Is Consciousness Computable?

[Veritas Aequitas]

At present there are two main camps re "Is Consciousness Computable?"

The Yehs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computati ... ry_of_mind
In philosophy of mind, the computational theory of mind (CTM), also known as computationalism, is a family of views that hold that the human mind is an information processing system and that cognition and consciousness together are a form of computation. Warren McCulloch and Walter Pitts (1943) were the first to suggest that neural activity is computational. They argued that neural computations explain cognition.[1] The theory was proposed in its modern form by Hilary Putnam in 1967, and developed by his PhD student, philosopher, and cognitive scientist Jerry Fodor in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s.[2][3] Despite being vigorously disputed in analytic philosophy in the 1990s due to work by Putnam himself, John Searle, and others, the view is common in modern cognitive psychology and is presumed by many theorists of evolutionary psychology.[citation needed] In the 2000s and 2010s the view has resurfaced in analytic philosophy (Scheutz 2003, Edelman 2008).

The Nays

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose%E ... s_argument
If correct, the Penrose–Lucas argument creates a need to understand the physical basis of non-computable behaviour in the brain.

I believe there is a possibility to prove that brain activities are computable.
Given the exponential expansion of knowledge within neurosciences, genetics, molecular biology, genomics, I am optimistic it will quite soon we can replicate human consciousness to a high fidelity in a machine or even outperform what human consciousness and awareness is capable of.
Because it is machine-based consciousness we cannot claim it is human consciousness per se.

Views?

[attofishpi]

At present there are two main camps re "Is Consciousness Computable?"

The Yehs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computati ... ry_of_mind
In philosophy of mind, the computational theory of mind (CTM), also known as computationalism, is a family of views that hold that the human mind is an information processing system and that cognition and consciousness together are a form of computation. Warren McCulloch and Walter Pitts (1943) were the first to suggest that neural activity is computational. They argued that neural computations explain cognition.[1] The theory was proposed in its modern form by Hilary Putnam in 1967, and developed by his PhD student, philosopher, and cognitive scientist Jerry Fodor in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s.[2][3] Despite being vigorously disputed in analytic philosophy in the 1990s due to work by Putnam himself, John Searle, and others, the view is common in modern cognitive psychology and is presumed by many theorists of evolutionary psychology.[citation needed] In the 2000s and 2010s the view has resurfaced in analytic philosophy (Scheutz 2003, Edelman 2008).

The Nays

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose%E ... s_argument
If correct, the Penrose–Lucas argument creates a need to understand the physical basis of non-computable behaviour in the brain.

I believe there is a possibility to prove that brain activities are computable.
Given the exponential expansion of knowledge within neurosciences, genetics, molecular biology, genomics, I am optimistic it will quite soon we can replicate human consciousness to a high fidelity in a machine or even outperform what human consciousness and awareness is capable of.
Because it is machine-based consciousness we cannot claim it is human consciousness per se.

Views?

Nay.
Scratch the back of your hand. Do you honestly think there will ever be a mathematical formula to represent that sensation?

[Dontaskme]

The brain is a biological computer. Consciousness is known to exist because brain exists. No brain, no consciousness. So yes, consciousness is computable in a biological sense. The biological brain is responsible for all non-biological mechanical computer sytems, no brain, no ipads, no iphones, no PC's no self-service tills at the supermarket checkouts..etc etc etc etc....

Consciousness exists even when unconscious, even when there is no data showing up on it's screen. Consciousness and Unconsciousness are the same one state, just differing in appearance that's all, the difference is off or on...an illusory difference where there is none, as reality is all the same one inseparable reality...including non-biological computer systems, which are all appearances within the workings of a conscious brain...which is what the entire universe is made from, the whole enchilada.

[Veritas Aequitas]

At present there are two main camps re "Is Consciousness Computable?"

The Yehs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computati ... ry_of_mind
In philosophy of mind, the computational theory of mind (CTM), also known as computationalism, is a family of views that hold that the human mind is an information processing system and that cognition and consciousness together are a form of computation. Warren McCulloch and Walter Pitts (1943) were the first to suggest that neural activity is computational. They argued that neural computations explain cognition.[1] The theory was proposed in its modern form by Hilary Putnam in 1967, and developed by his PhD student, philosopher, and cognitive scientist Jerry Fodor in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s.[2][3] Despite being vigorously disputed in analytic philosophy in the 1990s due to work by Putnam himself, John Searle, and others, the view is common in modern cognitive psychology and is presumed by many theorists of evolutionary psychology.[citation needed] In the 2000s and 2010s the view has resurfaced in analytic philosophy (Scheutz 2003, Edelman 2008).

The Nays

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose%E ... s_argument
If correct, the Penrose–Lucas argument creates a need to understand the physical basis of non-computable behaviour in the brain.

I believe there is a possibility to prove that brain activities are computable.
Given the exponential expansion of knowledge within neurosciences, genetics, molecular biology, genomics, I am optimistic it will quite soon we can replicate human consciousness to a high fidelity in a machine or even outperform what human consciousness and awareness is capable of.
Because it is machine-based consciousness we cannot claim it is human consciousness per se.

Views?

Nay.
Scratch the back of your hand. Do you honestly think there will ever be a mathematical formula to represent that sensation?

Why must it be mathematical?
As Gödel's incompleteness theorems, whatever is grounded on mathematics, it is limited.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6de ... s_theorems

Nevertheless, it can be represented via a mathematic formula in some limited ways.

Rather note 'computable'

Computable functions are the basic objects of study in computability theory. Computable functions are the formalized analogue of the intuitive notion of algorithms, in the sense that a function is computable if there exists an algorithm that can do the job of the function, i.e. given an input of the function domain it can return the corresponding output.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function

Are you familiar with the AI project re AlphaGo;

https://www.deepmind.com/research/highl ... ch/alphago

AlphaGo is the first computer program to defeat a professional human Go player, the first to defeat a Go world champion, and is arguably the strongest Go player in history.

Go is known as the most challenging classical game for artificial intelligence because of its complexity.
Despite decades of work, the strongest Go computer programs could only play at the level of human amateurs. Standard AI methods, which test all possible moves and positions using a search tree, can’t handle the sheer number of possible Go moves or evaluate the strength of each possible board position.

As simple as the rules may seem, Go is profoundly complex. There are an astonishing 10 to the power of 170 possible board configurations - more than the number of atoms in the known universe. This makes the game of Go a googol times more complex than chess.

To capture the intuitive aspect of the game, we needed a new approach.
We created AlphaGo, a computer program that combines advanced search tree with deep neural networks. These neural networks take a description of the Go board as an input and process it through a number of different network layers containing millions of neuron-like connections.

One neural network, the “policy network”, selects the next move to play. The other neural network, the “value network”, predicts the winner of the game. We introduced AlphaGo to numerous amateur games to help it develop an understanding of reasonable human play. Then we had it play against different versions of itself thousands of times, each time learning from its mistakes.

Over time, AlphaGo improved and became increasingly stronger and better at learning and decision-making. This process is known as reinforcement learning. AlphaGo went on to defeat Go world champions in different global arenas and arguably became the greatest Go player of all time.

Note AlphaGo is computing 10 to the power of 170 possible board configurations
and can predict which all the possible ways it can win the game.

During the games where AlphaGo beat the best Go-Masters, it came up with seemingly unconventional moves no human could ever thought of; if such moves were made by humans, it would be claimed to be intuitive based on a high level of human consciousness.
But then AlphaGo the AI is made it in split seconds, thus indicating it has a relatively higher level of consciousness that the best human Go-players.

In this sense, AlphaGo is displaying computable consciousness and that was only 2016 and by now, AI is developing at a exponential rate which would put human consciousness [very limited] to shame in the near future in every aspect of humanity.

[attofishpi]

At present there are two main camps re "Is Consciousness Computable?"

The Yehs



The Nays


I believe there is a possibility to prove that brain activities are computable.
Given the exponential expansion of knowledge within neurosciences, genetics, molecular biology, genomics, I am optimistic it will quite soon we can replicate human consciousness to a high fidelity in a machine or even outperform what human consciousness and awareness is capable of.
Because it is machine-based consciousness we cannot claim it is human consciousness per se.

Views?

Nay.
Scratch the back of your hand. Do you honestly think there will ever be a mathematical formula to represent that sensation?

Why must it be mathematical?
As Gödel's incompleteness theorems, whatever is grounded on mathematics, it is limited.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6de ... s_theorems

Nevertheless, it can be represented via a mathematic formula in some limited ways.

Rather note 'computable'

Computable functions are the basic objects of study in computability theory. Computable functions are the formalized analogue of the intuitive notion of algorithms, in the sense that a function is computable if there exists an algorithm that can do the job of the function, i.e. given an input of the function domain it can return the corresponding output.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function

Are you familiar with the AI project re AlphaGo;

https://www.deepmind.com/research/highl ... ch/alphago

AlphaGo is the first computer program to defeat a professional human Go player, the first to defeat a Go world champion, and is arguably the strongest Go player in history.

Go is known as the most challenging classical game for artificial intelligence because of its complexity.
Despite decades of work, the strongest Go computer programs could only play at the level of human amateurs. Standard AI methods, which test all possible moves and positions using a search tree, can’t handle the sheer number of possible Go moves or evaluate the strength of each possible board position.

As simple as the rules may seem, Go is profoundly complex. There are an astonishing 10 to the power of 170 possible board configurations - more than the number of atoms in the known universe. This makes the game of Go a googol times more complex than chess.

To capture the intuitive aspect of the game, we needed a new approach.
We created AlphaGo, a computer program that combines advanced search tree with deep neural networks. These neural networks take a description of the Go board as an input and process it through a number of different network layers containing millions of neuron-like connections.

One neural network, the “policy network”, selects the next move to play. The other neural network, the “value network”, predicts the winner of the game. We introduced AlphaGo to numerous amateur games to help it develop an understanding of reasonable human play. Then we had it play against different versions of itself thousands of times, each time learning from its mistakes.

Over time, AlphaGo improved and became increasingly stronger and better at learning and decision-making. This process is known as reinforcement learning. AlphaGo went on to defeat Go world champions in different global arenas and arguably became the greatest Go player of all time.

Note AlphaGo is computing 10 to the power of 170 possible board configurations
and can predict which all the possible ways it can win the game.

During the games where AlphaGo beat the best Go-Masters, it came up with seemingly unconventional moves no human could ever thought of; if such moves were made by humans, it would be claimed to be intuitive based on a high level of human consciousness.
But then AlphaGo the AI is made it in split seconds, thus indicating it has a relatively higher level of consciousness that the best human Go-players.

In this sense, AlphaGo is displaying computable consciousness and that was only 2016 and by now, AI is developing at a exponential rate which would put human consciousness [very limited] to shame in the near future in every aspect of humanity.

Yes I am very familiar with AlphaGo - a great acheivement in computation agorithimically at contemplating permuations in a game that had a far more challenges than a chess game.

However, you are still with the "YAY" that consiousness somehow is computable via algorithms.

Again, it doesn't matter how much a machine can compute these combinations and permuations where it projects future moves and provides itself with the best most probablilities for the outcome of a WIN. THIS HAS FUCK ALL TO DO WITH CONSCIOUSNESS - and that is where 3rd level scientist - biologist should step aside and contemplate rather more deeply what the likes of physists such as Penrose have to say on the matter (1 st level science)

So coding a machine has fuck all to do with what more intelligent people, those that are looking at conciousenss from the quantum level of perception have come to conclude when they insist CONSCIOUSNESS is NOT computable.

Again, my simple example: Scratch the back of your hand and you have a qualia sensation - now where are you going to provide a mathematical computable algorithm that can represent that, and indeed replicate it? Simple answer, Penrose is right...consciousness is fundamental aspect at the quantum level of sub-atmomic reality. Something BIOLOGISTS don't tend to comprehend

I have my own theory pertaining to how qualia sensations are able to exist to feed qualia consciousness inputs....but alas, you won't likes it - I believe Dark Energy\Matter is the key. (at the backbone to percievable reality)

[Veritas Aequitas]

Disagreement with Roger Penrose:
Consciousness is a computation | Demis Hassabis and Lex Fridman
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgtUa7o0pKA

[Iwannaplato]

AlphaGo is the first computer program to defeat a professional human Go player, the first to defeat a Go world champion, and is arguably the strongest Go player in history.

It is utterly non-controversial that machines can now perform many cognitive functions that minds can.
This may have nothing at all in any way to do with consciousness.

[attofishpi]

Disagreement with Roger Penrose:
Consciousness is a computation | Demis Hassabis and Lex Fridman
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgtUa7o0pKA

I don't think anyone of the realm of computer engineer/programmers that you insist on throwing at us, comprehend the complexity involved in what makes sentient consciousness capable of sensing qualia inptus, as opposed to a very nice AI fluffing away within silicon chips that MIMICS what we see as "intelligence". These short sighted geeks need to get off their high horse and realise computations no mattter how complex to MIMIC intelligence is NOT CONSCIOUSNESS, and never will be.

Penrose as a physicist comprehends that consciousness and qualia sensation CANNOT be programmed.

AGAIN, scratch the back of your hand Veritas and tell me there will be a mathematical formula to describe that SENSATION...that can then be programmed.

IF AI interfaces to biology, then perhaps one day, what was once merely a machine MAY become consciously sentient - HOWEVER, that sentient consciousness is never going to be reducible to mathematical equations.

Comprehende?

[attofishpi]

AlphaGo is the first computer program to defeat a professional human Go player, the first to defeat a Go world champion, and is arguably the strongest Go player in history.

It is utterly non-controversial that machines can now perform many cognitive functions that minds can.
This may have nothing at all in any way to do with consciousness.

Exactly it's a SIMULATION of intelligence and has nothing to do with consciousness, that this is what the hard of thinking like Veritas are poo pooing to us.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Again, my simple example: Scratch the back of your hand and you have a qualia sensation - now where are you going to provide a mathematical computable algorithm that can represent that, and indeed replicate it? Simple answer, Penrose is right...consciousness is fundamental aspect at the quantum level of sub-atmomic reality. Something BIOLOGISTS don't tend to comprehend

I have my own theory pertaining to how qualia sensations are able to exist to feed qualia consciousness inputs....but alas, you won't likes it - I believe Dark Energy\Matter is the key. (at the backbone to percievable reality)

There are loads of research done on neural networks and neural correlates with the sense of touch.
Generally this can be coded which could replicate human experience of touch.

Note example, this is in 2017 and by now there would be much advances;
Tapping Into the Sense of Touch
Summary: A new study that investigates how the human brain deciphers sensory input could revolutionize robotics and neuroprosthetics.

Source: University of New South Wales.

UNSW neuroscientists have discovered a completely new understanding of how the brain deciphers neural inputs, which could transform the next generation of robotic prosthetics.

When our skin scans a surface, everything we feel is conveyed through the nerves by means of electrical impulses, received by neurons in the brain in signals like Morse code.

Neurophysiologists Ingvars Birznieks and Richard Vickery research the sense of touch, and how we can take so much information – like pressure, shape, texture, and vibration – from one signal.

They say their new findings represent a whole new way of looking at how our brains make judgements about the environment, and could have applications in telesurgery, prostheses and robotics.
https://neurosciencenews.com/touch-sens ... ence-6715/

[attofishpi]

Again, my simple example: Scratch the back of your hand and you have a qualia sensation - now where are you going to provide a mathematical computable algorithm that can represent that, and indeed replicate it? Simple answer, Penrose is right...consciousness is fundamental aspect at the quantum level of sub-atmomic reality. Something BIOLOGISTS don't tend to comprehend

I have my own theory pertaining to how qualia sensations are able to exist to feed qualia consciousness inputs....but alas, you won't likes it - I believe Dark Energy\Matter is the key. (at the backbone to percievable reality)

There are loads of research done on neural networks and neural correlates with the sense of touch.
Generally this can be coded which could replicate human experience of touch.

Note example, this is in 2017 and by now there would be much advances;
Tapping Into the Sense of Touch
Summary: A new study that investigates how the human brain deciphers sensory input could revolutionize robotics and neuroprosthetics.

Source: University of New South Wales.

UNSW neuroscientists have discovered a completely new understanding of how the brain deciphers neural inputs, which could transform the next generation of robotic prosthetics.

When our skin scans a surface, everything we feel is conveyed through the nerves by means of electrical impulses, received by neurons in the brain in signals like Morse code.

Neurophysiologists Ingvars Birznieks and Richard Vickery research the sense of touch, and how we can take so much information – like pressure, shape, texture, and vibration – from one signal.

They say their new findings represent a whole new way of looking at how our brains make judgements about the environment, and could have applications in telesurgery, prostheses and robotics.
https://neurosciencenews.com/touch-sens ... ence-6715/

You have overlooked this statement I made above:
IF AI interfaces to biology, then perhaps one day, what was once merely a machine MAY become consciously sentient - HOWEVER, that sentient consciousness is never going to be reducible to mathematical equations.

And in that you are stating above has NOTHING to do with what this topic is about - whether CONSCIOUSNESS is computable (NOT whether feeding electrical impulses to what is ALREADY consciouss is going to give an input - such a via prosthetics (As in your above waffle)

U really are tedious to deal with.

[Iwannaplato]

Again, my simple example: Scratch the back of your hand and you have a qualia sensation - now where are you going to provide a mathematical computable algorithm that can represent that, and indeed replicate it? Simple answer, Penrose is right...consciousness is fundamental aspect at the quantum level of sub-atmomic reality. Something BIOLOGISTS don't tend to comprehend

I have my own theory pertaining to how qualia sensations are able to exist to feed qualia consciousness inputs....but alas, you won't likes it - I believe Dark Energy\Matter is the key. (at the backbone to percievable reality)

There are loads of research done on neural networks and neural correlates with the sense of touch.
Generally this can be coded which could replicate human experience of touch.

Note example, this is in 2017 and by now there would be much advances;
Tapping Into the Sense of Touch
Summary: A new study that investigates how the human brain deciphers sensory input could revolutionize robotics and neuroprosthetics.

Source: University of New South Wales.

UNSW neuroscientists have discovered a completely new understanding of how the brain deciphers neural inputs, which could transform the next generation of robotic prosthetics.

When our skin scans a surface, everything we feel is conveyed through the nerves by means of electrical impulses, received by neurons in the brain in signals like Morse code.

Neurophysiologists Ingvars Birznieks and Richard Vickery research the sense of touch, and how we can take so much information – like pressure, shape, texture, and vibration – from one signal.

They say their new findings represent a whole new way of looking at how our brains make judgements about the environment, and could have applications in telesurgery, prostheses and robotics.
https://neurosciencenews.com/touch-sens ... ence-6715/

There is nothing here that shows that these robots experience. They function or will function. But that need not entail consciousness.
Just as a calculator, yes, can divide 5 by π, but that doesn't mean it has some dim consciousness and is an experiencer.

[Iwannaplato]

I don't think anyone of the realm of computer engineer/programmers that you insist on throwing at us, comprehend the complexity involved in what makes sentient consciousness.

It may not even be complexity that is the factor. Perhaps it's substance: silicon based brains will never experience though they may carry out functions perhaps, because carbon is key. We haven't the slightest idea what experiences, what does not experience nor how or why.

[attofishpi]

I don't think anyone of the realm of computer engineer/programmers that you insist on throwing at us, comprehend the complexity involved in what makes sentient consciousness.

It may not even be complexity that is the factor. Perhaps it's substance: silicon based brains will never experience though they may carry out functions perhaps, because carbon is key. We haven't the slightest idea what experiences, what does not experience nor how or why.

I agree that my use of the term 'complexity' regarding what is involved in sentient consciousness is not appropriate, in fact that is something the "YAYS" would use in an effort to state consciousness computable!

[Iwannaplato]

I don't think anyone of the realm of computer engineer/programmers that you insist on throwing at us, comprehend the complexity involved in what makes sentient consciousness.

It may not even be complexity that is the factor. Perhaps it's substance: silicon based brains will never experience though they may carry out functions perhaps, because carbon is key. We haven't the slightest idea what experiences, what does not experience nor how or why.

I agree that my use of the term 'complexity' regarding what is involved in sentient consciousness is not appropriate, in fact that is something the "YAYS" would use in an effort to state consciousness computable!

yes, I think there is correlation there with the YAYS. We can do simple things. Now we can do more complicated things. Consciousness is a function of complicated networks...so we will be able to create it. My position differs from yours, I think, in that I don't rule out that they can or will create some conscious thing. I think that's possible. I do not think it will be due to computation. I think that's a category error. And, actually, I think it's pretty ugly to try to create something conscious. Perhaps some silicon based artificial neural network will be in agony all the time. And then all the problems possible with the creation of AIs as threats to us, regardless of whether they are conscious or not. I am not saying they will create some conscious thing, just that I don't rule it out. The possibility makes me no less critical of the whole endeavor. Kids play with matches in dry woods.