5 ms·

I agree, this seems analogous to the argument that simulation of the weather can't produce rain. In some sense, that argument is true by prior definition. It's

I agree, this seems analogous to the argument that simulation of the weather can't produce rain. In some sense, that argument is true by prior definition. It's like saying that the Universe can't simulate itself. But consciousness is not rain. We don't really know what consciousness is, so I don't see a compelling reason to exclude computation as being sufficient to produce it. We need philosophers to tell us that consciousness is before we start saying what it's not.

feet 4y ago
Also, we can definitely simulate rain? Not sure where that weird claim comes from
- simiones 4y ago
  The point is that a simulation of rain (in a weather simulation) is not rain itself (e.g. you can't smell the rain after a weather simulation simulates some rain, obviously). This is actually similar to the observation that "the map is not the territory". On the other hand, this is a red herring - computation can produce actual rain, with the right input/output systems.
  - feet 4y ago
    It's a digital representation, theoretically if we simulate all facets of weather and all facets of consciousness, the simulated consciousness could experience all facets of rain We are not digital, to simulate it for our conscious experience we can simulate weather in a closed biodome type of structure where we control the water cycles
    - dahfizz 4y ago
      This is exactly the point. Simulated rain isn't real rain, it's a digital representation. So, the argument goes, that a simulated consciousness is not a real consciousness, but a digital approximation. It's as real as the fake rain. In other words, there is something inherently biological about consciousness. Simulating rain doesn't produce water, and simulating a brain doesn't produce consciousness.
      - ddingus 4y ago
        This discussion lead me to an idea: When we simulate a brain, the brain is unreal, not running on the hardware at all. It's represented by something else running on the hardware. If we made brain like hardware of sufficient complexity so that it could differentiate "itself" from everything else, that closed loop may invoke consciousness. It would be running on the hardware directly. This, to me, is the one thing conscious organisms have in common. And yes, I know that idea of anything but us being conscious is highly debatable. Let's just say my cat is conscious, and I believe that it is conscious. You, of course, can disagree and that's fine. None of us knows anything, and we are all sharing thoughts and that concept below is mine: To simplify, consciousness may require a feedback loop. The nervous system, brain and body all are integrated with sufficient complexity and fidelity so as to make it possible for the brain to arrive at a sense of "self", able to differentiate itself from everything else. Self-simulation is different from outside stimulation, and awareness of the body falls out of that for free. This is why a simulation won't render consciousness. Whatever consciousness ends up being is not a part of the simulation. The very nature of simulation means it's all about things we know and at least understand exist. And since we do not yet understand consciousness, it's not going to rise as an emergent artifact of things we build. Or... at the very least, we need to build something complex and robust enough for it to be able to differentiate itself from the greater environment it is in before we have a chance at consciousness happening for it. This all does allow for consciousness to be computable. It's just that the computation needs to be done on a system capable of self-differentiation and awareness.
        feet 4y ago
        >When we simulate a brain, the brain is unreal, not running on the hardware at all. It's represented by something else running on the hardware. I think this is an important thing to consider. A simulated brain does not interact with the rest of the world in the same way that a non simulated brain does. In order to have that we would need to ensure that the simulation has all the right inputs and output. Similar to simulated rain, if the simulation would somehow have the same inputs and outputs and normal weather it could integrate with the rest of the system (earth's weather patterns) Its really about partitioning and mode of information transfer

feet 4y ago

Also, we can definitely simulate rain? Not sure where that weird claim comes from

simiones 4y ago
The point is that a simulation of rain (in a weather simulation) is not rain itself (e.g. you can't smell the rain after a weather simulation simulates some rain, obviously). This is actually similar to the observation that "the map is not the territory". On the other hand, this is a red herring - computation can produce actual rain, with the right input/output systems.
- feet 4y ago
  It's a digital representation, theoretically if we simulate all facets of weather and all facets of consciousness, the simulated consciousness could experience all facets of rain We are not digital, to simulate it for our conscious experience we can simulate weather in a closed biodome type of structure where we control the water cycles
  - dahfizz 4y ago
    This is exactly the point. Simulated rain isn't real rain, it's a digital representation. So, the argument goes, that a simulated consciousness is not a real consciousness, but a digital approximation. It's as real as the fake rain. In other words, there is something inherently biological about consciousness. Simulating rain doesn't produce water, and simulating a brain doesn't produce consciousness.
    - ddingus 4y ago
      This discussion lead me to an idea: When we simulate a brain, the brain is unreal, not running on the hardware at all. It's represented by something else running on the hardware. If we made brain like hardware of sufficient complexity so that it could differentiate "itself" from everything else, that closed loop may invoke consciousness. It would be running on the hardware directly. This, to me, is the one thing conscious organisms have in common. And yes, I know that idea of anything but us being conscious is highly debatable. Let's just say my cat is conscious, and I believe that it is conscious. You, of course, can disagree and that's fine. None of us knows anything, and we are all sharing thoughts and that concept below is mine: To simplify, consciousness may require a feedback loop. The nervous system, brain and body all are integrated with sufficient complexity and fidelity so as to make it possible for the brain to arrive at a sense of "self", able to differentiate itself from everything else. Self-simulation is different from outside stimulation, and awareness of the body falls out of that for free. This is why a simulation won't render consciousness. Whatever consciousness ends up being is not a part of the simulation. The very nature of simulation means it's all about things we know and at least understand exist. And since we do not yet understand consciousness, it's not going to rise as an emergent artifact of things we build. Or... at the very least, we need to build something complex and robust enough for it to be able to differentiate itself from the greater environment it is in before we have a chance at consciousness happening for it. This all does allow for consciousness to be computable. It's just that the computation needs to be done on a system capable of self-differentiation and awareness.
      - feet 4y ago
        >When we simulate a brain, the brain is unreal, not running on the hardware at all. It's represented by something else running on the hardware. I think this is an important thing to consider. A simulated brain does not interact with the rest of the world in the same way that a non simulated brain does. In order to have that we would need to ensure that the simulation has all the right inputs and output. Similar to simulated rain, if the simulation would somehow have the same inputs and outputs and normal weather it could integrate with the rest of the system (earth's weather patterns) Its really about partitioning and mode of information transfer