Why is there consciousness?

[Copernicus]

I don't think consciousness is absolutely necessary for bodies to survive. Philosophical zombies can do all of that equally as well, basically by definition, but lack consciousness. And their existence is at least conceivable (and with increasing automation sophistication, maybe eventually existent as well).

I find myself more in agreement with those who object to Chalmer's "thought experiment", particularly Minsky. Chalmer's seems to assume that consciousness itself is separable from its constituent parts--that it can exist as a separate aspect of the mind. That begs the question.

Consciousness may be have been the easier or most efficient way for nature to have done what it did, but probably wasn't the only conceivable way.

I think that any attempt to replicate intelligent behavior ultimately leads to the creation of consciousness. Like I said earlier, I see the discrepancy between memory of experiences (past), ongoing experience (present), and idealized experience (future) as essential components of consciousness. The key to consciousness is experience.

 

[PolyHedral]

I think that any attempt to replicate intelligent behavior ultimately leads to the creation of consciousness.

I'd disagree. Intelligence would be displayed by the ability to predict the future and then use those predictions to further some goal. IMO, consciousness only arises if that intelligence is turned back on itself and asked to predict its own reactions. Not all intelligence entities would necessarily do that.

 

[Riverwolf]

What about the subconscious mind? Why is this able to influence the conscious mind in such a strong way, without the conscious mind being aware of it? If it's unconscious, how can it exert such a strong impact, and why then to we call it simply "sub"conscious? Is that term accurate?

 

[Penumbra]

I find myself more in agreement with those who object to Chalmer's "thought experiment", particularly Minsky. Chalmer's seems to assume that consciousness itself is separable from its constituent parts--that it can exist as a separate aspect of the mind. That begs the question.

I think that any attempt to replicate intelligent behavior ultimately leads to the creation of consciousness. Like I said earlier, I see the discrepancy between memory of experiences (past), ongoing experience (present), and idealized experience (future) as essential components of consciousness. The key to consciousness is experience.

I've seen the argument before that increasing complexity of interacting and experience components necessary leads to consciousness, but so far I haven't been convinced by it at all.

Robotic assembly lines have gotten so complex these days, being able to do physically difficult tasks quicker and more precisely than humans in many cases. And various microcontroller or computer systems can control complex systems and make decisions, or play Jeopardy. And yet, I don't see these things increasing in consciousness at all. The very structure of how humans program seems very different from how the brain works.

I don't see it as inconceivable that with continued advancement, a computer could eventually replicate a human personality without actually having consciousness. It's already at a level where it can basically replicate the behavior of bugs.

I would have to see pretty convincing evidence that consciousness naturally arises when it comes to complexity of behavior. Until then, I don't view it as necessary at all.

 

[Copernicus]

I'd disagree. Intelligence would be displayed by the ability to predict the future and then use those predictions to further some goal. IMO, consciousness only arises if that intelligence is turned back on itself and asked to predict its own reactions. Not all intelligence entities would necessarily do that.

I'll use an anecdote to help explain why I disagree with you on this point. A few years ago, I witnessed an impressive simulation demonstration at a NASA site of an astronaut commanding two mars rovers to help in a surveying task. At one point, the astronaut asked the rover to go to a particular stone and photograph it. The robot just sat there. It wouldn't budge no matter what the astronaut or command center told it to do. Later, it was found that one of its sensors was occluded, which left it unable to execute a move-forward action. It had just sat there, because the programmers had not put any ability in those rovers to report on their own status and serviceability. The robots were not "self-aware" of their bodies, actions, and progress, so they could not explain what was wrong when they got stuck. They could only obey orders, and, if nothing went wrong, carry out those orders. The "lesson learned" was that some degree of self-awareness was essential in order the robots to behave intelligently. Animals are self-aware, because they are less successful at achieving goals if they have no real awareness of their own status. When things go wrong, you have to be able to diagnose the problem in order to fix it.

What about the subconscious mind? Why is this able to influence the conscious mind in such a strong way, without the conscious mind being aware of it? If it's unconscious, how can it exert such a strong impact, and why then to we call it simply "sub"conscious? Is that term accurate?

I doubt that there is any single entity that would count as a "subconscious mind". Rather, there is a lot of mental activity that a brain produces which is never stored in memory. Certainly, the autonomous nervous system is a good example of that. We can consciously control our breathing, but normally we do not.

Robotic assembly lines have gotten so complex these days, being able to do physically difficult tasks quicker and more precisely than humans in many cases. And various microcontroller or computer systems can control complex systems and make decisions, or play Jeopardy. And yet, I don't see these things increasing in consciousness at all. The very structure of how humans program seems very different from how the brain works.

I agree, but modern AI does not really replicate how the brain works. It attempts to simulate intelligent behavior at a very high level, but it is really impossible for programmers, who do not really understand how the brain works, to create programs that approach the structure or complexity of a working brain.

I don't see it as inconceivable that with continued advancement, a computer could eventually replicate a human personality without actually having consciousness. It's already at a level where it can basically replicate the behavior of bugs.

I wish our programs were even that advanced, but it is a lot easier to simulate intelligent behavior than to replicate it.

I would have to see pretty convincing evidence that consciousness naturally arises when it comes to complexity of behavior. Until then, I don't view it as necessary at all.

Proof of necessity is rather a high standard to expect, but there is there any reason to believe that consciousness can exist independently of brain activity? There is still the fact that we can correlate mental states with physical activity in a brain. Why would such a correlation even exist if consciousness were not fully dependent on brains?

 

[Riverwolf]

I doubt that there is any single entity that would count as a "subconscious mind". Rather, there is a lot of mental activity that a brain produces which is never stored in memory. Certainly, the autonomous nervous system is a good example of that. We can consciously control our breathing, but normally we do not.

Perhaps that's all the subconscious is, then? Mental activities which are not retained in memory?

...but, what is it that's retained in memory?

 

[atanu]

As a general note to everyone: Quantum observes are not necessarily conscious. Anything can count as an observer in QM, it just has to be a significantly large disturbance to the system.

For everyone: The blue highlighted part discounts the observer who is making this statement.

For PH: We have discussed all these things and you have rebooted again and again from the same assumption. When we assume such a beginning then there is no point to discuss further. I will just point out a few evident aspects.

The observation is that two entangled photons have correlated but random spins, regardless of separation. The mathematics tells us everything else, including the misleading idea of communication at a distance.

That is sufficient. Two apparent separated particles are not separated, although it sensually appears so. There is no distance and there is no time in singularity. Consciousness is unitary. In it the subject and object arise.

Mental judgements appear as a matter of interpretation. They are computations, and the material components are the computer.

That requires an intelligent integrator.

That's logically impossible. Some arrangement of physical processes gives rise to judgement, (you allow this, only with the stipulation it must be programmed) and so why should it be impossible to nature to stumble on that arrangement by evolution?

You are puting wrong words into my mouth. I hold that computers, howsoever advanced, have no judgement of their own. They can carry out instructions just as any machine. From your assumption, a thermostat also shows evidence of consciousness. But no. A thermostat merely reflects the intelligence of its designer in a limited way.

You are superimposing your power of judgement on algorithm.

No, but I have seen programs produce results that the programmers did not expect or understand.

Zombies-Robots, howsoever advanced, do not do such mistakes in executing programs, however. You prove yourself wrong.

A living and dead brain do not have equal oxygen intake or electrical output. A living brain has structure and communication which a dead brain does not.

So, feed it more oxygen and bring it back. Or rather, the brain itself being equal to intelligence-life, as per you and Copernicus, should be able to arrange for it -- get more oxygen and live..

It might be true that we don't know we know anything without consciousness, but IMO it's still true whether or not anyone knows it. 2+2=4 is invariant regardless of whether anyone is there to know it or not.

Yes. Universe is just indeterminate without an observer -- the questions of existence or non-existence does not arise .
..............

 

[atanu]

I'd disagree. Intelligence would be displayed by the ability to predict the future and then use those predictions to further some goal. IMO, consciousness only arises if that intelligence is turned back on itself and asked to predict its own reactions. Not all intelligence entities would necessarily do that.

I am surprised by this however -- to some extent.

 

[atanu]

-----In other words, consciousness has a functional role to play that is directly related to the nature of a moving body. There is no functional role for self-awareness beyond the needs of a moving body. Therefore, it makes no sense that consciousness would exist outside of bodies or extend beyond the life of a body.

The main argument in this thread is highlighted above.

Since earth is a moving body and its life outlasts all bodies in it put together, so, it makes no sense to deny consciousness beyond individual ephemeral moving bodies of beings that take birth and die.

(Note: If it is accepted that the proposition was not formed accurately, then we can, perhaps, have another thread, with more accurate proposition.)

 

[Penumbra]

I agree, but modern AI does not really replicate how the brain works. It attempts to simulate intelligent behavior at a very high level, but it is really impossible for programmers, who do not really understand how the brain works, to create programs that approach the structure or complexity of a working brain.

I wish our programs were even that advanced, but it is a lot easier to simulate intelligent behavior than to replicate it.

Keep in mind why this discussion between me and you began. I agreed with your OP in general, but disagreed with a specific and fairly important part.

You said (in a later post):
"Consciousness exists because bodies that move need to be aware of their own condition and surrounding conditions in order to survive."

And I pointed out the conceivable existence of philosophical zombies, or creatures that can perform all of the same functions as a conscious entity but are not conscious. And I used the example of improving automation techniques as a practical example. But a biological example could conceivably exist too.

A system can conceivably be designed or have developed naturally such that it can monitor its own condition and the conditions of its surroundings, and to make decisions to accomplish some goal (survival, breeding, etc), without being conscious. My whole point is that although intelligent creatures do have consciousness, it's not necessary that they should. It was likely either luck or efficiency that led to that outcome- so it may be the best way, but not the only way, or it may not even be the best way, but the way that happened.

Pointing out that our automation techniques are not designed like a human brain rather misses the point, considering my point is that our brain doesn't have to be the way it is.

Proof of necessity is rather a high standard to expect, but there is there any reason to believe that consciousness can exist independently of brain activity? There is still the fact that we can correlate mental states with physical activity in a brain. Why would such a correlation even exist if consciousness were not fully dependent on brains?

I believe consciousness is fully dependent on the brain. Despite claims to the contrary, I haven't seen any significant evidence that consciousness can exist without a brain or something equivalent. But I see no reason to think it arises naturally with complexity, or is necessary for bodies that move and interact, or that it arises naturally with replicated intelligence. It's apparently something that must be a certain way for it to occur. The fact that our automation is getting exceedingly more advanced, with machine learning and complex decision making, but is not getting any more conscious, should be pretty good evidence for that.

 

[PolyHedral]

The "lesson learned" was that some degree of self-awareness was essential in order the robots to behave intelligently. Animals are self-aware, because they are less successful at achieving goals if they have no real awareness of their own status. When things go wrong, you have to be able to diagnose the problem in order to fix it.

But surely self-awareness is not the same thing as consciousness? Self-awareness is easy, to the point that all object-orientated programming languages contain a construct along the lines of "this" (It's even called "self" in Python.) which refers to the object itself.

For PH: We have discussed all these things and you have rebooted again and again from the same assumption. When we assume such a beginning then there is no point to discuss further. I will just point out a few evident aspects.

When did I say anything about a beginning?

That is sufficient. Two apparent separated particles are not separated, although it sensually appears so. There is no distance and there is no time in singularity. Consciousness is unitary. In it the subject and object arise.

There are some versions of string theory that produce an emergent, rather than a fundamental spacetime, but the thing at the bottom could not be described as "intelligence" in any sense of the term.

That requires an intelligent integrator.

The mental constructs do, sure, but surely the physical existence doesn't?

Zombies-Robots, howsoever advanced, do not do such mistakes in executing programs, however. You prove yourself wrong.

Well, it couldn't have been a zombie, could it?

What the engineers were trying to do was produce an electronic circuit to discriminate between two different voltage levels, and then output a specific signal in response. The system they evolved at the end of the test did exactly that in very few parts, but had a very odd characteristic. There were 5 parts that were not electrically connected to the circuit at all, but the circuit failed completely if they were removed. AFAIK, nobody, not even the engineers, understood why this was.

So, feed it more oxygen and bring it back. Or rather, the brain itself being equal to intelligence-life, as per you and Copernicus, should be able to arrange for it -- get more oxygen and live..

Do you have 100 years or so worth of nano-machine development hidden somewhere? Because you could resurrect the brain, if you had tools and understanding accurate to the atomic level.

Yes. Universe is just indeterminate without an observer -- the questions of existence or non-existence does not arise .
..............

Pick three numbers and call them a, b and c. They don't have to be positive, integral or even in a certain range. Try picking numbers that it's unlikely anyone's ever considered before.

Now, there must be some value for x so that a*x^2+b*x+c=0. But nobody's ever considered your three numbers before, and so nobody's ever considered that particular equation before. But it can be proven that, no matter what your numbers are, my equation has two solutions. Thus, the solutions exist despite the fact that no conscious observer has ever considered them. The same applies to reality. It is true that it exists, even if there is nobody there to question it.

 

[Copernicus]

Perhaps that's all the subconscious is, then? Mental activities which are not retained in memory? ...but, what is it that's retained in memory?

This is a technical question that is best asked of psychologists. There is a vast body of literature on the subject. As for the "subconscious mind", I believe that it is something of an urban legend. It is just mental activity that we are not fully conscious of. I suspect that we mainly just retain memories of those events that we are fully conscious of and that the mind ranks for significance.

 

[Copernicus]

Keep in mind why this discussion between me and you began. I agreed with your OP in general, but disagreed with a specific and fairly important part.

Yes. I'm trying to figure out exactly what you disagree with and how it affects my argument.

You said (in a later post):
"Consciousness exists because bodies that move need to be aware of their own condition and surrounding conditions in order to survive."

And I pointed out the conceivable existence of philosophical zombies, or creatures that can perform all of the same functions as a conscious entity but are not conscious. And I used the example of improving automation techniques as a practical example. But a biological example could conceivably exist too.

My response to this is that autonomy is necessarily moving towards greater self-awareness in machines because the goal of autonomous moving machines naturally selects for it. Robots that cannot report on the condition of their own bodies do not meet the expectations of their creators. To claim that a biological "philosophical zombie" could exist strikes me as begging the question. We have to examine the role of self-awareness in behavior and determine that its role is insignificant. My intuition is that it is not, because I see a very significant role for self-awareness. That is why we are not the only self-aware animals. (And I do not think of self-awareness of just the "litmus test" of being able to recognize one's own image in a mirror. That is too crude a test.)

A system can conceivably be designed or have developed naturally such that it can monitor its own condition and the conditions of its surroundings, and to make decisions to accomplish some goal (survival, breeding, etc), without being conscious...

I will concede the logical possibility but not its plausibility. For one thing, I do not think that consciousness is something one either has or doesn't have. It is a mental condition that waxes and wanes. People do suffer brain trauma (e.g. a lobotomy) that robs them of some degree of self-reflection, but it is doubtful that such conditions are survivable without outside help to sustain those individuals. I think that natural selection leads to conscious awareness in intelligent beings (whether biological or intelligently designed).

My whole point is that although intelligent creatures do have consciousness, it's not necessary that they should. It was likely either luck or efficiency that led to that outcome- so it may be the best way, but not the only way, or it may not even be the best way, but the way that happened.

My response is that evolution (natural selection) is not accidental. The ability to reflect on one's self and one's surroundings is a survival trait that naturally emerges in bodies that evolve intelligent survival strategies.

I believe consciousness is fully dependent on the brain. Despite claims to the contrary, I haven't seen any significant evidence that consciousness can exist without a brain or something equivalent. But I see no reason to think it arises naturally with complexity, or is necessary for bodies that move and interact, or that it arises naturally with replicated intelligence. It's apparently something that must be a certain way for it to occur. The fact that our automation is getting exceedingly more advanced, with machine learning and complex decision making, but is not getting any more conscious, should be pretty good evidence for that.

We are mostly in agreement, but the difference is in what we think of the importance of the role of consciousness in survival is. Is consciousness a component of intelligence that can be subtracted out and still leave intelligence in place? To answer that question, we really need to define what we mean by "intelligence", and we haven't really done that here. Then we have to figure out how consciousness affects behavior. How differently would an "unconscious" automaton behave from a "conscious" one? I don't think we are at the stage yet where we can think of consciousness as a separable component of human cognition. I tend to think of it as a systemic component of interacting mental systems, particularly systems that monitor discrepancies between past and current events and calculate probable future events on that basis.

As for robotics, I think that people look at machines that look or behave like humans, and they tend to overestimate the degree to which such machines are behaving "intelligently". We are all prone to the "Clever Hans" phenomenon.

 

[Copernicus]

But surely self-awareness is not the same thing as consciousness? Self-awareness is easy, to the point that all object-orientated programming languages contain a construct along the lines of "this" (It's even called "self" in Python.) which refers to the object itself.

Excellent point. (BTW, I'm a Lisp programmer. Python is dumbed-down Lisp. Object-oriented programming came out of CLOS--Common Lisp Object System.) Self-reference should not be confused with self-awareness. Self-awareness is the ability to reflect on one's own condition (which corresponds to the central nervous system). It goes together with awareness of non-self (which corresponds to the peripheral nervous system). Actually, there are parts of the peripheral system (see proprioception) that are dedicated to self-awareness.

I agree with you that consciousness is something more than self-awareness, although I have been (somewhat sloppily) using the two synonymously. I think of self-awareness as an essential ingredient of consciousness. But there is a lot more to it. For one thing, we have a very rich imagination--something that is not either self-awareness or awareness of non-self. Past (memory), present (perception), and future time reference (imagination) is built into all human language systems. I see consciousness as requiring all three components besides self-awareness and awareness-of-non-self in order to exist.

 

[atanu]

Excellent point. (BTW, I'm a Lisp programmer. Python is dumbed-down Lisp. Object-oriented programming came out of CLOS--Common Lisp Object System.) Self-reference should not be confused with self-awareness.

Yes. self can be shown to be anything by defining it in a fashion. That does not make any program a self.

I am waiting for the following:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2457194-post69.html

 

[atanu]

Do you have 100 years or so worth of nano-machine development hidden somewhere? Because you could resurrect the brain, if you had tools and understanding accurate to the atomic level.

Then talk to me after 100 years. Do not claim now.

You are confusing yourself. I did not talk about you, who are a product of neurons. I talked about brain which was, as per you, the source of self and the intelligence. So, the physical brain, being the self, should work eternally by drawing in oxygen? The point was that physical brain as such with all the measurable properties is intact in a dead body but it is not intelligent. So, physical brain is not same as conscious principle that pervades it.

Pick three numbers and call them a, b and c. They don't have to be positive, integral or even in a certain range. Try picking numbers that it's unlikely anyone's ever considered before.

Now, there must be some value for x so that a*x^2+b*x+c=0. But nobody's ever considered your three numbers before, and so nobody's ever considered that particular equation before. But it can be proven that, no matter what your numbers are, my equation has two solutions. Thus, the solutions exist despite the fact that no conscious observer has ever considered them. The same applies to reality. It is true that it exists, even if there is nobody there to question it.

So? How does that disprove consciousness?

In sleep, you are unconscious. Can you then say that " a mathematical formula exists"? Similarly, if the universe was unconscious no mathematical formula/algorithm would be known.

All the questions discussed in this thread; QM, Evolution, and evidences would not arise in absence of consciousness and endowed conscious individuals. Even Copernicus would not be there to create this thread.

You only help to prove that consciousness exists independent of matter, which is its sensual product -- else no universe would exist.

 

[Copernicus]

Originally Posted by Copernicus: In other words, consciousness has a functional role to play that is directly related to the nature of a moving body. There is no functional role for self-awareness beyond the needs of a moving body. Therefore, it makes no sense that consciousness would exist outside of bodies or extend beyond the life of a body.

Since earth is a moving body and its life outlasts all bodies in it put together, so, it makes no sense to deny consciousness beyond individual ephemeral moving bodies of beings that take birth and die.

You have made the mistake of equivocating on the word "body". I used the word to refer to the bodies of living beings, whose survival depends on how well they can navigate constantly-changing environments. The Earth is not a "body" in that sense. It cannot die, nor can it guide its own path. It does not produce "offspring" that could evolve. Hence, your analogy fails on a number of levels.

 

[atanu]

You have made the mistake of equivocating on the word "body". I used the word to refer to the bodies of living beings, whose survival depends on how well they can navigate constantly-changing environments. The Earth is not a "body" in that sense. It cannot die, nor can it guide its own path. It does not produce "offspring" that could evolve. Hence, your analogy fails on a number of levels.

So, its just not bodies but living bodies? My analogy fails on no ground. I just wanted to make your proposition more clear.

1. So, what is origin of this life? Has science unequivocally determined it? Please do not give science fiction as evidence.

2. You say "Awareness of the environment is necessary, because that allows the (living) body to survive rapidly changing conditions." So, you imply a purpose.

3. So, can or can there be not a purpose for the nature/universe to give rise to a body with sensual abilities?

 

[Copernicus]

So, its just not bodies but living bodies? My analogy fails on no ground. I just wanted to make your proposition more clear.

All analogies fail at some point. That is why they are considered logical fallacies in an argument. Analogies are useful for explaining new concepts, but they can mislead people into thinking that they are making a logical connection rather than merely pointing out a false analogy.

1. So, what is origin of this life? Has science unequivocally determined it? Please do not give science fiction as evidence.

What? I can't use Star Wars to prove my point? :faint: Scientists tend to believe that abiogenesis is the origin of life--the gradual evolution of complex molecules, which only became possible after stars formed and matured to the point of going nova. That provided the heavy elements necessary to generate life.

2. You say "Awareness of the environment is necessary, because that allows the (living) body to survive rapidly changing conditions." So, you imply a purpose.

But not an intelligent purpose. Evolution is a completely mindless process. When a life form evolves a structure that selects its progeny for better chances of survival, one can use the word "purpose" metaphorically to describe the change as one that serves a purpose. All it really does, though, is make it statistically more likely that the new structure will be inherited more often than not because it will produce more copy-making versions of the host organism. There is no intelligent design.

3. So, can or can there be not a purpose for the nature/universe to give rise to a body with sensual abilities?

One can speculate that, but we have no evidence of purpose to the universe. What is the "purpose" of a rock? If someone picks it up and throws it at another person, is its "purpose" to serve as a weapon? In the mind of the thrower, that is perhaps how it is viewed. Objectively speaking, however, it does not have a purpose.

 

[PolyHedral]

Then talk to me after 100 years. Do not claim now.

We seem to have dropped the distinction between theoretical possibility and practical possibility. If I can resurrect a brain with technology 100 years in the future, it must have always been theoretically possible to do it. If we can build a concious computer program some indefinite time in the future, it must have always been the case that it is purely a product of computation.

You are confusing yourself. I did not talk about you, who are a product of neurons. I talked about brain which was, as per you, the source of self and the intelligence. So, the physical brain, being the self, should work eternally by drawing in oxygen? The point was that physical brain as such with all the measurable properties is intact in a dead body but it is not intelligent. So, physical brain is not same as conscious principle that pervades it.

And the bold point is what I object to. A dead and a living brain have quite clear, measurable, physical differences between them.

In sleep, you are unconscious. Can you then say that " a mathematical formula exists"? Similarly, if the universe was unconscious no mathematical formula/algorithm would be known.

True, but they would still exist. The tree falling in the forest still disturbs the air, even if nobody is around to watch it.