We could build an artificial brain that believes itself to be conscious. Does that mean we have solved the hard problem?

[Speakpigeon]

However, I certainly don't believe that anyone has the faintest idea how we could bestow subjective consciousness on a robot brain.

We've already explained how to do it in this very thread, so to say nobody has the faintest idea is just ignorant: Whole Brain Emulation.

And I still haven't the faintest idea how that could possibly relate to subjective consciousness. What that could conceivably do is achieve objective consciousness, nothing more than that as far as I can tell.

Rejecting this as a valid path to subjective consciousness requires you to explain how human consciousness is both subjective *and* non-physical in nature.

I'm not saying that subjective consciousness is necessarily disconnected from objective consciousness. I also accept that it is at least conceivable that subjective consciousness could be routinely achieved in a robot. However, what I don't see at all for the moment is any convincing explanation that "brain complexity" is either necessary or even helpful. As I already said, I can conceive of ants and spiders possessing subjective consciousness. What that tells me is that people arguing this AI "pathway" just don't know what they're talking about (except maybe when they're merely arguing objective consciousness).

There are currently at least two major scientific projects underway in the world aimed at whole brain emulation with large amounts of funding behind them. This isn't "far off future" stuff. This isn't even "maybe in our lifetimes" stuff. We're talking about full human brain emulation by the mid 2020's.

You really believe that these projects, which will cost billions, have been justified to the European Commission and the U.S government by the urge we all have somehow at last to create some sort of subjectively conscious machine? This is not a movie. The reality is that most of the people involved in these projects believe we don't need the hypothesis that human beings possess subjective consciousness at all. The game is entirely to investigate, understand and ultimately reproduce the objective capabilities of the human brain, and then, hopefully, some.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I suppose he thinks that if he imagines a 7 is conscious, it will all the sudden light a cigarette and crack a beer while it leans nonchalantly against the wall.

I am the one.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Since Michael Graziano's article is about a robot emulating human consciousness as we subjectively experience it ("brain experiences its own data") it seems you are following a derail.

My statement was in response to Dystopian's post in which he said "Plus, the requirement you are positing here means it must behave like a *human*; but why should that be the requirement?"

I was merely trying to point out that I did not think that a consciousness would need to behave like a human. It may be something of a derail from discussion of the article, but then again, the same can be said of other responses in this thread.

Sorry, I somehow misread your idea! You had indeed a good point.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

This is a science forum so everything need be based on evidence. Looking inside ourselves and coming to know (knowing) isn't permitted.

Looking into yourself can only provide evidence, literally. You won't ever get better evidence than that.

It's also very much permitted. More, the mechanism by which we do it has no doubt been hammered out by evolution and we probably nearly all do it for this reason.

Ok, you don't need to believe just me, because there are (at least) seven billion obervers on this planet alone, not counting the chimps and the dolphins. All you need is fire off those rusty neurons of yours and see how it works.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Yes.
EB







PS. Hey, it's funny too because in fact it's also true that science generally is quite accurately described by this process. Scientists invent "laws of nature" until Mother Nature kicks them in the groin and they have to go back to the drawing board. The real difference then is that reductionists go straight for the most microscopic law, or rule really, they can think of, while others, like behaviourists for instance , prefer to think in terms of, as you say, "macro rules". Although to be fair, the macro-rule types started investigating the complete human brain really at the dawn of humanity while the micro-rule types are still not investigating anything so big as a brain. The breakthroughs seem to be made by the micro-rule types but I believe that the macro-type ideas are not altogether useless. They're doing what is essentially philosophy plus experimentation except they actually learn nothing from being shown wrong since they will keep at the same method again and again.

The only thing you miss is that reductionists have had about 600 years of continued advances while macro-theorists recycle to the latest reductionist baseline about every 20 years or so.

Read again. You just missed the bit showing I didn't miss anything.

Not getting any better at it, are you?
EB

 

[Togo]

This isn't "far off future" stuff. This isn't even "maybe in our lifetimes" stuff. We're talking about full human brain emulation by the mid 2020's.

Full? No. Something that works sort of like a brain and produces some interesting results, sure. We did something similar in the early 90s. They're fun to play with, but once you realise that they don't work the same way as a brain, people lose interest.

 

[fromderinside]

The only thing you miss is that reductionists have had about 600 years of continued advances while macro-theorists recycle to the latest reductionist baseline about every 20 years or so.

Read again. You just missed the bit showing I didn't miss anything.

Not getting any better at it, are you?
EB

I'm not sure macro forever without progress, but maybe not useless, balances against continuous with progress for 600 years or so. Genetics aren't designed to discover new or organize into wholes. Its there only to be good enough at the time. Since we already know from micro types - reductionists for those who insist on having everything spelled out and that being done in orderly fashion - that things are winding down - its the second law fergoodnessake - if there is a 'purpose beyond being 'good enough' genetics has not enough time or space to get the job done.

In conclusion, you didn't just miss it you still don't realize what you missed.

Really, although I've studied Introspective method for decades I have yet to find anyone, anything discovered by anyone, that even suggests reality is being addressed beyond 'now'. If you want to discuss 'now' theory I suggest you refer either this or that Zeno. To get you in tune you first should start with Plato's cave analogy and apply it to the one analyzing. You might get a hint what your apparent approach is up against.

BTW what you talk about hos little to do with science method or theory.

 

[Togo]

The only thing you miss is that reductionists have had about 600 years of continued advances while macro-theorists recycle to the latest reductionist baseline about every 20 years or so.

Well, sort of. Reductionists describe themselves as having had 600 years of continuous advances, because they like to apply reductionism to their own history, cutting out the bits that don't fit and reducing it down to a simple narrative. Meanwhile Macro Theorists keep on putting out new theories on which to base further research. If that research works, it's called reductionism, and if it doesn't, it isn't. The problem is that you're actually describing one method, the scientific method, and trying to distinguish between two different sets of emphasis. So Newton's equations on gravitation get labelled as reductionist, even though they were embedded in an attempt to flesh out a macro theory about alchemical attraction.

In other words, it's like all reductionism. It's quite useful to see science as uninterrupted advancement, but it doesn't noticeably fit the facts. If you don't care about that detail, then you're a reductionist, if you do, you're a macro theorist.

What you're trying to do is what most avowed reductionists end up trying to do - use reductionism to plug your own favoured macro theory. Conveniently forgetting that reductionists don't get to do that, by definition.

 

[barbos]

I don't have a slightest idea what are you all talking about.

 

[Kharakov]

I don't have a slightest idea what are you all talking about.

In Soviet Russia, artificial brain believe you to be conscious.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Read again. You just missed the bit showing I didn't miss anything.

Not getting any better at it, are you?
EB

I'm not sure macro forever without progress, but maybe not useless, balances against continuous with progress for 600 years or so.

So you are really unable to read again a few lines and spot what you missed the first time round that contradicts your assertion that I missed "progress for 600 years". Sooo pathetic.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I don't have a slightest idea what are you all talking about.

In Soviet Russia, artificial brain believe you to be conscious.

Yeah, just them. For the rest of us he does manage to pass off as a machine trying and failing the Turing Test.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

I'm not sure macro forever without progress, but maybe not useless, balances against continuous with progress for 600 years or so.

So you are really unable to read again a few lines and spot what you missed the first time round that contradicts your assertion that I missed "progress for 600 years". Sooo pathetic.
EB

First I disagree with your aligning the two processes. They are different and they come from different perspectives. You capture one bit though. The macro types keep repeating the same flawed process over and over just like they do with rational proof.

 

[fromderinside]

Well, sort of. Reductionists describe themselves as having had 600 years of continuous advances, because they like to apply reductionism to their own history, cutting out the bits that don't fit and reducing it down to a simple narrative.

I chose the last 600 years because of the obvious branching of results from the time when reductionism came into vogue. Most people admit reductionism was present from the time of the cave man but religious , then rational thought, held sway leaving many discoveries to rot until rediscovered in the modern era. Your argument is hoist on its own petard.

 

[Togo]

Well, sort of. Reductionists describe themselves as having had 600 years of continuous advances, because they like to apply reductionism to their own history, cutting out the bits that don't fit and reducing it down to a simple narrative.

I chose the last 600 years because of the obvious branching of results from the time when reductionism came into vogue.

There was a huge upsurge of reductionism in 1415, with an obvious branching of results? I refer you to my earlier comment.