Pantheism and panpsychism

[veclock]

That is why I don't believe there is any "easy" problem of consciousness.

Nothing about it is easy.

Experience is both the creation of some "thing that can experience" a subject, but not only experience but experience with opinions and the triggering of memories and emotions which are also experienced as the experience happens, and experience is also all the things this "thing that can experience" can experience.

I reject the idea that the brain has any idea what the "mind" is experiencing.

The brain has reflexes and controls of some kind but it does not have a separate mind from the mind that is the subjective individual.

Only the subjective individual experiences the white horse.

The brain has no idea it is there.

Just like the gene has no idea what protein it leads to the brain has no idea what the mind it creates is experiencing.

Yes I agree on that. And a chess engine has no idea it's playing chess or what chess in.

That is simply human cultural evolution. It is nothing new.

Me talking to somebody is nothing new just because I can talk to strangers on line.

Human cultural evolution is what sets humans apart from all other animals.

Yes that is true. Well the internet makes it more connected and more complex, if complexity and integration is part of the equation, so that is new.
So what is your take on it? Can these systems also give rise to consciousness?

On the programming. We do have programming. Did you really have to learn that the smell of food should trigger hunger...

You're looking at the end result, a drive to eat, and thinking you know how it arises.

You say it arises because of programming.

I have no idea if that is how it arises. I have no idea how anything about subjective experience arises.

It is a completely unknown phenomena.

It's quite obvious that it arises out of evolution. And the software code would probably arise from how the brain is wired.

A philosophical zombie would react to the outside world exactly the way we do it, yet lack an inner experience.

I don't think they would.

We have these internal experiences because that is a trait that enabled survival.

Impossible to know how something without these internal experiences would do.

You claiming they would survive just fine is not data and I don't accept it.

Okey, so let's assume evolution gave rise to consciousness. Let's assume consciousness itself is a tool for survival.
I can create a simulation of evolution where artificial life compete for survival, and uses artificial neural networks to do so.
Do you think consciousness is present in these artificial neural networks? There's survival involved here too. In fact, everything we've talked about is involved.

Take this simulation as an example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sg-GgoFCP0

So these cars compete each simulation. They react to their environment with a neural network. After each round the winner has children with a few mutations, and the next generation repeats the cycle.
I'm arguing that this is a representation of life, death, reproduction, and brains. If consciousness is not present here, why not?

 

[untermensche]

Okey, so let's assume evolution gave rise to consciousness. Let's assume consciousness itself is a tool for survival.
I can create a simulation of evolution where artificial life compete for survival, and uses artificial neural networks to do so.
Do you think consciousness is present in these artificial neural networks? There's survival involved here too. In fact, everything we've talked about is involved.

Take this simulation as an example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sg-GgoFCP0

So these cars compete each simulation. They react to their environment with a neural network. After each round the winner has children with a few mutations, and the next generation repeats the cycle.
I'm arguing that this is a representation of life, death, reproduction, and brains. If consciousness is not present here, why not?

I think that is very interesting.

You have input then calculation then output.

But the action is limited to a track with walls on both sides.

If you went outside and drove on a dirt track with no walls and jumps the cars "programmed" with the walls would not do very well.

But a person with a mind could drive both a track with walls and a dirt track pretty well.

"Programming" might give you the ability to perform a limited number of skills very well.

But that is all you can do.

If you can play chess you can't even play checkers unless new programming is added.

A mind gives you more flexibility in performing tasks. You can use skills learned from any previous task to try to accomplish a new unique task.

 

[veclock]

I think that is very interesting.

You have input then calculation then output.

But the action is limited to a track with walls on both sides.

If you went outside and drove on a dirt track with no walls and jumps the cars "programmed" with the walls would not do very well.

But a person with a mind could drive both a track with walls and a dirt track pretty well.

"Programming" might give you the ability to perform a limited number of skills very well.

But that is all you can do.

If you can play chess you can't even play checkers unless new programming is added.

A mind gives you more flexibility in performing tasks. You can use skills learned from any previous task to try to accomplish a new unique task.

So let me see if I understand you correctly. You think consciousness arises in a "general intelligence", one that can jump between tasks, process in between, reflect, imagine, learn new ones, etc?

Does that mean you think that Artificial General Intelligence will be conscious, but not any separate applied AI like a chess AI?

"Programming" gives you the ability to perform any skill at any level.
Take this for example:

http://thispersondoesnotexist.com/

Each time you refresh, you'll see a new AI generated face. Photo realism that comes out of pure numbers in an artificial neural network.
The car example is just a very primitive example. Neural networks in generating faces is far more complex.

If you can play chess you can't even play checkers unless new programming is added.
After advancements in AI, this statements is wrong. DeepMind has come a bit towards general intelligence, a sort of "general game intelligence". The same AI can play a number of board games and video games.
All based on a neural network.

A mind gives you more flexibility in performing tasks. You can use skills learned from any previous task to try to accomplish a new unique task.
Yes, but all it is in the end is a neural network (brain) navigating a body in a world, using sensory input.
That's the case of the racing cars as well, only very simplified.

If the neural networks of the cars are not generating an inner experience then where's the boundry... Isn't an insect conscious either?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lu56xVlZ40M
Take a look at this, it's still a simple example but the AI develops the ability to plan ahead.

 

[untermensche]

So let me see if I understand you correctly. You think consciousness arises in a "general intelligence", one that can jump between tasks, process in between, reflect, imagine, learn new ones, etc?

I think humans do not make a bunch of calculations about the distance from a wall to drive a car.

The human understands they are driving a car and understand the idea is to not crash into the wall.

But driving is a skill that must be learned first.

Those robots didn't learn to drive on a road. They learned to not hit the wall.

If you take away the wall they have no idea what to do.

They are completely lost.

They are robots and they are totally literal. They have no ability to abstract or ability to ignore.

Does that mean you think that Artificial General Intelligence will be conscious, but not any separate applied AI like a chess AI?

I know I am conscious.

I believe other people are as well.

As far as a program on a computer?

I don't consciousness is possible with a computer. A computer runs calculations. It does not experience any of them.

"Programming" gives you the ability to perform any skill at any level.

You can't program a computer to write a great novel or to explain something we don't understand.

You could probably program one to write a third rate novel with errors.

Each time you refresh, you'll see a new AI generated face. Photo realism that comes out of pure numbers in an artificial neural network.

It is a composite face derived from bits of real people.

I know they call these things "neural" networks but they have no connection to real neurons. What they are is decision networks. Complicated decision trees.

The car example is just a very primitive example. Neural networks in generating faces is far more complex.

It is interesting work and it is a way to generate behavior.

But that does not in itself mean it generates behavior the way living organisms do it.

After advancements in AI, this statements is wrong. DeepMind has come a bit towards general intelligence, a sort of "general game intelligence". The same AI can play a number of board games and video games.
All based on a neural network.

Based on complex decision trees.

Computers allow for highly complex decision trees.

They do not have neurons or neural anything.

Yes, but all it is in the end is a neural network (brain) navigating a body in a world, using sensory input.

No.

It is a person knowing they are navigating in the world.

If the neural networks of the cars are not generating an inner experience then where's the boundry... Isn't an insect conscious either?

The boundary is where the human put it and it is what the human allowed the car to sense in some way.

Experiencing a bat in your house is more than sensing it. It is experiencing it and knowing it is there and wanting it out before it hurts itself.

Take a look at this, it's still a simple example but the AI develops the ability to plan ahead.

Again, that is very interesting.

The computer allows you to run millions of trials so a behavior can emerge.

But a species can't lose millions of times and survive. It has to win sometimes right out of the gate.

I think this stuff could be used to better understand evolution but I don't think it begins to explain consciousness.

 

[veclock]

I think humans do not make a bunch of calculations about the distance from a wall to drive a car.

Nor does these cars. They act intuitively. "Programming" a car would be like calculating the distance to the wall, the speed, calculate an angle to turn. Very mathematical
This is not the case here at all. It has senses that are processed and result in an intuition where to turn. It's not programmed, it's evolved. Alternatively, we are also programmed by evolution.

The human understands they are driving a car and understand the idea is to not crash into the wall.

But driving is a skill that must be learned first.

Those robots didn't learn to drive on a road. They learned to not hit the wall.

If you take away the wall they have no idea what to do.

They are completely lost.

They are robots and they are totally literal. They have no ability to abstract or ability to ignore.

Yeah because that would be like taking away all of their sensory input. All of their sensory input is derived from sight, or rather, rays shooting out from the car.
You're right, they would just drive around without an aim.

Take away all our sensory input. No touch, no light, no sound, no sense of up and down, no feeling of gravity, then we would probably also be completely lost.

I know I am conscious.

I believe other people are as well.

As far as a program on a computer?

I don't consciousness is possible with a computer. A computer runs calculations. It does not experience any of them.

The brain does calculations to.
A neuron connected to a bunch of neurons will fire the next nerve impulse if the incoming energy surpasses a threshold.
An artificial neuron does the same. What is or what is not a calculation depends only what we chose to categorize it as.
Us using different words will not change the nature of whether consciousness is present or not.

"Programming" gives you the ability to perform any skill at any level.

You can't program a computer to write a great novel or to explain something we don't understand.

You could probably program one to write a third rate novel with errors.

Oh here you're sooo wrong my friend. You can program this, and it will happen sooner than you think.
AI is already writing music, it's creating art that fools art critics. Quickly googling shows AI is making advancements in story telling as well, so novels are probably just a few years away.

As to explaining something we don't understand. Physicists like Krauss thinks that AI will be better than humans at solving physics at some point.
Then if it can also explain it back to us with words is probably also very likely, I'd bet on it.

AI can already diagnose certain diseases better than doctors do, and they are better at finding exoplanets too!

Each time you refresh, you'll see a new AI generated face. Photo realism that comes out of pure numbers in an artificial neural network.

It is a composite face derived from bits of real people.

Wrong again. It's looked at millions of faces and learned to generate them just using a neural network.
Did you really think it just copies and pastes one eye from one person and a nose from another?
In that case you need to catch up with the advancements in AI recent years.

I know they call these things "neural" networks but they have no connection to real neurons. What they are is decision networks. Complicated decision trees.

No connection to real neurons? The way they send signals between each other is totally based on how real neurons do it.
A decision network would be a tree of nested if statements.

The car example is just a very primitive example. Neural networks in generating faces is far more complex.

It is interesting work and it is a way to generate behavior.

But that does not in itself mean it generates behavior the way living organisms do it.

Ok which is the key difference, if you compare it to the simplest organism that you think is conscious? Take a worm with 300 neurons for example.

No.

It is a person knowing they are navigating in the world.

What is a person... a collection of atoms with electrons moving around in its head.
A vehicle of atoms navigating in a world of atoms.

I mean, in principle I can't see why a vehicle of pixels navigating in a pixel world, with artificial electrons moving around in a complex artificial neural network would be any different.
In our case, our world is so complex that part of driving is also standing still and planning and rewiring itself. That's what thinking is fundamentally, rewiring of the neural network in real time.
This can in principle be simulated on a computer. The difference is the level of complexity.

I'm curious to know, if we could simulate every quantum particle of a human body with a super computer, get the neurons in the brain to fire as they would in the real physical world,
would you think that simulated human is conscious?

If the neural networks of the cars are not generating an inner experience then where's the boundry... Isn't an insect conscious either?

The boundary is where the human put it and it is what the human allowed the car to sense in some way.

Experiencing a bat in your house is more than sensing it.
It is experiencing it and knowing it is there and wanting it out before it hurts itself.

You missed my question, let me ask you again in another way. If you compare all the brains in the animal kingdom, from humans at the top of complexity down to worms with 300 neurons... and from 300 neurons all the way down to one neuron.
Where on this scale does consciousness appear? Does it appear magically about a certain threshold of complexity, or is it a gradient down to a single

Take a look at this, it's still a simple example but the AI develops the ability to plan ahead.

Again, that is very interesting.

The computer allows you to run millions of trials so a behavior can emerge.

But a species can't lose millions of times and survive. It has to win sometimes right out of the gate.

I think this stuff could be used to better understand evolution but I don't think it begins to explain consciousness.

The reason I bring it up is I think it's very central for the discussion of consciousness.
Just to clarify, what I'm currently aiming at with this discussion is asking what is the key ingredient for consciousness, is it
A) the physics of a brain (neurons shooting electrons and artificial neurons only being "calculations" as you posed it) - then do we go back to electromagnetism being the key ingredient?
B) the structure of the brain (our brains having general intelligence/intuition, self awareness, concept of time, etc)

 

[untermensche]

Nor does these cars. They act intuitively. "Programming" a car would be like calculating the distance to the wall, the speed, calculate an angle to turn. Very mathematical
This is not the case here at all. It has senses that are processed and result in an intuition where to turn. It's not programmed, it's evolved. Alternatively, we are also programmed by evolution.

There are no cars. There are instruction for a computer to make a graphic a human recognizes as a car.

I'll address some more but I clearly don't understand exactly what is being done.

You have a graphic of a car and a graphic of lines coming out of the car extending to a wall.

What is making the graphic of the car move forward and what is making it turn?

A human is choosing the next generation based on viewing the progress of the graphic.

 

[untermensche]

No connection to real neurons? The way they send signals between each other is totally based on how real neurons do it.
A decision network would be a tree of nested if statements.

Real neurons are 3D objects that emit molecules that bind to receptors of various kinds. Here is a list of receptor types. They all act differently.



How exactly is a molecule binding to different receptor types and modulating the signal in this manner replicated in these so-called "neural" networks?

 

[veclock]

Nor does these cars. They act intuitively. "Programming" a car would be like calculating the distance to the wall, the speed, calculate an angle to turn. Very mathematical
This is not the case here at all. It has senses that are processed and result in an intuition where to turn. It's not programmed, it's evolved. Alternatively, we are also programmed by evolution.

There are no cars. There are instruction for a computer to make a graphic a human recognizes as a car.

I'll address some more but I clearly don't understand exactly what is being done.

You have a graphic of a car and a graphic of lines coming out of the car extending to a wall.

What is making the graphic of the car move forward and what is making it turn?

A human is choosing the next generation based on viewing the progress of the graphic.

True, they are abstractions.

What is making the car move forward and making it turn? Impulses of the neural networks.
Turn left, turn right, accelerate, break, would be the output nodes. Input is the senses from a number of rays casted from the car. In the middle is the brain, processing it.



You can compare it to us, our input layer is all our sensing cells, for example photoreceptors in the eye, the hidden layers is the brain, and the output layers is our muscles along with everything else the brain controls.
VERY simplified. In reality the brain of course is a networks of networks, where outputs not only leads to muscles but other parts of the brain, triggering thoughts etc.

A human is not choosing the next generation, in a genetic algorithm the program automatically makes the winner procreate.
It's not the best example, since it's a genetic algorithm with cars.
This is perhaps a better example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myJ7YOZGkv0
Because it's an evolutionary simulation with artificial life that each has its own neural network.

Maybe the best example currently in existence is this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r00FkkGFfrg
OpenWorm. They studied a primitive worm and mapped its biology into a simulation. It has only 300 neurons so it was doable.
Then simulating its senses, brain and muscle output digitally.
Look at the simulation in action: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2OBznK6HkI

Reason I asked you about worms earlier is that I wanted to know if you think they are conscious in real life, and what you think about a completely digital version.
Because if we would do it with a human, it could probably walk around and think to, but inside a computer. Reason why we can't do it is practical, we are too complex to map and too computationally expensive to simulate.
But in theory we could do it.

Real neurons are 3D objects that emit molecules that bind to receptors of various kinds. Here is a list of receptor types. They all act differently.
How exactly is a molecule binding to different receptor types and modulating the signal in this manner replicated in these so-called "neural" networks?

Binding to a receptor is what is triggering different neurons to fire. In the end it's all about electricity firing. You can take drugs that mimic these molecules and bind to the same receptors, triggering the same functions.
So it doesn't matter what molecules are involved, what matters is that the network is firing or not.
It would be possible to simulate real artificial atoms reacting with each others and then building an artificial neural network from that. Would that make a different in your view of would it still just be calculations?

Let's see if I can steelman your argument:
Although the same information flow can take place in an artificial neural network, you think consciousness arises when real physical forces are at play in this complex structure.
Even though electromagnetism is also involved in the computer, the flow of electrons would be different from the brain because electrons would flow back and forth between the processor and the computer memory, changing bits and variables here and there. I can sympathize with that view actually. If consciousness is the electromagnetic representation of a neural network, and not the information flow of a neural network.

There are other implications of this though. Leading from this, it's quite necessary for you to also view our consciousness as irrefutable proof that we do not live in a simulation.

Thank you for engaging in the discussion by the way, I appreciate having the discussion with you!

 

[untermensche]

What is making the car move forward and making it turn? Impulses of the neural networks.

What is the nature of the input?

Why should the graphic move forward because there is input?

Why did all the cars move forward on the first trial?

What is causing this forward movement?

 

[untermensche]

This is perhaps a better example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myJ7YOZGkv0
Because it's an evolutionary simulation with artificial life that each has its own neural network.

I don't accept the idea that these decision options are working like neurons.

It is interesting work though.

But it dictates what kinds of things can emerge.

A flying creature can't randomly emerge unless it is specifically programmed to be a possible development.

But in real evolution what emerges is totally random.

There are no rules dictating what kinds of things can emerge or what strategies might emerge.

 

[veclock]

What is making the car move forward and making it turn? Impulses of the neural networks.

What is the nature of the input?

Why should the graphic move forward because there is input?

Why did all the cars move forward on the first trial?

What is causing this forward movement?

So let's say there was a simulation of particles and forces, and from there self replicating beings with neural networks made out of these particles arose.
Even in this case, would it still "only be calculations" in your view?

I don't accept the idea that these decision options are working like neurons.

I already said this:
"It would be possible to simulate real artificial atoms reacting with each others and then building an artificial neural network from that. Would that make a different in your view of would it still just be calculations?"

You're skipping so much of my responses that you miss key points I'm trying to make.

A flying creature can't randomly emerge unless it is specifically programmed to be a possible development.

But in real evolution what emerges is totally random.

There are no rules dictating what kinds of things can emerge or what strategies might emerge.

I don't think the evolutionary history is relevant at all in regards to if something is conscious or not.
If you built a human atom by atom in the real physical world it would end up as conscious as we are, but lack the evolutionary history.

 

[untermensche]

So let's say there was a simulation of particles and forces, and from there self replicating beings with neural networks made out of these particles arose.
Even in this case, would it still "only be calculations" in your view?

I am saying it is an easy way to get things done.

You simply create these "decision nodes" that don't represent anything real.

Once you have created "decision nodes" of course some decisions will occur. The simulation is forced into specific kinds of outcomes, yet randomly occurring, based on the pre-designed "decision nodes".

But just because random decisions occur does not mean the simulation is working like neurons work to create decisions.

You're skipping so much of my responses that you miss key points I'm trying to make.

Yes. I am trying to not be too critical because this is interesting work and where it could lead is something I don't know.

I don't think the evolutionary history is relevant at all in regards to if something is conscious or not.

I don't think consciousness can be reduced to making decisions.

Consciousness is knowing a decision is necessary, and knowing a decision has been made, and having feelings about the decision that might effect a similar decision in the future.

If you built a human atom by atom in the real physical world it would end up as conscious as we are, but lack the evolutionary history.

You would only have to build one cell.

It would be a replica of something with an evolutionary history and have a similar nature with similar capacities as a result. And what it became would depend on it's experiences, like all people, not on how it was built.

 

[veclock]

I am saying it is an easy way to get things done.

You simply create these "decision nodes" that don't represent anything real.

Once you have created "decision nodes" of course some decisions will occur. The simulation is forced into specific kinds of outcomes, yet randomly occurring, based on the pre-designed "decision nodes".

But just because random decisions occur does not mean the simulation is working like neurons work to create decisions.

No, they can be designed so that the sum of the output nodes are resulting in the behavior. It's not turn left OR turn right. It's turn x amount of degrees where x is the sum of output 1+2+3+4+5. Some will be negative, some will be positive, the outputs together make up the behavior. I don't know how much you know about the theory behind this but it seems like you're not letting go of the thought that it's classical computational decision making. It's not.
I program these kinds of evolutionary simulations and neural networks myself, I know how they work.

Yes. I am trying to not be too critical because this is interesting work and where it could lead is something I don't know.

Fair enough, but you're leaving me in the dark. I don't know what your views are in all these areas, that's why I'm asking you questions to see where to focus the discussion,
but you just keep on coming back to this "it's not real neurons" multiple times, I don't wanna repeat myself yet again, it's totally pointless to have a discussion going in circles.

I don't think consciousness can be reduced to making decisions.
Consciousness is knowing a decision is necessary, and knowing a decision has been made, and having feelings about the decision that might effect a similar decision in the future.

So what is your response about OpenWorm?
What is your response to my question about the scales of brains, from one neuron, to insect brains, to lizards, mammals, all the way up to the human brain.

If you built a human atom by atom in the real physical world it would end up as conscious as we are, but lack the evolutionary history.

You would only have to build one cell.
It would be a replica of something with an evolutionary history and have a similar nature with similar capacities as a result. And what it became would depend on it's experiences, like all people, not on how it was built.

Not if you create it atom by atom early in the universe.

 

[untermensche]

No, they can be designed so that the sum of the output nodes are resulting in the behavior. It's not turn left OR turn right. It's turn x amount of degrees where x is the sum of output 1+2+3+4+5. Some will be negative, some will be positive, the outputs together make up the behavior. I don't know how much you know about the theory behind this but it seems like you're not letting go of the thought that it's classical computational decision making. It's not.

Each node is still a pre-designed "decision node" even if it's decision is only part of the pre-determined outcome.

I know very little about the theory behind this, but evolution is not pre-designed decision nodes being a part of pre-determined outcomes.

Evolution is random mutations and then the products of those mutations are tested against other life forms that are competing without the product of the mutation.

I program these kinds of evolutionary simulations and neural networks myself, I know how they work.

I know how biological evolution works.

Not everything about it of course. It is a large growing field.

I know the basics.

And evolution is not just change over time. It is a specific kind of change and it is directionless. There are no pre-determined outcomes.

Fair enough, but you're leaving me in the dark. I don't know what your views are in all these areas, that's why I'm asking you questions to see where to focus the discussion,
but you just keep on coming back to this "it's not real neurons" multiple times, I don't wanna repeat myself yet again, it's totally pointless to have a discussion going in circles.

All I can tell you is how these simulations compare to actual evolution.

Something that replicates the movement of a worm is not evidence the worm moves in that manner.

The researchers know what they want as an outcome.

I'm curious to know, if we could simulate every quantum particle of a human body with a super computer, get the neurons in the brain to fire as they would in the real physical world,
would you think that simulated human is conscious?

I don't believe a quantum particle can be simulated with a computer.

You can make some kind of abstraction.

If you compare all the brains in the animal kingdom, from humans at the top of complexity down to worms with 300 neurons... and from 300 neurons all the way down to one neuron.
Where on this scale does consciousness appear? Does it appear magically about a certain threshold of complexity, or is it a gradient down to a single

It begins when the organism has an experience and also knows they are having it.

Graphics that randomly reach pre-determined possible outcomes and move about as if conscious do not need to be thought of as conscious.

The pre-determined outcomes were specifically designed using human intelligence to give the appearance of conscious behavior.

The key to evolution is there is no intelligence anywhere. Nothing is predetermined.

Just to clarify, what I'm currently aiming at with this discussion is asking what is the key ingredient for consciousness, is it
A) the physics of a brain (neurons shooting electrons and artificial neurons only being "calculations" as you posed it) - then do we go back to electromagnetism being the key ingredient?
B) the structure of the brain (our brains having general intelligence/intuition, self awareness, concept of time, etc)

Neurons don't shoot electrons.

They emit transmitters that bind to protein receptors.

And there are many kinds of receptors in the brain. And they each have a different effect. A single cell could have several kinds of receptors. This modulates the effects of transmitters.

I really have no idea how consciousness could arise from cells stimulating one another with transmitters.

LSD shows how drastically perception can be changed by changing the effects of neurotransmitters. So neural transmission through neurotransmitters seems to be an essential component. I am not sure electricity is important. Cells can be excited by electric current but that does not mean electricity is involved since excitation of cells with electricity begins the chain of transmission with neurotransmitters.

MRI has no effect on consciousness and it passes a powerful magnetic field through the brain.

Not if you create it atom by atom early in the universe.

When you get there we'll talk about it.

 

[veclock]

Each node is still a pre-designed "decision node" even if it's decision is only part of the pre-determined outcome.

I know very little about the theory behind this, but evolution is not pre-designed decision nodes being a part of pre-determined outcomes.

Evolution is random mutations and then the products of those mutations are tested against other life forms that are competing without the product of the mutation.

I know how biological evolution works.

Not everything about it of course. It is a large growing field.

I know the basics.

And evolution is not just change over time. It is a specific kind of change and it is directionless. There are no pre-determined outcomes.

So what's cool about evolutionary simulations is that they work exactly like this. The artificial life forms in an evolutionary simulation also have random mutations, are tested against the others, and
any strategy that works can emerge. The racing example is quite pre-determined, I agree. In my own simulations I let the genes determine the body shape, muscles, and neural networks will control the muscles.
From there any body that works within the artificial physical forces will emerge out of true evolution. The only thing I program is a genetically determed creature, reproduction with mutation, food gathering and death from lack of food.
Something I often have used as a strong proof for evolution against creationists, that evolution can be replicated in a simulation. Because speciation even occurs in good simulators.

But that's a side track, let's get back to the subject.

All I can tell you is how these simulations compare to actual evolution.

Something that replicates the movement of a worm is not evidence the worm moves in that manner.

The researchers know what they want as an outcome.

No, it seems like I'm the one telling you how they compare to actual evolution

The researchers models the worm bottom-up, they simulate the muscles and all the 300 neurons of the worm, and out comes the natural behavior.
They still have progress of course. So what they are replicating is the sensory input from the environment and the neural activity in the worm, and out comes the movement.

I don't believe a quantum particle can be simulated with a computer.

You can make some kind of abstraction.

Probably not with a classical computer, but with a quantum computer.
So let's say it was done with a quantum super computer.

If you compare all the brains in the animal kingdom, from humans at the top of complexity down to worms with 300 neurons... and from 300 neurons all the way down to one neuron.
Where on this scale does consciousness appear? Does it appear magically about a certain threshold of complexity, or is it a gradient down to a single

It begins when the organism has an experience and also knows they are having it.

That's LITTERALY like saying "consciousness appears when consciousness appears".
I'm asking you what level of complexity is necessary.

Neurons don't shoot electrons.

They emit transmitters that bind to protein receptors.
And there are many kinds of receptors in the brain. And they each have a different effect. A single cell could have several kinds of receptors. This modulates the effects of transmitters.

Well yes true, what I meant was the action potential / neuron signal sent between neurons. Why I keep coming back to electrons is they are what is involved in the reactions of all molecules in
the body. So electromagnetism is the force at play, fundamentally. I don't know if consciousness is "made up" of matter like molecules (neurotransmitters), the physical forces at play (electromagnetism, or any other quantum effect), or the pure information flow at play.

I really have no idea how consciousness could arise from cells stimulating one another with transmitters.

LSD shows how drastically perception can be changed by changing the effects of neurotransmitters. So neural transmission through neurotransmitters seems to be an essential component. I am not sure electricity is important. Cells can be excited by electric current but that does not mean electricity is involved since excitation of cells with electricity begins the chain of transmission with neurotransmitters.

MRI has no effect on consciousness and it passes a powerful magnetic field through the brain.

Neither do I. Somehow it does.
But let me take this in another direction then. What about the ants nest?
I don't know where you stand on whether the ant is conscious or not.
But the ants nest as a system is even more complex than an ant, all the ants neurons combined are communicating, since the pheromones ants between will stimulate the individual ants neurons.
So you could view the nest as a larger brain spread out in individual ants. The ants nest shows more awareness of its surroundings, more intelligence etc than a single ant.
What are your thoughts on consciousness at the level of the nest?

When you get there we'll talk about it.

Haha, what makes philosophy possible is that we do not have to implement the things we are discussing.

 

[steve_bank]

My opinion is the OP sounds like Christian proofs of god.

Given the validity of the hypothesis the conclusion follows

Of course the hypothesis has no basis in reality.

A valid syllogism simply means no logical errors or fallacies in the arguments, does not mean it bares out in reality.
is just another form of the Abrahamic and other god forms.

A conscious universe implies an agent that can act with intent to affect outcomes.

 

[veclock]

My opinion is the OP sounds like Christian proofs of god.

Given the validity of the hypothesis the conclusion follows

Of course the hypothesis has no basis in reality.

A valid syllogism simply means no logical errors or fallacies in the arguments, does not mean it bares out in reality.
is just another form of the Abrahamic and other god forms.

A conscious universe implies an agent that can act with intent to affect outcomes.

Absolutely not. A conscious universe does not have to be able to act in any way. It could be passive but experiencing.
The argument is that there is a layer of experience to physics. Doesn't mean that this experience can affect physics, only that the experience is there.
Because, even in our brain its only the laws of physics running its course. One could argue that free will does not exist, which renders you being "an agent with intent" meaningless. It's still just atoms bouncing around in your head. Yet here you are with an inner experience of it, as a result of pure physics.

 

[untermensche]

A conscious universe implies an agent that can act with intent to affect outcomes.

A conscious entity would need a reason to have consciousness.

It would have to be doing something with it.

Like surviving in a hostile and unforgiving world.

 

[steve_bank]

My opinion is the OP sounds like Christian proofs of god.

Given the validity of the hypothesis the conclusion follows

Of course the hypothesis has no basis in reality.

A valid syllogism simply means no logical errors or fallacies in the arguments, does not mean it bares out in reality.
is just another form of the Abrahamic and other god forms.

A conscious universe implies an agent that can act with intent to affect outcomes.

Absolutely not. A conscious universe does not have to be able to act in any way. It could be passive but experiencing.
The argument is that there is a layer of experience to physics. Doesn't mean that this experience can affect physics, only that the experience is there.
Because, even in our brain its only the laws of physics running its course. One could argue that free will does not exist, which renders you being "an agent with intent" meaningless. It's still just atoms bouncing around in your head. Yet here you are with an inner experience of it, as a result of pure physics.

Again, tjis is like a Christian arguing for the existence of god, an assigning barberry attributes.

You asked for an opinion and I gave it. I have no interest beyond that.

 

[untermensche]

So what's cool about evolutionary simulations is that they work exactly like this.

No. 2D modeling using intelligence will never be an exact replica of 3D objects surviving in a 3D environment.

In my own simulations I let the genes determine the body shape, muscles, and neural networks will control the muscles.

Is this work you get paid for?

That is closer.

No, it seems like I'm the one telling you how they compare to actual evolution

I don't see you explaining anything about evolution to me.

It is a directionless process.

The second you limit outcomes to pre-determined "results" you have moved away from evolution.

The researchers models the worm bottom-up, they simulate the muscles and all the 300 neurons of the worm, and out comes the natural behavior.

It is a 2D model of a worm that appears to moving as a 3D worm might move.

But who knows?

It is not a 3D worm. And who knows how closely the activity of real life neurons has been replicated?

That's LITTERALY like saying "consciousness appears when consciousness appears".

Yes it could be one mutation that has a drastic effect on pre-existing complexity.

I'm asking you what level of complexity is necessary.

That's not a question any human can answer.

Look at the brain of a bee.

Now look at the incredible complexity of it's productive behavior.

Well yes true, what I meant was the action potential / neuron signal sent between neurons. Why I keep coming back to electrons is they are what is involved in the reactions of all molecules in
the body. So electromagnetism is the force at play, fundamentally. I don't know if consciousness is "made up" of matter like molecules (neurotransmitters), the physical forces at play (electromagnetism, or any other quantum effect), or the pure information flow at play.

You ignore my comments about MRI.

If electricity were involved in consciousness MRI would distort it.

I certainly don't think that consciousness is made up of matter.

But the activity of neurotransmitters and the internal activity of cells is what creates consciousness. The electric current along the cell membrane just quickly causes neurotransmitter to be released. The all-or-nothing feature of the membrane probably is why MRI has no effect on it.

In my opinion consciousness has nothing to do with electricity and the electrical activity we can record with EEG.

Cellular pathology and sleep can change the electrical activity and the EEG.

I think the electrical activity is just a side effect from the real activity, the cellular activity creating consciousness. Just like the blood flow is probably just a needed side effect and not involved in the production of consciousness.

People looking at possible quantum effects look inside the cell. They speculate that something or some activity inside the cell is involved in the creation of consciousness.

So consciousness may have something to do with the architecture within a neuron and not from anything that can be observed from outside the brain.

But the ants nest as a system is even more complex than an ant, all the ants neurons combined are communicating, since the pheromones ants between will stimulate the individual ants neurons.
So you could view the nest as a larger brain spread out in individual ants. The ants nest shows more awareness of its surroundings, more intelligence etc than a single ant.
What are your thoughts on consciousness at the level of the nest?

The pheromone is a stimulus to activity.

So it can direct activity and move activity around.

It is a shortcut to humans shouting "Hey come here and do this". More efficient.

This efficiency probably costs the insect "intelligence" and "consciousness".

When consciousness becomes more efficient than behavior guided by pheromones it will expand.

Humans have culture and cultural evolution.

The ant has no cultural evolution.

Haha, what makes philosophy possible is that we do not have to implement the things we are discussing.

I recently argued for pages that time travel is impossible and that topic is a little worn out right now.