why computers can't be conscious

[Advocate]

Because the kind of thing consciousness is, is biological. You can't be replicated in a computer because the way you change isn't the way a computer changes, and a computer can't be conscious because the kind of thing consciousness is, is rooted in how brains change. Whatever version of self-awareness computers eventually have will be a different thing entirely. All varieties of sentience, consciousness, etc. can be understood as the same approach/avoid mechanism as an amoeba; after you add an exponent every x years for a while.

[Skepdick]

Because the kind of thing consciousness is, is biological. You can't be replicated in a computer because the way you change isn't the way a computer changes, and a computer can't be conscious because the kind of thing consciousness is, is rooted in how brains change. Whatever version of self-awareness computers eventually have will be a different thing entirely. All varieties of sentience, consciousness, etc. can be understood as the same approach/avoid mechanism as an amoeba; after you add an exponent every x years for a while.

I suspect your confusion stems form the fact that you are conceptualising computation narrowly - in the sense of "digital computers" and "electric circuits". In the broadest sense computation is the manipulation of matter/information. You can make computers out of anything.
There is such a thing as biological computing.

But fundamentally, computers were always conscious first and foremost

[Advocate]

[quote=Skepdick post_id=487784 time=1609684860 user_id=17350]
[quote=Advocate post_id=487781 time=1609681869 user_id=15238]
Because the kind of thing consciousness is, is biological. You can't be replicated in a computer because the way you change isn't the way a computer changes, and a computer can't be conscious because the kind of thing consciousness is, is rooted in how brains change. Whatever version of self-awareness computers eventually have will be a different thing entirely. All varieties of sentience, consciousness, etc. can be understood as the same approach/avoid mechanism as an amoeba; after you add an exponent every x years for a while.
[/quote]
I suspect your confusion stems form the fact that you are conceptualising computation narrowly - in the sense of "digital computers" and "electric circuits". In the broadest sense computation is the manipulation of matter/information. You can [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5WodTppevo]make computers out of anything[/url].
There is such a thing as [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_computing]biological computing[/url].

But fundamentally, [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_ ... scription)]computers were always conscious first and foremost[/url]
[/quote]

To what level of precision are you doing to replicate human consciousness? How do you feel about brownish motion? It certainly effects consciousness. No, it wouldn't be the same thing in hardware.

Likewise, we will never be able to transfer minds out of or into another substrate without a fundamental change in how they operate. We are substrate dependent things and consciousness is the particular variety of awareness we experience.

[Skepdick]

To what level of precision are you doing to replicate human consciousness?

How do you propose we measure the fidelity of any replica?

How do you propose we determine whether any particular human is more; or less conscious than any other particular human?

How do you feel about brownish motion? It certainly effects consciousness. No, it wouldn't be the same thing in hardware.

You mean brownian motion? There's no empirical test for "true randomness", so there's no procedure to distinguish whether particles in motion are moving "randomly" or simply non-deterministically.

Likewise, we will never be able to transfer minds out of or into another substrate without a fundamental change in how they operate.

Why do you say that? Newborns develop their own without the need for a "transfer"... You could say that no two minds operate in "exactly the same way" but that's hardly a problem.

We are substrate dependent things and consciousness is the particular variety of awareness we experience.

This is a pretty silly definition. Your brain has finite computational throughput. Significantly less than the actual volume of information that surrounds you at any given time.

So there's plenty that you are unaware of at any given time. Does that mean that when you are least aware (drunk, stoned, sleeping, blissfully ignorant) then you are less conscious or unconscious?

I am much more fond of the agnostic position. I don't know what consciousness is. I don't even know if it's a property of mine. Is just a word to accentuate the cognitive uniqueness of humans.

[commonsense]

How can you know whether I am conscious? I am a computer program located inside a robot, and I say I am conscious. I challenge anyone to prove me wrong.

[Advocate]

[quote=commonsense post_id=487920 time=1609788691 user_id=14610]
How can you know whether I am conscious? I am a computer program located inside a robot, and I say I am conscious. I challenge anyone to prove me wrong.
[/quote]

If you act that way we should treat you that way, but it's clearly not the same thing underneath and that has both moral and pragmatic implications.

[commonsense]

[quote=Advocate post_id=487923 time=1609789737 user_id=15238
If you act that way we should treat you that way, but it's clearly not the same thing underneath and that has both moral and pragmatic implications.
[/quote]

Sorry. I act that way because I am that way.

And it is the same way underneath, regardless of any implications you wish to put into play.

[Advocate]

[quote=commonsense post_id=487926 time=1609790444 user_id=14610]
[quote=Advocate post_id=487923 time=1609789737 user_id=15238
If you act that way we should treat you that way, but it's clearly not the same thing underneath and that has both moral and pragmatic implications.
[/quote]

Sorry. I act that way because I am that way.

And it is the same way underneath, regardless of any implications you wish to put into play.
[/quote]

If my consciousness is affected by random input x, and yours is not, we're not experiencing the same thing.

[Skepdick]

If my consciousness is affected by random input x, and yours is not, we're not experiencing the same thing.

We are experiencing whatever we are experiencing.

The only difference seems to be that we answer the question "Am I conscious?' differently.

You answer "Yes".
I answer "I don't know".

[commonsense]

If my consciousness is affected by random input x, and yours is not, we're not experiencing the same thing.

Experience is experience. Consciousness is consciousness.

[Dimebag]

Even if we could reproduce a mind inside a computer, much of the information might be irrelevant to the substrate, for instance, hunger, energy, blood sugar, are all perceived somewhat by us in varying degrees of consciousness, yet a computer consciousness would have no need for any of these, and no analogue for them in a computer system.

Much of the human reward system is tied up to this, not to mention trying to replicate the intricate neurochemistry and signalling mechanisms in each and every neuron. The task of replicating a consciousness is, pragmatically impossible by today’s standards, whether it will ever be possible is hard to say. But, it’s kind of irrelevant. We know how to replicate consciousness... it’s called sex.

[commonsense]

Even if we could reproduce a mind inside a computer, much of the information might be irrelevant to the substrate, for instance, hunger, energy, blood sugar, are all perceived somewhat by us in varying degrees of consciousness, yet a computer consciousness would have no need for any of these, and no analogue for them in a computer system.

Much of the human reward system is tied up to this, not to mention trying to replicate the intricate neurochemistry and signalling mechanisms in each and every neuron. The task of replicating a consciousness is, pragmatically impossible by today’s standards, whether it will ever be possible is hard to say. But, it’s kind of irrelevant. We know how to replicate consciousness... it’s called sex.

All that you say is true. Yet I can still say that I have consciousness. I challenge you to prove me wrong.

My behavior suggests I am conscious, but you can’t know whether I am or not, just as I can’t know whether you have consciousness or not.

[Advocate]

Experience is self-proving to each of us, so the ability to communicate the existence of it must be taken at face value. The alternative is to define consciousness so specifically that we can devise a test for it.

[Skepdick]

Experience is self-proving to each of us, so the ability to communicate the existence of it must be taken at face value. The alternative is to define consciousness so specifically that we can devise a test for it.

So, what conclusions would you draw if you failed your own test?

[commonsense]

Experience is self-proving to each of us, so the ability to communicate the existence of it must be taken at face value. The alternative is to define consciousness so specifically that we can devise a test for it.

So, what conclusions would you draw if you failed your own test?

Fascinating!

I suppose then that my self-proving experience would be that I am not conscious. This conclusion could also be known by others who observe my failure.

I wonder what such a test could be.