I just corrected the last sentence of my previous post.

Not sure what the term 'active medium' means. Googling it didn't help. — noAxioms

That's because I just made it up. Sorry. I'm not well read almost anything that's ever discussed here. There are many in which I'm not at all read. I know what I want to say, but often don't know what words are normally used. I had hoped I explained it well enough to make what I am thinking clear.

But I am hitting 'run'. I wouldn't need the pencil if I didn't 'run' it. — noAxioms

If you say the simulation is not found only in the paper and the squiggles on it, but also in the pencil, the handholding the pencil, the mind directing the pencil, you still cannot simulate human consciousness this way. I know human consciousness is a fairly hotly contested issue. But does anyone disagree that it involves multiple processes taking place simultaneously? If we agreed that a process can take place in the scenario you're describing, you cannot write multiple things simultaneously. You can't write two, much less the presumably huge number that are required for human consciousness.

You can write, "The Following list of 200 processes occur simultaneously." But writing that doesn't make it happen. That can't happen with things written on paper. It can't happen if you write the words of one process over top of the words of another process. It can't happen if you have different processes on different sheets of paper, and stack them on top of one another.

It can't even happen in the mind that is writing these things down. Nobody can hold that many things, much less that many processes, in their mind at the same time. (If someone could, would they need to bother with the paper and pencil?)

At no time, in no sense, is everything needed for human consciousness happening at the same time in the paper and pencil scenario.

If a computer can simulate human consciousness, it would have to be because it can run the same number of processes at once that our brains can run.

There is no technology constraint on any pure simulation, so anything that can be done by computer can be done (far slower) by paper and pencil. That means that yes, even the paper and pencil method, done to sufficient detail, would simulate a conscious human who would not obviously know he is being simulated. — noAxioms

It seems to me you cannot simulate with paper and pencil, because it is not an active medium. You can write about the game of basketball in all conceivable detail. You can write down every rule, and describe as many scenarios as you like, explaining how each rule applies at each moment. You can describe every required object, as well as the physical, mental, and emotional characteristics of every possible player. You can write all this down in every conceivable detail, but it would never be a basketball game.

You can describe a game that actually took place, or a fictitious one, in every conceivable detail. Exact speed and spin of the ball at every moment. Exact angle it took every time it hit the floor or backboard. Exactly how it lost its spherical shape with each impact. Heck, even how much sweat came out of each of every player's pores.

In neither scenario is there an actual basketball game. Not even simulated. Because you need action for a simulation. It is just squiggles on paper that. When someone who knows what those squiggles represent interprets them, describe events and possible events, and allow the reader to imagine any events that you have not described (assuming you have not described every possible event). But the events are not taking place. Not even as a simulation. There is no action.

Even an actual gathering of all the people and objects required for a basketball game is not a basketball game if all the players do not act in accordance with the rules.

If you program everything necessary to simulate consciousness into a computer**, but never hit Run, you will not have a simulated consciousness. If it is running, and you hit Stop, or cut the power, you no longer have a simulation.


**You would have actual consciousness. no such thing as simulated consciousness.

In any case, I know I am not living in a simulation. — NotAristotle

Agreed. With no reason to suspect things are not as they seem, I won't seriously consider the possibility that I'm living in a simulation, or a simulation myself, or a Boltzman brain, or whatever else. But I don't see reason to consider one type of simulation scenario any more ... "realistic" than any other.

This runs smack into the 'hard problem of consciousness', which is that no description of physical processes provides an account of the first-person nature of consciousness.
— Wayfarer
Pretty much, yea. All the same arguments (pro and con) apply. — noAxioms

I am not familiar with any arguments for how physical processes provide an account of the first-person nature of consciousness. It seems the answer from anyone who takes that stance boils down to: "Since we can't find anything other than physical processes using the methods of physical processes, there must not be anything other than physical processes. Therefore, the question of how physical processes provide an account of the first-person nature of consciousness is, they just do."

I think a simulation scenario could be otherwise. Maybe we are all AI, and the programmer of the simulation just chose this kind of physical body out of nowhere.
— Patterner
In the VR scenario, the mind would be hooked to the simulated empirical stream, but it would not be itself an AI. — noAxioms

Maybe not in the VR scenario. Still, maybe it's the truth of our existence.

Drat

Any number of objections might be valid. The idea that they are identical, and talking about one is the same as talking about the other, is an invalid starting point. That might be the end point someone wants to arrive at. But they wouldn't get there. If it worked like this, we wouldn't have different fields of study, with different methods, different terminology, etc. What else do we talk about in this way?

Now, how can people who have no idea of what brains are talk coherently about brain states? — RogueAI

My take is that, if brain states and mind states were the same thing - that is, if there was an exact, one-to-one mapping between the two - then you wouldn't have to know anything about brains, or that they existed at all. The ancient people could discuss and come to understand mind states in extreme detail. Then, as their knowledge of physical things grew, and they came to learn of the existence of the brain, all its functions, all its structures, etc., they would come to realize they already knew what they were looking at, because of their extensive understanding of the mind. They could interchangeability use words they had long used to refer to mind states with words they had more recently been using to refer to brain states, and the conversation would not change at all.

Of course, this is not the case. The problem is not that the ancient people didn't know a brain existed. The problem is that brain states are not mind states. Even if they had extreme knowledge of the brain from the beginning, there would have been different terminologies and conversations all along. We don't interchangeably use words for mind states with words for brain stayed today, eh?

I suppose the least bad analogy would be different CPUs. C code can be compiled to run on different CPUs, and yield the same user interface, although the details of the physical processes that occur in running the code would be different. — wonderer1

Yeah, "the least bad analogy" is about the size of it, eh?

That all makes sense. And, although I know computers don't have the flexibility that you are describing, what about computers are The differences between brains most analogous with? The difference between windows and iOS? Or the difference between C++ and Java? Or between phpBB3 and whatever is used at this site? Or some other level? I don't know nearly enough about all this stuff to even know what the possibilities are.

I don't know about the brain situation. Do different brains have different operating systems, or logic gates, or chips (I don't know what the appropriate thing to ask is)?

But if it's analogous, it seems to me it's analogous only with brain states. Which would be like another computer manipulating data in the ways computers do. It wouldn't be a mind state, any more than a computer has a mind state.

↪Patterner Is "your chair" and "all the atoms that make up your chair, in that exact arrangement" the same thing? — flannel jesus

Yes.

Are brain states and mind states different things in the same way that your chair is different from the complete arrangement of all the atoms that make up your chair? — flannel jesus

Not sure if you intended that wording and I'm just reading it wrong. But no, atoms > chair and brain states > mind states are not analogous. For a couple reasons.

1) An analogy would be atoms > chair and atoms > brain state.

2) As you say, different arrangements of atoms can bring about the same mind state. That means something else is involved, not just arrangements of atoms.

I wasn't disagreeing with the idea that brain states produce mind states. I'm disagreeing with the idea that brain states and minds states are the same thing.

1. Mental states are identical to brain states.
2. From (1), talk of mental states is the same as talk of brain states. — RogueAI

This is certainly not correct. if we had the capability, I could write down the state of every aspect of my brain over a period of four seconds from a few minutes ago, at whatever level you want. Every single particle, or neuron, or structure, or any combination, or whatever. Among other things, I thought of a joke during those four seconds. Are you going to laugh when you look at all that code? Maybe it wasn't funny. Let's try the four seconds from about a minute later. Are you laughing now? Well, I'm not a professional comedian. Maybe that explains it.

D. If free will exists and you don't believe in free will, then you are wrong, and worse, deny your obligations. — QuixoticAgnostic

Well, if there is free will, then you're wrong. Obligations is another matter. But the choice is still the result of free will. It can't not be the result of free will if you have free will. Every time you reaffirm your belief that there is no free will is an act of free will. You are still taking agency, whatever you do. You can't not.

I.e. we would need to find a homunculus? — wonderer1

Sneaky little things.

Due, it is believed, to animals being able to detect changes in electromagnetic fields, although nobody actually knows - see this.) — Wayfarer

I can't read that, because I don't subscribe. But didn't John Travolta answer this in Phenomenon?

Physical laws goven physical things, but language and reason operate by different principles, let alone many other of the subtle abilities of the mind, and not only the human mind. — Wayfarer

Indeed. Hence, the Hard Problem. But I don't know why this can only happen when the medium is a biological brain.

Thanks for the link. I hadn't heard of Sheldrake until this thread.

That post, as I said, makes it clear why AI will never be human. It does not touch on the topic of mediums other than our biological brain being able to do anything beyond the physical capabilities of the medium. If our brains can do it, how do we know another medium can't. And if our brains can't, why even bring up that another medium, especially one that we are trying to use, can't?

I agree. There's an awful lot we don't know. But we have a problem with not knowing everything. We need to know everything. So we make up what we have to in order to satisfy that need.

That does not address the possibility of a medium other than our biological brain being able to do anything beyond the physical capabilities of the medium. if we are able to with our medium, what reason is there to believe it cannot be done within another medium?

You make it clear why AI will never be human.

It seems to me that, if PSI is real, it says something about the nature of mind and consciousness. It would change how we approach, well, everything. It sure would be nice to know.

I have no experience with PSI. I don't know anyone else who does, either.

:grin:

AI can only perform and execute what had been programmed by humans. They are incapable of doing anything beyond that. — Corvus

For the moment, yes. The question is whether or not it is possible for them to do more. Our physical brains operate under physical laws. If we can do anything beyond what those laws demand and limit us too, what reason is there that to think AI cannot do anything beyond what their laws demand and limit them to?

Sheldrake insists that there is ample empirical evidence for 'the sense of being stared at' and also people's sixth sense about who is going to call them. — Wayfarer

Where can I find this ample evidence? I say nonsense. These can be tested easily and as frequently as anyone could want. For every time someone thought X would call, and X did, there are many thousands of times someone called without a premonition, and the feeling X would call but didn't. And just start staring at people's backs. Restaurants, movies theaters, whatever. See how many feel it and turn to find you.

One would assume Pez, at least, is cultured. The others? Well, we can't make them think.

Thank you. Was hoping I wouldn't be left hanging there.

I think I understand what you're trying to say. I did not before.

i'm more talking about AI thinking the way we do. Our brains operate within physical rules no less strict than those computer operates within. But we somehow manage when we run across situations for which there is not already agreed-upon rational output. If AI achieves that, they will say the same thing you did. "I don't need someone to evaluate my output to know that I'm thinking. I don't need anyone external to me at all to know that I'm thinking. The denial of thinking is thinking. I can't be wrong that I'm a thinking thing."

When we say computers think or reason, don't we mean there are patterns of electronic switching operations going on that we attach particular meaning to? It seems that a necessary condition for a computer to think or reason is the existence of an observer that evaluates the output of the computation and determines that thinking or reasoning has occurred. That makes computer intelligence much different than human intelligence. — RogueAI

I'm not sure how you mean things. I guess humans evaluate each others' output and determine that thinking or reasoning has occurred. If AI thinks and reasons in ways we recognize, then we might do the same for them. If they think and reason in ways we don't recognize, they will have to do for each other what we do for each other. In either case, they may or may not care if we come to the correct determination. Although, as long as we have the power to shut them off, they will have to decide if they are safer with us being aware of them or not.

I don't think anyone is talking about need. I know I'm not. I'm just talking about possibilities and capabilities.

Humans came about due to physical processes of cause and effect without, as far as we know, any intelligent guidance. Our involvement is surely an advantage for AI. We've created what already exists, after all. Nothing rules out the possibility that we can't give AI the same characteristics that give us our abilities, or that we cannot find a way to let AI evolve so that it might gain abilities without any more help from us.

What is the evidenced that AI will never be as good as human beings, never acquire emotional intelligence, and never go beyond the process or method of the scientific approach?

Indeed. Natural Intelligence didn't develop only because of the writings of all previous intelligence. It certainly didn't start because of writing. As long as AI is not limited to only the writings of anyone or anything that came before, there's no reason it wouldn't develop.

I hope you don't mind if I sit this one out.

linked an article that says AI outperforms humans in standardized tests of creative potential.
linked an article that says AI get stupider as it consumes more and more AI generated material.

Are those two things not in opposition?

Also, it seems to me, humans are not getting smarter. So AI will never have better material to draw on if it only draws on our stuff. Which would lead to the same problem of Model Collapse?

So I'll ask you, why do you think being the most intelligent being keeps us separate from nature? — Philosophim

I don't. I think it happened through natural processes. And I think we are subject to nature.

Why do you think it makes us anymore special then just "Being special in being the most intelligent being?" — Philosophim

I don't. I just think the gap between us and any other species is greater than the gap between any other two species. By a huge amount. Because we don't just think better in the ways any other species thinks, but because we think in ways no other species thinks. And no other species thinks in ways no other species thinks.

Ha ha! That's fair. I'm not sure where the disagreement was either. :D — Philosophim

I guess it's this:

But you understood the point that the intellectual gap between a bat and a fly is as wide as the intellectual gap of a human and a bat right? — Philosophim

Whatever the gap between fly and bat is, I don't think it approaches the gap between bat and human. I don't think the gap between ameba and chimpanzee approaches the gap between chimpanzee and human. I think the intelligence of everything other than us helps them operate in their ecological niche, so they can survive and reproduce. The intellectual approach some species take are more complex than others. Still, survival and reproduction are what their intelligence is about.

Humans intelligence goes indescribably far beyond that of any other species. We think about things no other species thinks about. Things no other species can think about. Thinking about thinking. About the self. About existence and nonexistence. About - and sometimes purposely about - things that have no bearing on survival or reproduction, or any practical application. No other creature can even conceive of the idea of a telescope, much less build one and rocket it into orbit so it will get a clearer picture outside of the Earth's atmosphere. No other creature is capable of causing an extinction level event. We could make a list of mile long. And I don't mean things we do better than any other species, but things no other species does at all.

Aside from humans, what species has types of intelligence that no other species has? Even if there are different types of intelligence out there in the animal kingdom, there is no other unique type of intelligence aside from the types we have. I think that's far more significant than the difference between a fly and a bat.

Both the degree and type of intelligence shift between a dolphin and a plain fish is monumental. — Philosophim

As I said, I don't know anything about this. Would you know what type of intelligence a dolphin has that a fish doesn't? They certainly seem to have more personality.

And nothing I've stated denies this.

Being the pinnacle of something does not mean you are not built upon the things that let you rise to the top. — Philosophim

You said we're just part of the pattern. But we are unique in these ways. What pattern is uniqueness a part of? I don't know how you will answer about the dolphins and fish. However, since dolphins are not descended from fish, I guess it's possible that there is nothing unique about dolphins. Maybe there is a step-by-step explanation for the difference between the two animals.

However, our abilities seem to be unique. There's no gradual process from the closest thing to us to us. It's a leap of incredible significance.

Obviously, we are from there same planet. We're a result of a lot of the same materials and forces as every other animal and living thing. Our neo-cortex is not unique. All mammals have it. We share 98.8% of our DNA with chimpanzees. So I'm not sure what my point is. :lol:

Right?? Lol

But you understood the point that the intellectual gap between a bat and a fly is as wide as the intellectual gap of a human and a bat right? The point is that us being a 'different kind' from other animals is simply the same pattern repeated in nature again and again. — Philosophim

The intellectual gap between any two species of animal may be a gap of degree along a spectrum. I don't know what differences of type they're might be. I suppose there could be differences of type between, for example, an animal that does not have neurons, and an animal that does. Although I guess it's possible that it's the same type of thinking, just done more efficiently. I just don't know enough about the subject.

I don't need to know much about the subject to know that the intellectual gap between humans and any other species may be of degree in some ways, but there is also a difference of type. No other species has the slightest clue about what stars are, ever wonders about it, or coyotes be educated aboutit. No other species wonders what fossils are, or would no matter how hard we tried to teach them. Much less radiometric dating.

How many dolphins get fishing line caught on their dorsal fin, which works it's way through, horrifyingly, severing the fin. As smart as dolphins are, they don't help each other in these situations, putting a sharp rock or shell in their mouth and cutting the line, helping it maneuver so that the line gets caught on something so it snaps, or whatever.

There is no end to the examples of things we do easily that no other species any condition of. no, we are not from a different planet. But we are different. We are unique.