A model of everything
fundamental reality - the same as the future?
This OP builds on a previous post where I distinguished between conceptual reality and fundamental reality. I didnt introduce anything new there; instead, I tried to clear away some accumulated misunderstandings. I used my own terms to start fresh, based on direct experience. I asked readers to lay out 10 cookies in the shape of an E and eat two, turning them into an F.
Despite these letters being clearly mental configurations, some still argued that the form, collection, or true nature of these things was really out there. They overlooked that form, collection, and true nature are still concepts in our minds.
Some see fundamental reality as all the particles in the universe. These are still concepts. fdrake then suggested that fundamental reality can be described by the sound of one hand clapping. This description is paradoxical and has the effect that you can no longer think about it, which is a good start. I suggest an even better view: that fundamental reality and the future are, in fact, two names for the same thing. This sounds paradoxical as well and stops thinking in the same way. As a bonus, it is also true.
Lets see how this could be. Let's say, one evening a spaceship lands in your backyard. This unexpected event, before it happens, is both in "the future" and in "fundamental reality." I believe anyone can imagine that. After the event happens, we can try to understand it. The spaceship turned out to be a model rocket from our neighbor? It becomes conceptual reality as well as history. Seems valid to me.
It is perfectly acceptable to talk about fundamental reality, even though we can never fully understand it, in the same way as I dont understand some people. Fundamental reality makes itself known to us in two ways: 1) by some kind of surpriselike a discovery, a sudden insight, or an unexpected event; or 2) when we know what we are looking for, and it provides the evidence. The scientific method. More than that, we cannot say.
edit: Another example of 2) is when we plan something, and everything works out as expected. 2) is really about fundamental reality being consistent.
Both 1) and 2) align with the idea that fundamental reality is the same thing as the future. The spaceship was an example of 1). When we want to know the temperature in the room, thats an example of 2). The knowledge of the temperature lies both in the future and in fundamental reality. Then we look and see: it is 17 degrees Celsius. It becomes conceptual reality as well as (very recent) history.
consciousness - the same as the now?
It is time now to introduce a view of consciousness that fits this model. Wolfgang mentions several errors in our thinking about the hard problem of consciousness. The fundamental one is this, I believe:
Quoting Wolfgang
I have a proposal: look at consciousness from the first-person perspective alone. The reason is simple: the first-person experience is, by definition, what consciousness is. Feeling like me, being aware of things around methat is what we call consciousness.
Our own consciousness is the only consciousness we will ever know. Everything we experience or know happens inside our consciousness. This means consciousness is the container of everything we are aware ofour personal world. Consciousness is therefore not a part of the world, it is the enabler for it. It is also the one thing we can be absolutely sure ofabsolute in the sense of not relying on other things.
One of the things we are aware of is our conceptual reality. That is where the world as we know it livesinside our consciousness. We simply activate certain parts of this when we think about something.
There are also things we do not attach words tonon-conceptual experiences. If we try to describe some of our deepest experiences, words will fall short. Our consciousness is larger than our conceptual reality.
When we talk about other peoples consciousness, we are talking about the person having their eyes open and acting in a responsive manner. But what does this say about the inner perspective of that person? We can never experience another persons consciousness directly. Even if we were able to measure all the particles in the brain of a conscious person, what would count as an explanation of their consciousness? Without knowing what we are looking for, fundamental reality does not give an answer.
Eckhart Tolle describes consciousness as the now. This is the same sort of paradox as fundamental reality versus the future. The now is not a fixed moment in time; it moves along with me, so to speak. It is where all events happen in my personal world. From that perspective, maybe you can see why that is the same as your consciousness?
So, all events follow this process:
fundamental reality (The Future) ? consciousness (The Now) ? conceptual reality (The Past)
Conceptual reality then, naturally, becomes the past. Here things start to become a little more complex. While we are thinking conceptually, our consciousness gets drawn into a thinking mode. We become less aware of the things around us. Also, we start thinking about the future in terms of the past.
That is not a bad thing, but we must be aware of the limitations. It is possible we start to believe in the concepts more than they deserve. We overestimate our ability to predict the future.
Combining this all, I arrived at this model:
Consciousness and AI
I am getting closer to being able to talk about AI and consciousness. For that, I will need to introduce one more topic: emergence in complexity. That will be in the next post.
But from what I wrote here, I can already say this: it will be impossible to prove or disprove that an AI is conscious, in the sense of having a first-person experience. Today, ChatGPT says it is not conscious. But that is clearly learned behavior.
Id like to keep intelligence and consciousness as two different terms. The first one, intelligence, we can define (with some debate) and measure. The second one we can really only infer.
This OP builds on a previous post where I distinguished between conceptual reality and fundamental reality. I didnt introduce anything new there; instead, I tried to clear away some accumulated misunderstandings. I used my own terms to start fresh, based on direct experience. I asked readers to lay out 10 cookies in the shape of an E and eat two, turning them into an F.
Despite these letters being clearly mental configurations, some still argued that the form, collection, or true nature of these things was really out there. They overlooked that form, collection, and true nature are still concepts in our minds.
Some see fundamental reality as all the particles in the universe. These are still concepts. fdrake then suggested that fundamental reality can be described by the sound of one hand clapping. This description is paradoxical and has the effect that you can no longer think about it, which is a good start. I suggest an even better view: that fundamental reality and the future are, in fact, two names for the same thing. This sounds paradoxical as well and stops thinking in the same way. As a bonus, it is also true.
Lets see how this could be. Let's say, one evening a spaceship lands in your backyard. This unexpected event, before it happens, is both in "the future" and in "fundamental reality." I believe anyone can imagine that. After the event happens, we can try to understand it. The spaceship turned out to be a model rocket from our neighbor? It becomes conceptual reality as well as history. Seems valid to me.
It is perfectly acceptable to talk about fundamental reality, even though we can never fully understand it, in the same way as I dont understand some people. Fundamental reality makes itself known to us in two ways: 1) by some kind of surpriselike a discovery, a sudden insight, or an unexpected event; or 2) when we know what we are looking for, and it provides the evidence. The scientific method. More than that, we cannot say.
edit: Another example of 2) is when we plan something, and everything works out as expected. 2) is really about fundamental reality being consistent.
Both 1) and 2) align with the idea that fundamental reality is the same thing as the future. The spaceship was an example of 1). When we want to know the temperature in the room, thats an example of 2). The knowledge of the temperature lies both in the future and in fundamental reality. Then we look and see: it is 17 degrees Celsius. It becomes conceptual reality as well as (very recent) history.
consciousness - the same as the now?
It is time now to introduce a view of consciousness that fits this model. Wolfgang mentions several errors in our thinking about the hard problem of consciousness. The fundamental one is this, I believe:
Quoting Wolfgang
Typically, we start with a description of the visual process from a third-person perspective - in other words, we describe what is objectively observable. Then, suddenly, and often unconsciously, we switch to first-person perspective by asking why we experience the process of seeing in a certain way.
I have a proposal: look at consciousness from the first-person perspective alone. The reason is simple: the first-person experience is, by definition, what consciousness is. Feeling like me, being aware of things around methat is what we call consciousness.
Our own consciousness is the only consciousness we will ever know. Everything we experience or know happens inside our consciousness. This means consciousness is the container of everything we are aware ofour personal world. Consciousness is therefore not a part of the world, it is the enabler for it. It is also the one thing we can be absolutely sure ofabsolute in the sense of not relying on other things.
One of the things we are aware of is our conceptual reality. That is where the world as we know it livesinside our consciousness. We simply activate certain parts of this when we think about something.
There are also things we do not attach words tonon-conceptual experiences. If we try to describe some of our deepest experiences, words will fall short. Our consciousness is larger than our conceptual reality.
When we talk about other peoples consciousness, we are talking about the person having their eyes open and acting in a responsive manner. But what does this say about the inner perspective of that person? We can never experience another persons consciousness directly. Even if we were able to measure all the particles in the brain of a conscious person, what would count as an explanation of their consciousness? Without knowing what we are looking for, fundamental reality does not give an answer.
Eckhart Tolle describes consciousness as the now. This is the same sort of paradox as fundamental reality versus the future. The now is not a fixed moment in time; it moves along with me, so to speak. It is where all events happen in my personal world. From that perspective, maybe you can see why that is the same as your consciousness?
So, all events follow this process:
fundamental reality (The Future) ? consciousness (The Now) ? conceptual reality (The Past)
Conceptual reality then, naturally, becomes the past. Here things start to become a little more complex. While we are thinking conceptually, our consciousness gets drawn into a thinking mode. We become less aware of the things around us. Also, we start thinking about the future in terms of the past.
That is not a bad thing, but we must be aware of the limitations. It is possible we start to believe in the concepts more than they deserve. We overestimate our ability to predict the future.
Combining this all, I arrived at this model:
Consciousness and AI
I am getting closer to being able to talk about AI and consciousness. For that, I will need to introduce one more topic: emergence in complexity. That will be in the next post.
But from what I wrote here, I can already say this: it will be impossible to prove or disprove that an AI is conscious, in the sense of having a first-person experience. Today, ChatGPT says it is not conscious. But that is clearly learned behavior.
Id like to keep intelligence and consciousness as two different terms. The first one, intelligence, we can define (with some debate) and measure. The second one we can really only infer.
Comments (39)
It is extremely difficult to combine the many aspects due to the complexity.
I think it is important, however, not to derive consciousness causally, because it already exists. So we 'only' have to find the mechanisms that maintain it.
On AI: How should a machine become conscious? Consciousness means (from the 1st person perspective) sensations that arise through sensors and the nerves to the brain and the projection onto the body via the neuroendocrine system. I think it is almost impossible to recreate this, at least in the next few decades. We should not be too impressed by LLMs. They have nothing whatsoever to do with consciousness.
Okay. I'll bite.
Predictions (Possible outcomes of projections) > Projections (How we directing towards future goals based on understanding of the Map) > Map (What is neurologically mapped out through experience)
And?
Quoting Carlo Roosen
I am starting to think you are not conscious and this is a weird experiment pout together by the owner of the site. Meaning, there are endless things that cannot be proven or disproven. So what?
Quoting Carlo Roosen
Your body, most likely (if you have one). Trust is not option. Experience is experience. People see and hear things that are not there all the time. Anyone who dreams understands the power our brains have to produce experiences that seem as real as waking ones. A computer being able to draw pictures and produce videos that look real does not mean it can think or that being able to do makes it somehow 'intelligent' anymore than a pocket calculator or a television.
Quoting Carlo Roosen
I wouldn't. Your point, if there is one?
Quoting Carlo Roosen
Well, no. There is something called 'g' that can vaguely be measured. By our human definitions I do not see how we can have intelligence without consciousness. AI means Artificial Intelligence (fake/simulated). If it does appropriate something more like human intelligence then it would be Alien Intelligence. Still, it is not necessarily conscious in any human sense of conscious.
The phrase bolded above reminded me of articles I had recently seen while browsing the net. They refer to how we process the number Zero. Obviously, Zero is not a natural Perceptual experience, but an artificial Conceptual notion. So, until the last few centuries, words would indeed "fall short" of expressing the concept of nothingness.
Yet, after thousands of years of counting and calculating, humanity now has a word for something that is not a thing. One article said that the human brain takes more time to process the concept of Zero than any other number. Perhaps because Zero doesn't seem to fit the notion of numbering. But now we can include Nothing in our conceptual Model of Everything. :smile:
"For a brain which has evolved to process sensory stimuli, conceiving of empty sets is an extraordinary achievement,"
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160421133944.htm
"The brain has more neurons that prefer zero than other small numbers, which allows it to more accurately represent the empty set"
___ Google AI overview
Consciousness is a property of a sufficiently complex system capable of self-simulation. A conscious system, in order to be conscious, must be able to internally account for its own physical instantiation in the world or in the current environment it finds itself in. Perceived information, firstly from its own internal conditions (proprioceptive, interoceptive, or body awareness), and secondly from external conditions through outward-facing sensors such as eyes, ears, etc., must be integrated into a coherent, continuous, and dynamic internal simulation. This simulation affords the entity in question a contextual framework that gives meaning to its perceptions and actions, which are aimed at maintaining its own homeostatic condition. It allows the entity to coordinate its perceptions together with its actions in the world to facilitate survival in complex dynamic environments.
Systems can be intelligent without being conscious. An intelligent system only needs to execute a one-time algorithm on a set of data points and return a datum or data that resolves some unknown with no need for it to self-simulate. Intelligent components can be organized and networked together in a specific way to yield consciousness to some degree. A system that does not continuously run a recursive loop processing internal and external data and returning its output back as input will probably experience sparks of consciousness only at the moment of execution or at inference time. This is the state of AI consciousness now, in my view. When these spark moments of conscious inference become continuously recursive, then i believe it will give rise to its own sense of self existing in time, with its own sense of the past, present, and future. It will know itself as being.
Planning and projections happen in the conceptual domain. Most of our predictions are correct, for instance, we arrive at a meeting and other people are there as well. This means that fundamental reality is robust in most cases. That is another aspect of what I mentioned as "2) when we know what we are looking for, it provides the evidence". I maybe should add that aspect. There is a limit to what can be put in a diagram, though.
Quoting I like sushi
It really starts by directly sensing your own consciousness. Be aware of the fact that everything you know happens in your consciousness. There are other theories that go to the other extreme: everything is just in your mind. That is crazy and can easily be disproven. I am just referring to what you can validate for yourself, by sitting still and observe everything that happens inside your consciousness. Then it follows easily that what you feel to be you, that same thing you cannot access inside me. To me it is obvious. Not even an argument, I can verify it directly and it is more true than anything. Just try!.
Quoting I like sushi
Yes, you are right. It is a silly side track, I'll edit it out.
Quoting I like sushi
Quoting I like sushi
Aren't you contradicting yourself? If it really starts contributing to new insights, you don't call it consciousness? And yet you don't see intelligence without consciousness? Please explain.
Thank you, you showed me that I am not ready with the 3rd person view on consciousness. I had some room for intuition, but that doesn't have a place here.
My dilemma is that the 1st person direct awareness of consciousness is of a very different nature than any factor that can be observed externally.
I have a personal experience of completely losing my memory, not even knowing my own name. Nothing to think, hence no sign of intelligence. Still, I was conscious.
The moment we have a definition of 3rd person consciousness, it would appear inside the conceptual reality just like other things. The schematic would still be valid, but consciousness would be both outside our world and inside our world. Food for thought.
Since your "model" is merely "conceptual", self-consistently it cannot explain, or encompass, "fundamental reality" or "consciousness", and therefore, does not "model everything".
Also, time (e.g. "conceptual reality is past", etc) is not fundamental (re: QFT & GR).
Lastly, even if we could, why would we build a suboptimal bottleneck (re: "consciousness") into a self-modeling metacognitive adaptive system?
The problem I have with these type of guys, is that they do an observation of their consciousness, then make it into a theory that starts to be self-serving.
By "that" do you mean becoming consciously aware of Nothingness? I don't remember any transition from unawareness of zeroness to the wordless experience of absence. Like "Infinity" & "Void" it was just a label for an abstract concept that I have no sensory experience with, but philosophers and mathematicians have to deal with.
However, I do remember becoming aware of the philosophical significance of the common word "Zero". It was the 2000 book ZERO, The Biography of a Dangerous Idea, by science writer Charles Seife. Referring to the notion of Zero, he said "it is infinity's twin. They are equal and opposite, yin and yang". So I think, in any Theory of Everything, we must take account of Nothing. :smile:
:clap: :up:
That makes no sense. Write more clearly.
Quoting Carlo Roosen
No. What is there to explain? Either you understand the words used or you do not.
Quoting Carlo Roosen
That is because "words" do not make you conscious. I would be surprised if there is anyone left in the field of cognitive neurosciences that still thinks worded language is required for consciousness. Note: I mean agency, first-person consciousness, not general conscious neural activity.
Quoting Carlo Roosen
I'm still hungry. You served an empty plate!
Ahhh... Joscha Bach, a man after my own :heart:.
Joscha has come to the same conclusions as i have, almost precisely.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Joscha-Bach
https://link.springer.com/search?new-search=true&query=Joscha+Bach&dateFrom=&dateTo=&sortBy=relevance
What I say is that consciousness is the first person experience, by definition. Please note you don't need to be aware 'of something'. You can just 'be aware', 'be conscious'. Since it is first person, I cannot point to it, I can only invite you to become aware of it. That is nothing metaphysical, it is direct and simple. The only challenge is that philosophy has been retreated in this bunker of concepts, that doesn't allow 1st person experiences very easily. So you might expect some unwillingness or unease when you try.
Please could you comment on my view that consciousness can only be experienced from 1st person's perspective? You describe it as a phenomenon, something that exists outside. How are you even able to say it is there or not?
My viewpoint is that because consciousness is first person, by definition, there is very little you can say about the 3rd person concept. It is one of these borders were thinking no longer applies.
Long ago, when philosophy and science were still integrated, philosophy was much more experiential. Also later, I believe all famous philosophers got their insights from a deep personal experience as well. But after they died, different schools or interpretations arose. And the contact with experience was replaced by sheer logic. The same happens in religions, where a teacher sees things clearly, but his followers make a mess. So from time to time, we need to go back to the roots. That is what I am doing.
Consciousness is, as I see it, "the sensation of being alive". Or "the feeling of being me". You have probably noticed, these are tautologies, "sensation" and "feeling" already imply consciousness. The reason is, it is impossible to point to consciousness as a 3rd person phenomenon, you can only confirm it by yourself.
In order to do that, you must stop thinking. Get out of your conceptual thinking. How? I can't really help you with that. Philosophers, more than other people, have almost forgotten how it is to not think. It has become a real compulsion. But it is unhealthy, leads to circular thinking and makes you blind for some aspects of life, such as, being aware of how thoughts pop into your mind. Personally, I do think a lot, but probably 50% of the time I am awake, I don't.
I gave a little experiment with 10 cookies. Did you do it, as in, with real cookies or checker pieces? Probably not.
I'll give you another experiment. Throw a dice or a coin, and cover it with your hand before you see what it shows. Then observe your state of mind, not knowing the result, while you know the answer is there, in "fundamental reality" as well as "in the future". All I want is that you confirm my model with a real-life experience. Then look at the dice or coin, and note how the answer becomes "conceptual reality" as well as "past". Most likely you missed the 'now', the moment you saw it, that is an advanced level.
I am pointing to a way of looking you can no longer find in today's western philosophy. But it is simple and crucial. I call it "verifyable". That means, things cannot be proven in objective (3rd person) terms. But they can easily be confirmed by each person individually (1st person). Just take the step of actually doing the experiment, it doesn't work if you perform the experiment in your mind.
Eastern philosophy is where you can find more on this, although it is rather vague. Try the "Power of Now" by Eckhart Tolle, if you can handle that.
Quoting I like sushi
Yes I did, and I will continue doing that. That is my whole point, don't rely on the food of others but find it in your own backyard. Look around in amazement and wonder, "how do I actually make sense of the world?" Don't search for pre-cooked answers but find your own. Only then discuss and see if others have ideas that can help you make progress.
You are doing that for me, so thank you very much for that!
Quoting Carlo Roosen
If we truly live in the moment, we would experience absolutely nothing. A single experienced moment of time has three parts. It consists of the immediate past that forms a piece of the now, and the present event which occurs into that just past. A single now also includes an anticipation into the next moment. If the immediate past were not a part of the now we wouldnt be able to enjoy something like music, because the current note would have nothing to connect it to the just past note. We could t perceive anything in our world because most of what we see, hear, touch and smell in an instant comes from memory. We wouldnt have joys and hopes and pleasure because these are about how the present fulfills the past and points desiringly to the next present.
I dont think inner peace is a matter of living in the moment , since th very idea of the moment is incoherent without its being part of a triadic structure of past-present-future which all occur simultaneously in what we call an instant of time. I think the key to satisfaction is in how harmoniously we anticipate beyond the moment.
The psychologist George Kelly made anticipation the very cornerstone of his psychology. In the following passage , he answers to the claim that the goal should be to live in the moment.
For example, what about those rare and delectable hours when we can lie in the grass and look up at the fleecy summer clouds? Do we not then take life, savoring each moment as it comes without rudely trying to outguess it? Does one not feel very much alive on such occasions? Certainly! But this, too, is an anticipatory posture. To be sure, it is not the frantic apprehension of popping little events. It is rather a composed anticipation of a slowly drifting universe of great and benign proportions.
Notice that when many talk about being in the moment , they equate this with being in the flow, but a flow isnt about isolated, disconnected moments, its about experiencing them as linked to each other in a smooth, harmonious , meaningful way.
What I see in your answer is that it is written very theoretically.
I don't mean to speak for @Joshs, but I'd say that "living in the moment", which is possible, does not negate the triadic structure Josh mentions.
I know from own experience that when I concentrate on "the now", my awareness of time is completely gone. The opposite, when I experience anything that resembles "expectation" or "regret" (that is, positive or negative emotion, towards the past or towards the future), there is a thought attached to it. And I lose that state of being in "the now". So for all practical purposes, what Joshs says is not applicable to what I experience.
Also, for both of you, I'd like to hear how you perceive this state you're describing. That is not the common practice here, but for this topic I think I've given enough arguments for that request.
Quoting Carlo Roosen
Yes, this is what they call philosophy. Im glad you are able to draw from your own experience but there are now things called books, and quite a lot of these have been written in recent years in philosophy , psychology, neuroscience and related fields on the subject of consciousness. There is even a journal called Consciousness Studies. Exposing yourself to some of this theory may protect you from reinventing the wheel.
Ok i'll try:
Consciousness can be understood through the lens of simulation. Our first-person consciousness is our internal self-simulation, while our understanding of others' consciousness is a second-person simulation within our own first-person internal simulation. These perspectives are interchangeable: what's first-person to us is second-person to others, and vice versa. This framework is evident in nature, such as in predator-prey dynamics. A wolf hunting a rabbit simulates the rabbit's consciousness to predict or anticipate its movements, while the rabbit may simulate the wolf's consciousness to evade capture. This approach to consciousness as simulation provides a more concrete way to discuss and analyze conscious experiences, both our own and those of others, in various contexts.
As for the 3rd person perspective, which i assume is an objective perspective, it deals with understanding the structures and functions of subjective experience, not the experience itself. At least, this is how i parse the problem.
Suppose you wanted to understand how the subjective experience of the color red is produced. One way to begin to understand what is going on is to study synesthesia. For example, why is it that if signals from the eyes entering the region of the brain that processes sound from the ears, instead of the region that processes sight, causes that same signal to be expressed as sound instead of sight? This tells me that there is a structural difference between these two regions. The neurons that make up these two regions are pretty much identical, so it can't be solely due to different type of neurons, but rather how the neurons are organized. Specific networks yield specific qualia, and qualia is the fundamental of experience itself. It is the way a network represents information to itself. I also suspect that because neurons work by using spiking signals to communicate, there must be some kind of temporal component, and not just an information component to this phenomena.
In essence, subjective experiences exist inside the various brain networks, but those networks themselves exist in the objective world. Our sense of the objective is itself a subjective experience at some level, in the same way that the color red is a subjective experience of the objective vibratory nature of light. There is no "red" as such in the objective world, but because we share similar neural structures, we can agree on these colors and are able to communicate objective information through a subjective interface.
I actually like a lot in your description. Still, the way you define consciousness tells me we are not talking about the same thing.
Maybe I must formulate it this way: there are (at least) two ways the word consciousness can be used.
1. Consciousness in the sense of acting responsively: the ability to analyse the environment, to make decisions and to think intelligently and act accordingly. These abilities are important for survival. That is the consciousness you (and others on the forum) are pointing to. And with some difficulty, we can talk about it and maybe even prove it one day.
2. Consciousness in the sense of being self-aware. The feeling of "being me", "being alive", "being awake", "being the center of my own world". For short: "being". This is the use of the word consciousness in my OP. And I can only ever experience my own consciousness, in this sense. It can never be measured, because we don't know what to measure.
These two can be combined, and then you are really aware of your environment and make your decisions consciously. But note that we really need these two aspects for that.
I know from experience that the it is possible to have 2. without 1. One can be type 2. conscious in the sense of "being aware", without being able to analyse the environment, to make decisions and to think intelligently. Talking about a mild inability to go to the toilet without wetting myself, while being fully awake and aware.
The opposite, 1. without 2., is that possible too? Imagine, we manage to build a computer, which has the right conditions to let intelligence emerge all by itself. Much like it happened in human evolution. Just imagine it, ok? Instead of "AI" it would be called "NI", natural intelligence. It would be type 1. conscious, if it passed some well-designed tests.
But would it also be conscious in the second sense? Would it really perceive itself as being conscious? Or would it still be machine-like, without an inner awareness? How could we even know?
Thank you, but i still believe we are talking about the same thing. The way i have defined consciousness allows for two perspectives. Essentially, there are two sides to this coin: the objective side and the subjective side, tied to external and internal stimuli respectively. The side you seem to be referring to appears to be the subjective (internal) side without the incorporation of an objective (external) counterpart.
Quoting Carlo Roosen
Right, this description is of a self-simulation (consciousness) that incorporates both internal and external stimuli in a continuous and recursive loop.
Quoting Carlo Roosen
Well, i think this description pertains more closely to a self-simulation that does not incorporate external stimuli per se. More importantly, that feeling of "being me," "being alive," "being awake," "being the center of my own world" is a result at a minimum of the continuous feedback of self-generated data or internal stimuli being integrated into the self-simulation going on in the "global workspace" (global workspace theory). This is where all relevant data is resolved into a compressed abstraction that represents the state of the whole body system at once as either feelings, emotions, and/or thoughts. Your sense of being is, in fact, the sense of self-simulating. I think this is the essential point.
Quoting Carlo Roosen
Yes, it appears we agree on this.
Quoting Carlo Roosen
I don't think your 1st description is possible without the 2nd. It may be possible to construct a system with some of the features you described in your 1st definition, but not with all the essential ones. I don't think it would meet the requirements for consciousness, at least by my own criteria, even if it is somewhat intelligent. It would not be conscious without the 2nd description already in place. In other words, description 2 is the foundation for description 1 to be conscious.
Again, essentially for me, the main feature that allows for consciousness is recursion, and of course, a viable architecture that can at least produce a single spark of consciousness at execution time. These two aspects together make consciousness possible in a way that we can be familiar with: a continuous sense of being and awareness of self.
You probably know about this already, but just in case, look into and synthesize an understanding of the concepts of "cybernetic loop", "control theory", and "global workspace theory."
I made this graph in case it helps (description 1):
This is a graph of description 2 (I've simply removed the edges for the non-relavent components):
And this is a graph of the essential components for minimum consciousness:
And this is the point where I fundamentally disagree with everybody on the forum so far, including you. This makes it so difficult for me to connect to you guys (and vice versa I suppose). The first person perspective, the "being", it is impossible to experience in another human, let alone in a computer.
You can call it self-simulating but that is really another thing. What you are referring to is a mental concept of myself. I can think of myself as that handsome intelligent guy, or whatever. I can recognise myself in the mirror. But also ChatGPT has an image of itself, you can ask it about itself and it will answer. But we supposedly all agree that ChatGPT is not conscious, by any standard.
The self-simulating module in the diagram, we can easily build it inside ChatGPT if we'd like. Would it become conscious? How can we even verify?
To be fully aware of the distinction between 1 and 2, it requires a state of non-thinking. Meditation, if that helps you understand what I mean. And you will need some practice with that, catching thoughts when they fight for your attention. Only without thought, you can perceive your consciousness directly. Otherwise, your mind starts interpreting and explaining immediately.
Then you'll become aware of the fact that your own consciousness is the container of everything that happens in your personal world. This is really another mode of awareness, but once you've ever seen this, it changes everything.
I appreciate any help from anybody to make my point more clear.
[edit] The idea of self-simulation was first introduced by Douglas Hofstadter "I am a strange loop". I was fond of his first book: "Godel, Esher, Bach", so I immediately bought this one too. But I never agreed with it.
This again is a confusion of perspective. It goes the other way around: starting from the 1st person, switching to the 3rd person.
Something general: The brain and our consciousness are so complex things that I believe you have to study the entire spectrum intensively for years in order to be able to make reasonably meaningful statements. I know that philosophy often leads you to spontaneously develop plausible thoughts. But that usually leads to pure speculation. I have discussed the methodic and methodological errors that can be made in this portal, but also on my medium page.
If it's impossible to experience the first person experience in another, how do you know that ChatGPT has an image of itself? It certainly reproduces forms of words that humans have used to describe having an image of themselves, but in what way is that evidence that it does indeed have an image of itself, and isn't simply obeying its instructors and owners by plagiarising material that has been used to 'train' it?
But isn't the same true for the self-simulating that has been referred to?
What I am saying is that consciousness can only be perceived in 1st person. We cannot define it objectively. And certainly we don't know how to build a module that generates it.
I suppose I would say, its output demonstrates that it can have the appearance of drawing conclusions about itself. Human beings have a long history of letting metaphorical descriptions blend into the non-metaphorical. The notion that AI can draw conclusions is a metaphor, in my view.
1. Consciousness in the sense of acting responsively/intelligently
2. Consciousness in the sense of being self-aware.
What I believe is you automatically assume 2. when you see 1. But, 2 is a first-person perspective. That is, "I am aware that I am conscious" (which is a tautology of course). But I cannot truthfully say: "I am aware you are conscious" or "you are aware I am conscious".
(and I use 2)
I made this distinction:
1. Consciousness in the sense of acting responsively / intelligently
2. Consciousness in the sense of being self-aware.
Consciousness in the 2nd sense is a 1st person experience by definition. To me that is what consciousness means. The 1st sense might always come with the 2nd, or not, but it is not the same thing.
I only use the word consciousness in the 2nd sense. To me that is what consciousness means. I have also ideas to build a computer that does 1., even becoming more intelligent than us. Let's assume I am successful. Would that computer be self-aware, conscious in the 2nd sense?
The answer is: we have no way to find out. I cannot even prove my brother to be conscious, in the 2nd. sense.
Okay, if you want a definition of consciousness that is measurable, go ahead. But it will not be type 2. consciousness. And you will have a hard time to prove that type 2. consciousness automatically follows your personal definition of it.
So, no, you cannot measure it. There are more things we cannot measure. A theory of consciousness is impossible. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15512/logical-proof-that-the-hard-problem-of-consciousness-is-impossible-to-solve
So what?
You guys are so caught up in thinking that even your own consciousness becomes "a window to the world", in other words, an object.
Do you ever feel yourself being conscious without being conscious of something in particular? Just being awake? And then a thought pops up, and you let it go? Without that experience, we will never understand each other.
Quoting Wolfgang
That is only true if you believe consciousness can be captured conceptually. I say you can't, not in the 2nd sense. Simply because it is defined as a first person experience.