4 ms·

Sure... sorta. But there is a problem. You see, without continuous input from the environment in the form of highly corellated input... we know what happens t

Sure... sorta. But there is a problem. You see, without continuous input from the environment in the form of highly corellated input... we know what happens to human consciousness. It rapidly dissolves and disappears. Consciousness is intimately and (thus far) inextricably bound up in its embodied existence. Facial paralysis has profound effects upon the ability of people to feel emotions 'internally', eventually resulting in both an inability to even recall ever feeling those emotions or having an ability to recognize them in others. Should a consciousness divorced from a feedback loop created with the same environment we share (or at least similar in most respects, a simulation might work OK, I don't think we know) be created, the odds that we could even recognize it as conscious are very low. Maybe a general measure of the systems tendency to reduce entropy in some region either within or near itself? We are feedback loops, and when the loop is broken, we stop being us.

koverstreet 9y ago
That's not entirely true. That certainly is how we evolved, but somehow we evolved a consciousness that isn't purely a function of its inputs; people who are "locked in" remain conscious. That was quite the trick...
- otakucode 9y ago
  People who are 'locked in' are not cut off from perceptive stimulus. They're simply cut off from being able to have their nervous system output result in manipulation of the world. I imagine this does have a significant effect upon their conscious experience, but it's not something that would be easy to study. Even studying how less significant damage to the body results in 'personal' changes can be difficult. Studies of victims of spinal cord damage which results in parapelegia and how that results in depression and reduced emotional range beyond what should be expected from the pain or trauma alone strikes some people as 'insulting'. Our adamant refusal to recognize that the 'brain' is nothing more than a convenient formalism used to talk about the entire nervous system and body and that every part is necessary to give rise to what we recognize as human consciousness runs very deep. Dualism (in the sense of a body/brain split) is wrong, but apparently far too alluring for many.
lev99 9y ago
Most people would accept being able to see and interact with the world a prerequisite to consciousness. I understand this as an I/O problem. There must be continuous high-bandwidth input (visual, audio, tactical) as well as very detailed and dexterous output. I wonder to what degree virtual realities can play the I/O function. I think for the next half century virtual realities will mostly operate at a lower level of detail then meatspace. Can a mind function well stuck in a lower detail world? Alternatively, cybernetics could serve. You bring up a real concern, but it's a solvable problem.
- JoshTriplett 9y ago
  > Most people would accept being able to see and interact with the world a prerequisite to consciousness. People lacking sight, hearing, mobility, and similar would disagree. By all means, we want the ability to interact with the world, bidirectionally. But that's not a prerequisite for consciousness. And if the only thing we manage, in the short term, is preservation and continued function, that would be a massive improvement, far larger and more important than the subsequent incremental steps towards I/O.
  - stewbrew 9y ago
    > People lacking sight, hearing, mobility, and similar would disagree. I think "to see" is meant as a placeholder for any kind of sensory input. I doubt that people who lack any form of sensory input with no way to communicate would disagree even if they could -- while they are in that state. As somebody who experienced some knock-out after an accident, I'd say the consciousness is a fragile something (but uses any straw to re-establish itself).
    - JoshTriplett 9y ago
      > I doubt that people who lack any form of sensory input with no way to communicate would disagree even if they could -- while they are in that state. If you're in a sensory deprivation tank, but you can still think, are you no longer conscious? If you were in a perfect one, or you had something that somehow cut off the connection between the brain and the body, but you can still think, are you no longer conscious? The ability to interact with the world certainly makes life nicer, but consciousness does not depend on that.

koverstreet 9y ago

That's not entirely true. That certainly is how we evolved, but somehow we evolved a consciousness that isn't purely a function of its inputs; people who are "locked in" remain conscious. That was quite the trick...

otakucode 9y ago
People who are 'locked in' are not cut off from perceptive stimulus. They're simply cut off from being able to have their nervous system output result in manipulation of the world. I imagine this does have a significant effect upon their conscious experience, but it's not something that would be easy to study. Even studying how less significant damage to the body results in 'personal' changes can be difficult. Studies of victims of spinal cord damage which results in parapelegia and how that results in depression and reduced emotional range beyond what should be expected from the pain or trauma alone strikes some people as 'insulting'. Our adamant refusal to recognize that the 'brain' is nothing more than a convenient formalism used to talk about the entire nervous system and body and that every part is necessary to give rise to what we recognize as human consciousness runs very deep. Dualism (in the sense of a body/brain split) is wrong, but apparently far too alluring for many.

lev99 9y ago

Most people would accept being able to see and interact with the world a prerequisite to consciousness. I understand this as an I/O problem. There must be continuous high-bandwidth input (visual, audio, tactical) as well as very detailed and dexterous output. I wonder to what degree virtual realities can play the I/O function. I think for the next half century virtual realities will mostly operate at a lower level of detail then meatspace. Can a mind function well stuck in a lower detail world? Alternatively, cybernetics could serve. You bring up a real concern, but it's a solvable problem.

JoshTriplett 9y ago
> Most people would accept being able to see and interact with the world a prerequisite to consciousness. People lacking sight, hearing, mobility, and similar would disagree. By all means, we want the ability to interact with the world, bidirectionally. But that's not a prerequisite for consciousness. And if the only thing we manage, in the short term, is preservation and continued function, that would be a massive improvement, far larger and more important than the subsequent incremental steps towards I/O.
- stewbrew 9y ago
  > People lacking sight, hearing, mobility, and similar would disagree. I think "to see" is meant as a placeholder for any kind of sensory input. I doubt that people who lack any form of sensory input with no way to communicate would disagree even if they could -- while they are in that state. As somebody who experienced some knock-out after an accident, I'd say the consciousness is a fragile something (but uses any straw to re-establish itself).
  - JoshTriplett 9y ago
    > I doubt that people who lack any form of sensory input with no way to communicate would disagree even if they could -- while they are in that state. If you're in a sensory deprivation tank, but you can still think, are you no longer conscious? If you were in a perfect one, or you had something that somehow cut off the connection between the brain and the body, but you can still think, are you no longer conscious? The ability to interact with the world certainly makes life nicer, but consciousness does not depend on that.