fail to create consciousness.
      - tux1968 9y ago
        Ah, then we're much closer together than I thought. However, there is no reason future computers will be limited to current (Turing) technology instead of being a collection of many co-processors with differing capabilities. The main point though, is that since consciousness is housed in the physical brain, we can dissect, understand, and recreate fully-functional synthetic versions. While each person is in their own subjective world, the brain which is responsible for it is an objective object that is open to study.
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
        marcoperaza 9y ago
        >However, there is no reason future computers will be limited to current (Turing) technology instead of being a collection of many co-processors with differing capabilities. That would violate the Church-Turing thesis, which is pretty widely accepted, unless the universe itself is a hypercomputer that we can leverage to perform computation.
        tux1968 9y ago
        You're essentially saying that our brains can't exist. But they do, and we can copy them, what is the problem with making a synthetic brain? Why is the natural brain an allowed exception, but the one we make is not allowed? Edit: On the one hand you want to use Church-Turing to invalidate the possibility of us creating non-Turing based technology, and yet in a previous post you claimed the human brain likely violates Church-Turing. So which is it? Is reality allowed to violate Church-Turing or is it not? If you honestly believe that the human brain violates Church-Turing, then you have to explain why you also believe that we can not copy the brain and achieve the same result ourselves.
  - IanCal 9y ago
    > t doesn't seem possible that a Turing machine can produce subjective/conscious experience. Why?
    - marcoperaza 9y ago
      I think it's easier to see why if we use a non-conventional Turing Machine, like thousands of monks using abacuses and integrating their results by spoken word. Do remember that all Turing machines are equivalent. How in the world would the act of moving beads around create consciousness?

Because subjective experience is not a one way affair. It clearly plays at least some functional role. The proof of that is that we're having a conversation about it.

tux1968 9y ago

But the same conversation could be had with a synthetic brain. It's no more important than any other feature of brain functionality. What I don't understand is how this concern about subjectivity limits us in understanding consciousness and brain functionality. It doesn't mean we can experience the subjective states of a synthetic brain or another human, but we can definitely replicate the physical aspects of the brain that produce them.

marcoperaza 9y ago
I think it's likely that the brain violates the Church-Turing thesis. It doesn't seem possible that a Turing machine can produce subjective/conscious experience. This strongly limits our ability to make a synthetic brain via solely computation. Update: I'm not sure I'd say supernatural. I think consciousness is different in kind from the rest of how we understand the universe to work. It seems likely that it's a fundamental property of the universe. I see this all pretty much the same way that the philosopher David Chalmers does. He probably does a better job of explaining it than me. It's worth looking at his thinking on the matter.
- tux1968 9y ago
  So you believe that consciousness is supernatural and not the product of a physical brain. I don't see any reason to believe that, but it definitely makes it clear why we hold differing opinions. Edit: I think all that philosophy is going to have to be updated when we eventually start having conversations with synthetic brains that can tell us about their sense of consciousness ;-) Edit 2: If we had a device that could instantly make a carbon-copy (unintended pun) of a human (let's say me), identical down to the last atom, what you're saying is that copy would NOT be conscious. That it is not enough to capture the physical nature of someone to capture the state of consciousness.. that it is beyond physical. I just don't know how to come to terms with that idea. To me consciousness simply must be a product of our physical bodies and thus within the purview of rational study and comprehension.
  - marcoperaza 9y ago
    That's not what I mean actually. If we could make a carbon copy of a person, it would be presumably be conscious too. But I do think that an attempt to model the brain mathematically and run a computer simulation of it would fail to create consciousness.
    - tux1968 9y ago
      Ah, then we're much closer together than I thought. However, there is no reason future computers will be limited to current (Turing) technology instead of being a collection of many co-processors with differing capabilities. The main point though, is that since consciousness is housed in the physical brain, we can dissect, understand, and recreate fully-functional synthetic versions. While each person is in their own subjective world, the brain which is responsible for it is an objective object that is open to study.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - marcoperaza 9y ago
        >However, there is no reason future computers will be limited to current (Turing) technology instead of being a collection of many co-processors with differing capabilities. That would violate the Church-Turing thesis, which is pretty widely accepted, unless the universe itself is a hypercomputer that we can leverage to perform computation.
        tux1968 9y ago
        You're essentially saying that our brains can't exist. But they do, and we can copy them, what is the problem with making a synthetic brain? Why is the natural brain an allowed exception, but the one we make is not allowed? Edit: On the one hand you want to use Church-Turing to invalidate the possibility of us creating non-Turing based technology, and yet in a previous post you claimed the human brain likely violates Church-Turing. So which is it? Is reality allowed to violate Church-Turing or is it not? If you honestly believe that the human brain violates Church-Turing, then you have to explain why you also believe that we can not copy the brain and achieve the same result ourselves.
- IanCal 9y ago
  > t doesn't seem possible that a Turing machine can produce subjective/conscious experience. Why?
  - marcoperaza 9y ago
    I think it's easier to see why if we use a non-conventional Turing Machine, like thousands of monks using abacuses and integrating their results by spoken word. Do remember that all Turing machines are equivalent. How in the world would the act of moving beads around create consciousness?