I've never felt I've really understood the 'Hard Problem' of consciousness. Although not a new problem, David Chalmers seems to be the contemporary go-to source. — Kym

I like to concentrate on one aspect of Conscious sensory perception and stick with it. I like to think about how we Experience the color Red. I like to ask the following question ... Given:

1) Neural Activity for Red happens.
2) A Red Conscious Experience happens.

How does 1 produce 2?

That is the Hard Problem of Consciousness. The Physicalists will say that the question is irrelevant because 2 is just an Illusion. I disagree with the Illusion argument. Even if we could settle on what an Illusion is, the Physicalists will still have to explain how we Experience the Red in the Illusion. The key is in thinking about the Redness of the Red. What is that? It's something. But what is it? It's in our Minds.

I like to call the Red Experience in our Mind, Conscious Red Light. We think that Redness is a Property of Physical Red Light. But Physical Red Light does not have Redness as a Property. Conscious Red Light in the Mind has the Redness Property. Physical Red Light has wavelength as a Property. Conscious Red Light has Redness as a Property but does not have Wavelength as a Property. I view Physical Red Light and Conscious Red Light as two different things that both exist as a reality. One is in the Physical World and the other is in some kind of Conscious World.

1) Neural Activity for Red happens.
2) A Conscious Experience of Red happens.

How does 1 happening result in 2 happening? — SteveKlinko> I think my explanation would still be basically the same, The neural activity for Red, causes a conscious experience, because of the combination of neural activity, which accesses memories relative to Red. This fills the Explanatory Gap, and would be the function causing the illusion of consciousness.
I'm trying to figure out, what doesn't work with this simple explanation? — Tyler

A Memory is just more Neural Activity. You're just saying that Neural Activity causes the Red Experience, but the question is how does Neural Activity cause the Red Experience.

I don't doubt we could see new things, I doubt the mental vividness of new things if we have 0 comprehension of what we are seeing. If you mean visually vivid, then perhaps it would still be vivid with no comprehension, as long as you have clear vision. But it seems quite likely that conscious vividness of viewing, involves more than just visual sensory input and data storage (as memory) of an image. — Tyler

Yes there are many things going on when we look at an Object. But my study is purely about the Image that we See. I think it's better to concentrate on specific Conscious operations, at this point, rather than trying to study everything all at the same time. I would simplify the Vivid Image example even further and concentrate on one color. I choose to study how the Conscious experience of Red happens in our Minds. Here is the basic question ... Given:

1) Neural Activity for Red happens.
2) A Conscious Experience of Red happens.

How does 1 happening result in 2 happening?

The answer to this is not known by Science yet (although Scientists jump up and down saying that Consciousness is just an Illusion). This is the classic Hard Problem of Consciousness. This also is the classic Explanatory Gap of Consciousness. I want to know the answer to this question.

Just by saying that Something is perceiving the Image, to me, means that the Something is Conscious of the Image. — SteveKlinko
>But what do you mean by perceiving? I think this is coming back to my same question of what you mean by a vivid image. These both relate to the basic question; what is the required function to be conscious of something?
If by "perceive" and "vivid image", you mean mentally comprehend the scenario involved, then the required function would be that mental comprehension. This is basically my theory, that mental comprehension (and therein memories of concepts) is required for consciousness. This is the mechanical function.

Or, if by "perceive" and "vivid image", you mean simply storing the image as a memory, then that seems like an overly simple method for consciousness, as even computers perform this function. — Tyler

By Vivid Image I'm talking about the immediate present moment when you are looking at something.. I'm not talking about trying to remember the Image of something after the fact.

But directing Attention to a Conscious Object in your Visual Image is different than Knowledge and Memories about that Object. — SteveKlinko
>I think I would argue just the contrary, that they are not different, but the same, and that knowledge and memories of an object, are the mechanical function of directing conscious attention.

I think you can have Vivid Images without any Knowledge or Memories of an Object. — SteveKlinko
>But if you had no knowledge of the object or its setting or environment (so you had no comprehension of any aspect of an image you were seeing (for eg. woke up in a virtual reality world, where nothing that you sense is familiar)), then would you have a consciously vivid image or perception of any object within the environment?
Also, would the image be visually vivid before your brain stores the new sensory input as memories, then begins to theoretically, actively access those memories, at the same time that you continue to view the image? — Tyler

We can certainly see new Objects we have never seen before in our Physical Reality so there is no reason to think that we would not be able to see the Objects injected by a Virtual Reality no matter how strange they might be.

If it is still a Vivid Image then I think you are Conscious of it. I think we can have Vivid Images of all kinds of things that we have never seen before. We would never be able to be Conscious of new things with that theory. I think the Conscious experience and the Comprehension are two different and separate things. — SteveKlinko
> If an image is photographically vivid, you think that means whatever is perceiving that image, is conscious of it?
Or if it's mentally vivid, then yeah, I'd agree that the individual is conscious of it, by definition...
But in order for an image to be mentally vivid, the individual should need comprehension of the scenario involved with the image. If no comprehension of scenario, than I would think it would not be mentally vivid. As humans, we can see images throughout the day, but if you're not paying attention, then you're not comprehending the scenario, and the image is not mentally vivid. You dont even notice what you saw...
The only way we would never be conscious of new things, is if we had no comprehension of the new image. — Tyler

Just by saying that Something is perceiving the Image, to me, means that the Something is Conscious of the Image. With all Conscious Sensory experience there is an implied Observer. Understanding what the Observer is, of course, is the Hardest part of the Hard problem of Consciousness. Ironic since we are the Observers.

I think that any scene that you direct your Attention at will be Vivid. If you do not direct your Attention you may miss detail. But directing Attention to a Conscious Object in your Visual Image is different than Knowledge and Memories about that Object. I think you can have Vivid Images without any Knowledge or Memories of an Object.

I don't see that there is an explanation for the Vivid Image that you Experience for the Squirrel. If you lost all your memories about Squirrels you would still see the Squirrel just as Vividly. — SteveKlinko>By "Vivid Image", do you mean just the photographic picture of the squirrel, or comprehended overall image of the conceptual idea of the existence of the squirrel?
If all memories of squirrels and concepts relative to to squirrels were lost, I think you would still see the physical picture of the squirrel (vividity of this just, depends on eyesight and resolution), but it would mean nothing to you conceptually. I think it would be like a current day computer receiving a video of the squirrel. It could save the images in memory, but there would be no consciousness of the squirrel, with a lack of comprehension. — Tyler

If it is still a Vivid Image then I think you are Conscious of it. I think we can have Vivid Images of all kinds of things that we have never seen before. We would never be able to be Conscious of new things with that theory. I think the Conscious experience and the Comprehension are two different and separate things.

The PL is Electro-Magnetic Energy, the NL is Neural Activity in the Visual areas, and the CL is the thing that we actually perceive. — SteveKlinko
This sums up a representational position on consciousness. There is a world, there is the data processing, and then third, mysteriously, there is a self that witnesses the resulting neural output.

So it is setting the problem up as an issue of translation - a transformation of inputs into outputs. First there is the physical output, then the neural output and then the conscious output ... which is somehow an experiential output. It has this new and substantial property of "being aware".

Nothing is being explained by this line of thought. We know that neural processing must have something critical to do with qualitative experience. But we don't answer any important question by positing it as an "inter" stage as that just shovels the essential mystery down the line to a new blackbox that somehow contains a self that does the witnessing of the neural output.

The better approach is to understand the neural processing in terms of a model of reality - a model of reality that dynamically incorporates a "selfish" point of view of the world.

So it is no surprise that a model of reality - one that is starting from a "selfish" point of view - should feel like something. If there is all this information being constructed into a living relation between a "self" and a "world", then why wouldn't it feel like something?

I would stick to understanding how brains model their worlds. And then turning the table on Hard Problem questions by asking is it really conceivable that a model with its own personalised point of view wouldn't feel like it was just such a personalised view?

If the neuroscience is viewed in the right light - as embodied reality modelling, with a "self" as an essential part of that construction of a reality - then the zombie argument loses its metaphysical force.

We can see why any amount of "information processing" wouldn't "light up" with the further substantial property of "consciousness". If the problem is framed as one based on representationalism, then the witnesser of the representation is forever left out of the conversation and zombies are made conceivable.

But if we understand how the brain is representing the observer as much as the observables, then the question becomes how could a sense of being conscious get left out of such a dynamic and highly personalised process of reality modelling? How could it be lacking when it would be the starting point of the "representing"? — apokrisis

I never said the three stage approach explained Consciousness. All I ever say is that if we are going to explain Consciousness we have to acknowledge the two things that we do know:

1) Neural Activity happens.
2) A Conscious experience happens.

We know that these things are happening and it seems that 1 causes 2. So the natural thing to ask is How does 1 cause 2? The Explanation of that cause is another stage in the process. So I never say I have an Explanation I merely ask a question that seems to have no Scientific answer and annoys the Physicalists.

The problem I have with the Model approach to Consciousness is that it never ends up with a real Conscious experience. The Model approach just hides the problem in a further Abstraction of the Conscious experience. I don't understand the Selfish point of view that you talk about. How does a Selfish point of view in a Model ever feel like something? Especially how does the Model Light Up?. The Model approach has the same Explanatory Gap that all Conscious theories have..

>The neural activity produces conscious experience because the neural activity causes memories to simultaneously come to the mind of the person.
So, that which is being remembered all at once, by the person, is; [the object or concept, that the person is being conscious of] + [aspects of how that object or concept interact with its environment (or in this world)].

I'll try making into an equation:
CE = MA (FA + IF)
CE = Conscious Experience
MA = Memory Access
FA = Factor
IF = Interactions of Factor

For eg. Bob is conscious of a squirrel on his lawn.
FA = squirrel,
IF = concepts saved in memory of how that squirrel relates to this world.
CE (in Bobs mind) = MA (FA [the squirrel itself] + IF [Many concepts which are relative to the squirrel, including: being an animal, living on Earth, being alive, having a mind, the lawn which it is on, its behavior, its motivations, its senses, the weather elements affecting it, etc.]

This actually just made it more graspable for myself...
When Bob has memories of all those relative concepts, in his mind, at the same time, this combination of memories creates the Conscious Experience.
Does that sound like it makes sense? — Tyler

Even though all the things you listed are happening in the Brain when you look at a Squirrel, I don't see that there is an explanation for the Vivid Image that you Experience for the Squirrel. If you lost all your memories about Squirrels you would still see the Squirrel just as Vividly.

Seeing CL does not require the eyes to be involved. The CL we See while dreaming certainly has nothing to do with Physical Light or eye function. — SteveKlinkoThat is likely true, if your definition of "seeing" the light includes that which occurs while dreaming. I'd consider dreaming to be a process of memory (just like remembering seeing light, while awake), so I think its debatable whether or not to consider the process of remembering light, as "seeing" light. I think my point remains, if someone defines "seeing" PL, as light hitting the eyeball, then by definition, we do see light. That's seeing light, in general, but I would agree, if you specify "Conscious light", then it is not the PL hitting the eye, it is a process in the mind — Tyler

If someone defines it that way then ok. But we really only Detect Physical Light we never really See it. We always only See our internal CL.

I never say it is a certainty. I only propose that there could be a separate CSp that the CM exists in. — SteveKlinkoI "see" (ha ha). That's fair, as a possibility. Just a technical misunderstanding, as you stated "but it is certainly a different realm or reality".

but the functionality of the Inter Mind must then be discovered to exist in Neural Activity and it must be explained as to how this happens. — SteveKlinkoTrue. And, I believe I have an explanation, as I had posted separately, called "Consciousness as Memory Access". Summed up, basically conscious experience is created by; neurons accessing memories of any given thing, at the same time as neurons accessing memories of concepts of the interaction (cause and effect) of that same thing. I just dont really know what more to do with my theory, ha ha — Tyler

Yes that happens but how does all the Neural Activity produce the end product of a Conscious experience?

But you are still experiencing CL aren't you? — SteveKlinkoI would think no, while dreaming, but yes, while awake and remembering it. Because you mentioned that your definition of the "conscious" part of CL, is being aware. I would say someone is not consciously aware of anything while dreaming (except to some degree perhaps, in the rare case of lucid dreams), so therefore not experiencing conscious light. — Tyler

I disagree. I think I am fully experiencing the Conscious Light that makes up the scene I am looking at. This is true if I am Awake or Dreaming.

Don't you think an Animal that has color vision can experience the Color Red just like we do? I think that they do. I think they have Conscious Minds just like we do. They're just not as smart. I'll do a diversion here to talk about Pain. Animals seem to feel the full and total Agony of the Pain just like we do. Pain is a Conscious experience. If an Animal feels Pain then why not the experience of Red? — SteveKlinkoI think an animal does experience red just as a human, if the human is not consciously thinking about the red. Based on my theory, if a human accesses memories of the interaction of red, then they are being conscious of the red. I believe animals (mostly) do not execute this function of accessing memories of the interaction of red, and therefore do not experience red to the same degree, as humans.
I think animals have a minimally conscious (sub-conscious) mind, compared to humans. I think this is why they are not nearly as smart as humans. I think conscious memory access of cause and effect of any given thing, is what causes humans to be so much smarter. I think there is a direct correlation between degree of intelligence and consciousness.
Pain is virtually the same concept as red. I would not consider an animal to be consciously aware of pain while they experience it. Humans can consciously experience pain, if they consciously think about the occurrence of the pain. Consider this, if you ignore, or become distracted from pain, it is not nearly as bad as if you pay attention to it. Because you are not being conscious of it, by not firing neurons to parts of the brain relative to pain. — Tyler

I agree.

How does that Memory (It's just Neural Activity) produce the experience of the Red? How does coded information in the Brain lead to an experience of Red? That is the Explanatory Gap of Consciousness. — SteveKlinkoThe conscious experience of red (or anything) is by means of a combination of simultaneous memories being accessed. The specialty of humans, is being able to dissect memories, and access all the individual components of memories, required to understand the interaction or cause and effect of something. If a person accesses the different components (saved as memory code) which are relative to "red" or "pain" or perhaps "self-existence", then they obtain a conscious experience of that thing or concept. — Tyler

I still don't understand how any kind Neural Activity can create the Experience of Red. You are saying: Neural Activity happens and obviously a Conscious experience happens. It isn't obvious to me how the Conscious experience happens.

We have never seen the PL only the CL that is correlated to the NL — SteveKlinkoI think that argument depends heavily or the definition of "see". If the definition of "seeing" includes the eyeballs receiving the physical light, then we do see light. — Tyler

Seeing CL does not require the eyes to be involved. The CL we See while dreaming certainly has nothing to do with Physical Light or eye function. The CL we See while dreaming is not correlated with external World scenes. The CL we See while Awake however is correlated with External World scenes. But in both cases we are only Seeing CL. We never See Physical Light even while Awake.

In talking about CSp it is assumed that it is not a space like our physical three dimensional world but it is certainly a different realm or reality. — SteveKlinkoHow do you come to the conclusion that this is a certainty? — Tyler

I never say it is a certainty. I only propose that there could be a separate CSp that the CM exists in.

I think it is more simple than the model you have shown. I think the PM and CM are the same, and the physical occurrence in the brain of neurons firing is the CM.
I think there is no need for the IM. In order for the NL to cause CL, the CM just needs to send neurons to alternate memories which are relative to the NL. The CL is created using the NL in combination with related memories of light. The correct combination of neurons firing to memories, is what creates a conscious experience of anything. — Tyler

I do say that the Inter Mind could very well be a part of the Brain and Neural Activity, but the functionality of the Inter Mind must then be discovered to exist in Neural Activity and it must be explained as to how this happens.

You could say that Dreams are made out of CL. If it's not CL then what is it? — SteveKlinkoI think you're nearly correct that dreams are made of CL, although it depends on your definition of "conscious" within the term "CL". I think it may be more accurately NL, since there is no conscious comprehension (if that is included in the definition of the C within CL) required of the light, for the NL to be saved as a memory, then stimulated later during sleep. — Tyler

But you are still experiencing CL aren't you? You don't experience NL But NL seems to produce the CL that you experience while dreaming.

But how does the NL in the PM get converted to CL that the CM can use? — SteveKlinkoNow that I think about it, a lot of this may depend on your definition of the (C)onscious part of these terms. Do you mean conscious as in; mentally aware of (which we assume mostly only humans accomplish)? or as in; awake (which any animal accomplishes)?
If you mean simply awake, then I would think the NL just needs to be saved as a memory. Then the mind can access that memory later. — Tyler

I'm talking about the Aware Conscious experience. Don't you think an Animal that has color vision can experience the Color Red just like we do? I think that they do. I think they have Conscious Minds just like we do. They're just not as smart. I'll do a diversion here to talk about Pain. Animals seem to feel the full and total Agony of the Pain just like we do. Pain is a Conscious experience. If an Animal feels Pain then why not the experience of Red?

how does Neural Activity produce the Conscious Red experience? — SteveKlinkoBy memory. As the PL hits the eye and the information is coded into NL, the PM stores that coded information. Then later, the conscious red experience is produced by accessing that coded information again. Since, as you mentioned, the light is never physically in the mind, the initial experience of light is received only as the coded information. So accessing that same information (which is stored in the PM) later as a memory, should be nearly the same as experiencing it in the first place. Both occurrences are just coded information in the brain. — Tyler

This is all true but the question remains: How does that Memory (It's just Neural Activity) produce the experience of the Red? How does coded information in the Brain lead to an experience of Red? That is the Explanatory Gap of Consciousness.

bahman
We know the Mind does these things but the question is How does it do it? — SteveKlinko
Experience, decision and act are simply the properties of mind. We cannot understand how they work. Take the obvious example, how does decision work? — bahman

You can't equate understanding Decision with understanding the experience of Red. I think these are Apples and Oranges. I'm interested in Sensory perceptions. Specifically, I want to know how does Neural Activity produce the Conscious Red experience?

No. The model is the brain. What you experience is a process - mental activity. When you look at others' mental activity, you experience a model of it, which is a brain. The brain does not create models. The brain itself is a model of mental activity. Mental activity creates the model of the brain and all of it's interconnecting neurons. — Harry Hindu

How does this Process produce the experience of Red that we all know?

Consciousness is not an illusion. It is a model - a representation.

This means what we see is a model of what is there.

This means that the brains we see are models of the mental processes "out there" - outside of the model. The model is the brain we see, not the real thing that the model represents. What a brain represents is mental processes. Everything is a process, not a thing, like a brain. Things are the models we experience. — Harry Hindu

It's fine to say the Brain creates a Model, but the question remains as to how we experience the Model as a Conscious thing?

It is the mind which experience the Qualia, electromagnetic wave in a brain. It is mind that decides and act on matter too.

We know the Mind does these things but the question is How does it do it?

The basic question that the Inter Mind Model and this thread addresses is ... Given:

1) Neural Activity for Red happens.
2) A Conscious experience of Red happens.

How does 1 produce 2? The old Dodge that an Illusion happens does not work anymore. Science demands a better and way less ambiguous answer than that. We can not ignore the Conscious experience anymore. Think about the Redness of the Red. How can that possibly come from Neural Activity? This must be explained.

So you could consider them as subconscious mind. Unless you have a reason to distinguish them from each other.

The Inter Mind bridges between the Subconscious and the Conscious. It is probably more Subconscious than Conscious.

Is Inter Mind Conscious?
I think only the Conscious Mind is Conscious. The Physical Mind and the Inter Mind are front end and intermediate processing stages. The only thing we know is what we experience in our Conscious Minds.

Is Qualia generated by brain?
The Inter Mind is the connection between the Physical Mind (Brain) and the Conscious Mind. The Inter Mind is a translator. I think the Physical Mind can only do Neural Activity things. The Inter Mind is in contact with the Physical Mind and translates the Neural Activity into something that the Conscious Mind can use, like Qualia. The Conscious Mind is a further processing stage that uses the Qualia as input data. Qualia is just another type of Data.

— bahman

1) What is mind? The Inter Mind Model distinguishes between the Physical Mind and the Conscious Mind and proposes that there must be another processing stage that connects them together. This connecting and processing stage is called the Inter Mind.

2) What is conscious mind? The Conscious Mind is the final processing stage where Conscious phenomenon like the experience of the color Red happens.

3) What is subconscious mind? It is background processing in the Physical Mind, I'll let the Psychologists explain that one.

4) What is brain for? The Brain, or the Physical Mind, is the front end processing for sensory perception.

5) What do we experience? We experience our own inner Conscious phenomenon usually called the Qualia. I like to call the Light Qualia, Conscious Light, because it is more descriptive. The important distinction here is that we have never experienced Physical Light but only our internal Conscious Light. We think the Conscious Light is the Physical Light only because it is all we have ever known about Physical Light.

6) How do we act? The Conscious Mind has to have a Volitional input capability back through the Inter Mind to the Physical Mind in order for action to happen.

What is the Red in your Conscious experience of Red? — SteveKlinko
It's a color.

Is it made out of Matter? Is it made out of Energy? — SteveKlinko
As part of the spectrum of light, it can have both properties of matter and energy.

Seems to me it is something that is outside of known Science. — SteveKlinko
Nah, just google it, "What is light".

That we've agreed to call this particular spectrum of light "red" is an aspect of consciousness which seeks to define what it is and then label it for easy recognition among billions of other consciousnesses around the world. — John Days

You're talking about Physical Light which is Electromagnetic Energy. I'm talking about the Light that we experience which is Conscious Light. We don't experience Physical Light but rather we experience Conscious Light. The Light you see in Dreams is Conscious Light. The Light you see when you rub your eyes is Conscious Light. The Light you see in After Images is Conscious Light. There's no Physical Light involved in any of those things. This Conscious Light is not correlated with any Physical Light.

The Light you see when awake and your eyes are open is still Conscious Light. Your Brain converts the Physical Light into Conscious Light. In this case the Conscious Light is correlated with the incoming Physical Light. But the Conscious Light is different from the Physical Light. You always only see the Conscious Light. You never have actually seen Physical Light. I want to know what the Conscious Light is.

Fact is we cant even understand the wood of Consciousness. — SteveKlinko
That's not a fact at all. And it would probably be better not to speak on behalf of all humanity in this area. You can't understand the wood of it. I think I've got a pretty good start on what consciousness is and I've given several examples of that, whereas you keep going back to, "No, we can't!".

Forget understanding the Lead. — SteveKlinko
But, why should I forget understanding the lead? Because you can't understand the wood? That doesn't make sense. Why should I let your unwillingness to understand also stop me from understanding? — John Days

What is the Red in your Conscious experience of Red? Is it made out of Matter? Is it made out of Energy? Is it made out of some aspect of Space? Seems to me it is something that is outside of known Science. Do you think you know what it is? I'm listening...

What about if we designed a robot that could act scared when it saw a snake? Purely mechanical of course. Part of the fear response would be the hydraulic pump responsible for oiling the joints speeds up, and that higher conduction velocity wires are brought into play to facilitate faster reaction times. This control system is regulated through feedback loops wired into the head of the robot. When the snake is spotted the control paths in the head of the robot suddenly reroute power away from non-essential compartments such as recharging the batteries and into the peripheral sense receptors. Artificial pupils dilate to increase information through sight, and so on.
This robot has been programmed with a few phrases that let the programmer know what is happening in the circuits, "batteries low" that sought of thing. In the case of the snake it reads all these reactions and gives the feedback "I'm scared."

Is is really scared?

Before you answer, and as you probably know, a long long time ago they did live vivisections on dogs and other animals because they did not believe they actually felt pain. The pain response- all that yelping and carrying on, was nothing more than a set of reflexes programmed into the animals, the scientists and theolgists argued. Only humans, designed in God's image actually felt pain as we know — MikeL

The Robot would not experience Fear unless we could give it Consciousness and then it would be an Android. All those Robot responses mean nothing. Fear is a Conscious experience.

I believe it is in the study of these things we know about consciousness which will help us to know what consciousness is, and it may even be self-defeating to constantly ask "what is consciousness" while the qualities of consciousness are listed. Maybe you are looking for an answer which is too simplistic, or you are stuck on the idea that consciousness cannot be defined no matter how much we explore how it manifests in practical, day-to-day life.

It's like you asking, "what is a pencil" and I say, "it's made of wood, with a lead core, shaped like a cylinder to be held in the hand and is used to make marks of various kinds on paper" and you respond with, "yeah, but what is that thing that draws on the paper?" — John Days

If you could dissect the experience of Red like you just did with the pencil I would agree. Fact is we cant even understand the wood of Consciousness. Forget understanding the Lead. Your analogy is way off target.

↪SteveKlinko A computer does not detect a face and certainly cannot be aware of one. A computer can only process on/off. It is the programmer (a human) that gives meaning to these on/off bits (a face?), and it is a human that gives awareness to any thing the computers spits out. Ultimately a computer is and always be equivalent to a very fast abacus.

Anyone who believes that a computer is anything more than a bunch of on/light switches had been watching way too much TV and should stop immediately — Rich

Exactly!

We are aware that we make arguments but do we understand anything about what that thing is that makes arguments? — SteveKlinko
I think we can. We understand that sometimes that thing can be rational, and sometimes it can be irrational. We understand that there are levels to it, (e.g. sub-conscious). We understand that it is something that wants to be further understood. We understand that it has desires of all different kinds.

We understand that there can be only two possibilities for where it comes from (i.e. designed or random chance). We understand that when the body dies, consciousness does not remain in the body. And, we understand that there is more to understand about it.

Maybe I'm just not understanding your point? Can you be more specific about what you mean? — John Days

But what is the thing that is rational and irrational? What is the thing that wants and has desires? You have only stated things about Consciousness that we already know. We can describe effects of Consciousness but we don't know what it is.

Real Mind has Consciousness. Fake Mind has no Consciousness. But if we could give Consciousness to a Machine then it would not be a Fake Mind anymore, because Consciousness is the key. — SteveKlinkoWhat is a mind if not consciousness? To say that one has a mind is to say that it has consciousness

Awareness that you have recognized a face is the difference. Even when the IBM Watson won Jeopardy it never knew it won. It could never enjoy that it won. Think about that. What is that difference? That is the answer. — SteveKlinkoSo its aware of the face, but not aware that it is aware of the face? All we are doing is turning awareness back on itself creating a feedback loop. We can design a computer to be aware of it being aware. All that is required that we make its awareness another object to be aware of. — Harry Hindu

No a computer can detect a face and still not be aware. There's no infinite regression of levels of awareness going on here.

Please, name one thing about Consciousness that we understand. — SteveKlinko
It's what you're using to make an argument right now. — John Days

We are aware that we make arguments but do we understand anything about what that thing is that makes arguments?

What is the difference between my ability to recognize faces and a computer's ability to recognize faces? When a computer uses a digital image of a face to measure the features, is not our minds doing the same thing? To recognize a face means that you compare a face to some preset parameters and if those parameters match then recognition occurs. What is missing? — Harry Hindu

Awareness that you have recognized a face is the difference. Even when the IBM Watson won Jeopardy it never knew it won. It could never enjoy that it won. Think about that. What is that difference? That is the answer.

All of these physical conditions go into the formation and operation of a human mind, Gelernter says, adding, "Until you understand this, you don't have a chance of building a fake mind."
Doesn't he mean "you don't have a chance of building a real mind"? We build fake minds all the time. This is the crux of the argument that most people have against computers - that they aren't real minds. That seems to be the problem we have - that we can build fake minds, but not real ones.

But then doesn't it say something that we can even build fake minds? We must be getting something right, but not everything, to even say that it is a fake mind. If not, then why even call it a fake mind? What is it that fake minds have in common with real minds to designate them both as minds? — Harry Hindu

Real Mind has Consciousness. Fake Mind has no Consciousness. But if we could give Consciousness to a Machine then it would not be a Fake Mind anymore, because Consciousness is the key.

Science understands the Neural Correlates of Consciousness but nothing about Consciousness itself. — SteveKlinko
I wouldn't say "nothing". I think it's possible to understand a good deal of consciousness — John Days

Please, name one thing about Consciousness that we understand.

Just curious. What aspect of the Computer do you think will prevent it from doing 1 as well as 2? I think the missing aspect is Consciousness. — SteveKlinko
It lacks a name that satisfies me. Anyway, what is ''comprehension''? We seem to think that comprehension is an entirely different ball game compared to rule application. Bottom line is comprehension requires logic and that we know is a agreed upon set of rules. Why can't a computer do that too? — TheMadFool

The Computer can probably comprehend something in the sense that it has the rules. But without a Conscious aspect it will never know it has the rules. But that might not matter depending on what it is designed for. In the middle of the Summer when it gets hot enough my AC loses control and the temperature rises beyond the control point that is set. If my thermostat was Conscious it might feel bad about that. But since I'm pretty sure it is not Conscious I don't feel bad for the thermostat.

There's an insightful Time magazine story about David Gelertner, who is a professor of Computer Science at Yale, on the question of the possibilities (and impossibilities) of AI here. — Wayfarer

Yes that is good. Science can not make a Conscious Machine because Science does not even know what Human Consciousness is. Science cannot give a Machine Consciousness before Science knows what Consciousness is. But I think that, when Science does figure out what Consciousness is, it will be able to design Conscious Machines.

If you are referring to the anthropomorphic character of the statement — SteveKlinko
Yes, I was. I think it's amazing the way our desire for meaning slips out. A computer that could feel deprived if it did not get the information it wanted. That's a statement full of desire for something more than just data. Something more than DNA or atomic particles; consciousness as a result of human excellence in engineering.

It's interesting how so many people find themselves feeling outraged over the idea of a God creating them on the understanding that they will be subject to various behavioral expectations, and yet the idea of an AI which decides that it does not want to be subject to its creators behavioral expectations is the basis for many sci-fi horror plots.

Maybe, when God wants a good jump scare, he tunes in to the humanity channel. — John Days

Of course the Computer can not feel deprived before it attains some aspect of Consciousness. I think when we finally understand our Consciousness we will be able understand how it might be given to a Computer. Science does not understand even the first principles of Consciousness. yet. Science understands the Neural Correlates of Consciousness but nothing about Consciousness itself.

so why do we want to deprive our Machines from using this kind of Data? — SteveKlinko
Can you really deprive a machine of data? — John Days

Of course you can not let a Machine have access to certain kinds of data. If you are referring to the anthropomorphic character of the statement I would just say that we do that all the time. Machine learning, Machine Vision, etc.

It will be a very peculiar day when humans cannot tell the difference between some dumb tool that they created and their own creative minds that created that dumb tool. Whatever sci fi writers might say, computers are basically fast filters of data. They have zero intuition and power to create something new. They follow simple instructions that we give them — Rich

If Machines can become Conscious then they would be as alive as you and me, just based on different Material principles. But that's the trick. Understanding what Consciousness is.

↪SteveKlinko Actually not. The propose it's very simple: to create computer algorithm that can scan and find quickly. In know way does it mimic. — Rich

All I'm saying is that the Designers are trying to mimic. The mechanism that implements this is probably what you say.

The computer and AI makes an appearance along the way from infanthood to adulthood. The mind of a single human evolves, in simplest of terms, from the concrete to the abstract. Isn't that why a 5 year old, barring the born genius, can't understand advanced math like calculus. A 5 year old is taught through repetition, taught some rules of grammar or arithmetic and then given exercises to hone their skills. They don't understand the rules. They just mechanically apply them. Isn't that like a...computer? So, modern technology can replicate the mind of a 5 year old.

The challenge is how do we replicate the adult mind that, unlike the 5 year old, can also understand above and beyond the mere application of rules.

What's the difference between
1. Mechanical application of rules
And
2. Comprehension of the logic behind these rules?

An adult mind can do both while the computer can do only 1.

Point to note is these two different mental faculties (see above 1 and 2) can only be perceived upon access to the inner workings of a person or a computer. If all we have is access to the output (human behavior, printouts, audiovisual displays) we simply can't make the distinction between a person and a computer.

That brings us to an important conclusion. An AI needn't actually be a person. All it has to do is perfectly mimic a person to pass of as one. Without access to the inner world of circuits we simply can't tell a person from a good AI. — TheMadFool

Just curious. What aspect of the Computer do you think will prevent it from doing 1 as well as 2? I think the missing aspect is Consciousness.

Speech recognition is pretty much a joke as anyone who has to deal with such shoddy customer service software Will immediately recognize. As soon as I hear those silly questions on the phone, I start banging on 0 hoping that I might be lucky enough to get a human.

Computers are good at very simple data filtering tasks which is why well run companies such as Amazon and Google avoid the so-called AI stuff. — Rich

It's still not as good as people thought it would become but it is a lot better.

Using some clues, one can sound as though one understands the physical mind better than one actually can. While we have made some real progress in developing some understandings about how the brain works, we ]don't know far more than we do know.

It's possible that we may not be able to transcend the limits of our brains to understand how the brain works.

Given that we do not understand how our own intelligence is achieved, it seems very unlikely we will design an actual artificial intelligence. We may have to be content with computers that seem like they are intelligent, but are not. That doesn't strike me as a problem. Isn't it enough that we can build programs to perform very useful functions like speech recognition, or autonomous automobiles? — Bitter Crank

Agree 100%, we might not ever be able to do it, but it's fun trying.

Artificial Intelligence is primarily implemented by a class of computer programs that can accomplish tasks that mimic Human Intelligence. Examples are things like Speech Recognition, Facial Recognition, and Self Driving Cars. — SteveKlinko
This is not what computers do. The algorithms do not mimic and what's more, ultimately a human must adjust the algorithms. All the computers do is brute force data scanning with short cut filtering. — Rich

True, but the pupose is to mimic Human Intelligence.