3 ms·

I would imagine that it's entirely possible to generate creative thought using computers. Whether or not the thing driving that creative thought also generates

I would imagine that it's entirely possible to generate creative thought using computers. Whether or not the thing driving that creative thought also generates consciousness(capability for qualia) is another matter entirely. The simulation of a thing is not the thing itself. Perfectly simulating an apple falling from a tree only generates information about the thing, but the simulation hasn't caused an actual apple to fall from an actual tree. Computers are merely symbol manipulators, and symbols are nothing more than the material used to make them(ink on paper, electrons in a computer, etc...). I suspect that consciousness must follow the same logic -- We should be able to simulate something that looks exactly like creative thought(and probably is, technically), but if that same symbol manipulation results in an actual consciousness being produced in the actual world, then the universe has to be a much stranger place than we already know it to be...

AllegedAlec 7y ago
> Computers are merely symbol manipulators, and symbols are nothing more than the material used to make them(ink on paper, electrons in a computer, etc...). But a brain is also just a symbol manipulator, in essence. All it does is shift electrical current from one place to another.
- a_humble_lurker 7y ago
  I think a distinction can be made between the two. The brain can manipulate symbols, but it's not clear that it's the symbol manipulation itself that causes consciousness. A computer simulation doesn't actually fire neurons, it manipulates symbols representing neurons(to us) in a way that could be interpreted as firing. Those two things are very different, despite the fact that they both use electricity. Again, there's a difference between a physical thing vs an accurate representation of a thing by other physical means. As a thought experiment, would it be possible to create consciousness using pen and paper calculation? Perform the same calculations by hand, multithread it by using billions of people performing the same symbol manipulation we would have otherwise performed on the computer. I argue all that project would produce is a large stack of paper and ink. I would argue that it's not the act of manipulating symbols that gives rise to consciousness(since it's the only thing the computer and paper methods have in common), rather that something qualitatively different is happening in the brain.
  - AllegedAlec 7y ago
    > Again, there's a difference between a physical thing vs an accurate representation of a thing by other physical means. A late reply, perhaps, but: - Does the physicality matter all that much here? For sake of argument, let's assume that I have an infinitely powerful computer, which simulates a brain perfectly, down to the last atom. Would the thing inside my simulation not be conscious, and if so, why not? > As a thought experiment, would it be possible to create consciousness using pen and paper calculation? Perform the same calculations by hand, multithread it by using billions of people performing the same symbol manipulation we would have otherwise performed on the computer. I don't see why not, to be honest. That is: given enough computing power and enough knowledge on how it works. > I would argue that it's not the act of manipulating symbols that gives rise to consciousness(since it's the only thing the computer and paper methods have in common), rather that something qualitatively different is happening in the brain. I must admit: I'm a Hofstadterian in this; I agree with his conclusions that consciousness, as we describe it, is an emergent property caused by the act of manipulating symbols representing ideas and concepts in a self/circularly referencing manner.
- icoder 7y ago
  It does a lot more than that, especially when actively learning, but let molecules be the 'symbol' and your point still stands ;)
justforyou 7y ago
The universe itself is a symbol manipulator.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

AllegedAlec 7y ago

> Computers are merely symbol manipulators, and symbols are nothing more than the material used to make them(ink on paper, electrons in a computer, etc...). But a brain is also just a symbol manipulator, in essence. All it does is shift electrical current from one place to another.

a_humble_lurker 7y ago
I think a distinction can be made between the two. The brain can manipulate symbols, but it's not clear that it's the symbol manipulation itself that causes consciousness. A computer simulation doesn't actually fire neurons, it manipulates symbols representing neurons(to us) in a way that could be interpreted as firing. Those two things are very different, despite the fact that they both use electricity. Again, there's a difference between a physical thing vs an accurate representation of a thing by other physical means. As a thought experiment, would it be possible to create consciousness using pen and paper calculation? Perform the same calculations by hand, multithread it by using billions of people performing the same symbol manipulation we would have otherwise performed on the computer. I argue all that project would produce is a large stack of paper and ink. I would argue that it's not the act of manipulating symbols that gives rise to consciousness(since it's the only thing the computer and paper methods have in common), rather that something qualitatively different is happening in the brain.
- AllegedAlec 7y ago
  > Again, there's a difference between a physical thing vs an accurate representation of a thing by other physical means. A late reply, perhaps, but: - Does the physicality matter all that much here? For sake of argument, let's assume that I have an infinitely powerful computer, which simulates a brain perfectly, down to the last atom. Would the thing inside my simulation not be conscious, and if so, why not? > As a thought experiment, would it be possible to create consciousness using pen and paper calculation? Perform the same calculations by hand, multithread it by using billions of people performing the same symbol manipulation we would have otherwise performed on the computer. I don't see why not, to be honest. That is: given enough computing power and enough knowledge on how it works. > I would argue that it's not the act of manipulating symbols that gives rise to consciousness(since it's the only thing the computer and paper methods have in common), rather that something qualitatively different is happening in the brain. I must admit: I'm a Hofstadterian in this; I agree with his conclusions that consciousness, as we describe it, is an emergent property caused by the act of manipulating symbols representing ideas and concepts in a self/circularly referencing manner.
icoder 7y ago
It does a lot more than that, especially when actively learning, but let molecules be the 'symbol' and your point still stands ;)

justforyou 7y ago

The universe itself is a symbol manipulator.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]