9 ms·
Yet when you model an Enigma machine, it does encrypt and decrypt messages.
by mannykannot 20d ago
Yet when you model an Enigma machine, it does encrypt and decrypt messages.
- ratelimitsteve 20d agoI'd argue that if it encrypts and decrypts, then you've built an enigma machine, not modeled it.
- mannykannot 20d agoThen, presumably, you will also hold that when you have digitally modeled a brain such that the model responds to its inputs as a brain does, then you have built a brain. Tendentiously redefining the word "simulation" in an attempt to avoid the awkward cases is not going to save an argument that was dead on arrival.
- edgyquant 20d agoAre brains responsible for consciousness? Or are brains a tool that our consciousness uses to understand the world?
- Dylan16807 20d agoThey seem to be. But that argument doesn't matter much because you can simulate the whole body. (If you want to argue consciousness is outside the body, I could get into the physics argument but instead I'll just claim that consciousness will attach to the computer too and if you have a reason it wouldn't it's your burden to say why.)
- edgyquant 20d agoI don’t know where consciousness is but I think if we accept that you can simulate a brain exactly that doesn’t prove consciousness of a model as consciousness is a metaphysical concept really
- Dylan16807 20d agoThis seems like a different topic from whether consciousness "uses" the brain? But I will point out we don't have a way to prove anything is conscious, not even a human.
- mannykannot 20d agoConsciousness appears to be a biological phenomenon, but so too are metabolism, reproduction and evolution. Are these also metaphysical concepts?
- edgyquant 20d agoConsciousness does not appear to be biological, that is an opinion and a highly debated one
- mannykannot 20d agoWhere does it appear outside of biology?
- edgyquant 19d agoWhere does consciousness appear in biology? It’s a philosophical/metaphysical concept so far as I can tell
- mannykannot 19d agoThe one thing that I think all philosophers agree on is that the only confirmed cases of consciousness discovered so far are biological. They are divided over whether there is anything fundamentally more metaphysical about it than other biological phenomena (with Dennett having been the best-known dissenter, though he has many successors), and the debate has been going on without resolution for centuries, if not millennia.
- deleted 20d ago[deleted]
- teravor 20d agoyou might as well call consciousness a soul at this point. something I once wondered about is what a soul can be and what implications it would have. the conclusions I drew is that the entire concept was incoherent. if a soul is so intrinsically linked to the brain (experience) such that it always goes along for the ride even into the abyss (eg. dementia) then it by itself wouldn't have any value even if it existed.
- s1artibartfast 20d agoAnd then the argument about Consciousness becomes whether it is strictly and completely necessary for the input to Output process. There's also the question of input output range.
- mannykannot 20d agoI'm not arguing one way or another on such issues; Here, I am just pointing out how irrelevant the "a simulated rainstorm does not get you wet" argument is, when presented as blocking the possibility of a brain simulation having a mind.
- GPerson 20d ago“digitally modeled a brain such that the model responds to its inputs as a brain does” If in responding to its inputs it experiences consciousness (=lights are on, experiences senses, perceives qualia), then you’ve built a brain. If your model simulates all the processing of a but does not have these then you have what’s fairly called a simulation of a brain. You can assert there is no such thing but good luck getting me to believe you.
- mannykannot 20d ago> You can assert there is no such thing... No such thing as what? As far as I can tell, I have asserted no such thing as there being no such thing, whatever it is.
- GPerson 20d ago“you will also hold that when you have digitally modeled a brain such that the model responds to its inputs as a brain does, then you have built a brain.” What is this then?
- mannykannot 20d agoWhat, then, is the thing that you allege I am asserting the nonexistence of in this sentence? Furthermore, this sentence does not state something I am asserting, it is something that ratelimitsteve would have difficulty denying while being consistent with his distinction between simulating and building (this is easier to see when you look at the entire sentence, including the two words that you left out.) Update: I see ratelimitsteve agrees with that assertion.
- ratelimitsteve 20d agoI will indeed hold that, and it was my point to go to against post you were replying to and bolster your position. They try to make a point about modeling but they back it up by talking about virtually modeling real, physical processes. If I model a hurricane with a computer nothing gets wet. If I model a hurricane with giant fans and sprinklers then things do get wet and, if I'm able to achieve a certain level of fidelity with my giant fans and sprinklers then whether or not i've made a hurricane is a rather arbitrary distinction as your living room is several blocks from where it was yesterday regardless of whether it was put there by a real hurricane or a mere model.
- mannykannot 20d agoAh, thanks - I thought you were trying to save the "a simulation is never the real thing" by substituting a different word when it is clear that the simulation is doing what the real thing does. This is a tactic I think of as "lexical hacking" and it is surprisingly common among philosophy-of-mind academics.
- 53uue5ue5 20d ago[dead]
- slopinthebag 20d agoIf someone digitally modelled a nuclear reactor, would any energy be produced? No, because the simulation is actually missing an important aspect, namely the causal part that exists with the physical material but not in the simulation. It’s actually that it’s missing these components that makes it a simulation and not the real thing. But for that you need the physical material. So why would it be different for the brain? If nuclear energy can’t arise from abstract relationships, why would consciousness or anything else?
- hackinthebochs 20d ago>So why would it be different for the brain? If nuclear energy can’t arise from abstract relationships, why would consciousness or anything else? Because consciousness isn't something the brain produces like a hormone or an excited particle. Consciousness isn't an output of the brain that is somehow separate from it, it is the manner in which the brain processes sensory information and makes decisions to produce output. The causal context in which brain dynamics occurs is orthogonal to the relevant properties regarding consciousness. Consciousness is a state characterized by certain kinds of information processing, namely that which carries relevant semantics of the organism encoded in a way that maximizes effective control by the executive center. Consciousness is the rich semantic space in which the executive center engages to affect highly competent control of the organism. It is substrate independent information processing.
- slopinthebag 20d agoThis is a decent summary of functionalism but it doesn't provide any concrete justification for it. We both agree that the brain processes information. The question is if a sufficiently abstract description of that processing captures everything physically constitutive of consciousness. How would you support your position that it does?
- hackinthebochs 20d agoIt's really the only live option once the issues are properly understood. Causal closure: a physical event is explanatorily exhausted by prior physical events. Causal exclusion: if physical properties fully cause/explain everything we say and do about consciousness, i.e. our behavior purported to be about consciousness, then consciousness cannot be distinct from the physical behavior and also be a cause of that behavior. For example, for our speech acts to be about consciousness, consciousness must be causally involved in their generation. Hence, consciousness is a second-order physical property of the same category as the information carried by the speech acts about consciousness. That is, consciousness is an abstract property of physical organization.
- scotty79 20d agoThat's the entire question, isn't it? IF you model a mind, have you just modeled it or actually built it?
- deleted 20d ago[deleted]