Machine Consciousness Experiment Conceivability

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
SteveKlinko
Posts: 710
Joined: November 19th, 2021, 11:43 am

Re: Machine Consciousness Experiment Conceivability

Post by SteveKlinko »

GE Morton wrote: April 20th, 2022, 11:35 am
SteveKlinko wrote: April 20th, 2022, 7:43 am
Even the Human Brain occurs in Physical Space but we know the Human Brain is Connected to Conscious Space. Or at least this is what we assume for the sake of this Experiment.
Yes, that is the assumption, and because "conscious space" has no empirical basis and is not even well-defined, it is a vacuous assumption.
Why Vacuous? It's just simply an assumption, without the denigrating adjective.
GE Morton wrote: April 20th, 2022, 11:35 am
The anticipation is that a Machine that can also be Connected to Conscious Space with the right point of view.
"Points of view" don't establish empirically confirmable connections.
Points Of View are essential in conducting any kind of Experiment. Science would never have been able to go beyond the ancient "God does it all" point of view if it did not adopt a new point of view.
GE Morton wrote: April 20th, 2022, 11:35 am
Wave Functions are not Physical things (they are Mathematical Contrivances) but Wave Functions seem to control where Electrons are located in a Probabilistic way.
Wave functions are indeed mathematical constructs. The waves, however, are measurable physical phenomena. The functions are just descriptions of their behavior. The functions don't control that behavior; they only describe it.
I disagree. The Wave Functions of QM are not Measurable Physical Phenomena.
GE Morton wrote: April 20th, 2022, 11:35 am
The results of the Experiment are dependent on whether there is a Consciousness in Conscious Space that could interact and affect Wave Functions to influence where the Electrons are Probabilistically located.
Well, physicists would argue that any results obtained would be explicable entirely in terms of physical variables. No observed result would lend any support to intervention from a mysterious "conscious space." Such an assumption would have no more explanatory power than "Goddidit." Your "Conscious space" is just a deux ex machina.
I never bring deities into the argument. I am expecting that, ultimately, Conscious Space will be accepted as part of normal Physics. Conscious Space will be an addition to the Old Physics that we have today. There will be new laws and new rules of Physics. There will be laws governing the interactions of Conscious Minds in Conscious Space with Physical Space and Matter. Future Physicists will wonder how the barbaric Physics of today could ever have blindly ignored Consciousness as a separate and real Phenomenon of Physics.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Machine Consciousness Experiment Conceivability

Post by GE Morton »

SteveKlinko wrote: April 21st, 2022, 7:49 am
GE Morton wrote: April 20th, 2022, 11:35 am
SteveKlinko wrote: April 20th, 2022, 7:43 am
Even the Human Brain occurs in Physical Space but we know the Human Brain is Connected to Conscious Space. Or at least this is what we assume for the sake of this Experiment.
Yes, that is the assumption, and because "conscious space" has no empirical basis and is not even well-defined, it is a vacuous assumption.
Why Vacuous? It's just simply an assumption, without the denigrating adjective.
That was answered in the comment you quoted --- because it is not well-defined and has no empirical basis. "Vacuous" means, "Empty." It is a claim which is neither verifiable or falsifiable; i.e., it has no determinable truth value.
GE Morton wrote: April 20th, 2022, 11:35 am
The anticipation is that a Machine that can also be Connected to Conscious Space with the right point of view.
"Points of view" don't establish empirically confirmable connections.
Points Of View are essential in conducting any kind of Experiment. Science would never have been able to go beyond the ancient "God does it all" point of view if it did not adopt a new point of view.
They may be necessary, but they're not sufficient. You need more than a point of view to establish a relationship or "connection" between phenomena. You need empirical evidence. And, of course, the two phenomena must both have an empirical basis and be well-characterized. Maxwell could establish a connection between electricity and magnetism only because both could be independently observed and measured.
GE Morton wrote: April 20th, 2022, 11:35 am Well, physicists would argue that any results obtained would be explicable entirely in terms of physical variables. No observed result would lend any support to intervention from a mysterious "conscious space." Such an assumption would have no more explanatory power than "Goddidit." Your "Conscious space" is just a deux ex machina.
I never bring deities into the argument.
Your "Conscious space" has the same ontological status as a deity --- a hypothetical abstraction that has no empirical anchors and is unanalyzable, unmeasurable, and whose presumed behaviors are unpredictable.

Moreover, a "space" is not a force. If your experimental results deviate from random, you'll need some force to account for the deviations, and that force must be measurable and its effects on other systems predictable.

You're just assuming that any deviations will be attributable to interventions from this "Conscious space," but without a description, much less evidence for, forces which operate within that space and a mechanism explaining in a quantifiable way how they are able to interact with entities in "physical space," that "explanation" is vacuous; empty hand-waving.
SteveKlinko
Posts: 710
Joined: November 19th, 2021, 11:43 am

Re: Machine Consciousness Experiment Conceivability

Post by SteveKlinko »

GE Morton wrote: April 21st, 2022, 1:34 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: April 21st, 2022, 7:49 am
GE Morton wrote: April 20th, 2022, 11:35 am
SteveKlinko wrote: April 20th, 2022, 7:43 am
Even the Human Brain occurs in Physical Space but we know the Human Brain is Connected to Conscious Space. Or at least this is what we assume for the sake of this Experiment.
Yes, that is the assumption, and because "conscious space" has no empirical basis and is not even well-defined, it is a vacuous assumption.
Why Vacuous? It's just simply an assumption, without the denigrating adjective.
That was answered in the comment you quoted --- because it is not well-defined and has no empirical basis. "Vacuous" means, "Empty." It is a claim which is neither verifiable or falsifiable; i.e., it has no determinable truth value.
But you are wrong. You can't possibly know that Conscious Space is not Verifiable or Falsifiable. It is your Belief based on Physicalist Dogma.
GE Morton wrote: April 21st, 2022, 1:34 pm
GE Morton wrote: April 20th, 2022, 11:35 am
The anticipation is that a Machine that can also be Connected to Conscious Space with the right point of view.
"Points of view" don't establish empirically confirmable connections.
Points Of View are essential in conducting any kind of Experiment. Science would never have been able to go beyond the ancient "God does it all" point of view if it did not adopt a new point of view.
They may be necessary, but they're not sufficient. You need more than a point of view to establish a relationship or "connection" between phenomena. You need empirical evidence. And, of course, the two phenomena must both have an empirical basis and be well-characterized. Maxwell could establish a connection between electricity and magnetism only because both could be independently observed and measured.
Of course, Points of View are not enough, but Points of View are an essential foundational element for studying Conscious Experience. The Physicalist Point of View has gotten Science nowhere in the Quest to understand Conscious Experience.
GE Morton wrote: April 21st, 2022, 1:34 pm
GE Morton wrote: April 20th, 2022, 11:35 am Well, physicists would argue that any results obtained would be explicable entirely in terms of physical variables. No observed result would lend any support to intervention from a mysterious "conscious space." Such an assumption would have no more explanatory power than "Goddidit." Your "Conscious space" is just a deux ex machina.
I never bring deities into the argument.
Your "Conscious space" has the same ontological status as a deity --- a hypothetical abstraction that has no empirical anchors and is unanalyzable, unmeasurable, and whose presumed behaviors are unpredictable.
Unanalyzable, except for the fact that I am proposing the Conceivability of such an analysis.
GE Morton wrote: April 21st, 2022, 1:34 pm Moreover, a "space" is not a force. If your experimental results deviate from random, you'll need some force to account for the deviations, and that force must be measurable and its effects on other systems predictable.

You're just assuming that any deviations will be attributable to interventions from this "Conscious space," but without a description, much less evidence for, forces which operate within that space and a mechanism explaining in a quantifiable way how they are able to interact with entities in "physical space," that "explanation" is vacuous; empty hand-waving.
There is no need for a Physicalist type of Force here. I am hypothesizing that something in Conscious Space can affect Wave Functions. This would be done by a New kind of, let's call it an Influence, that will not be a Physicalist type of Force. It is unknown what this New Influence will be but Energy expenditure may not be necessary. Also, Quantum Fluctuations, a highly theoretical Phenomenon, may provide the Energy for the Influence of Consciousness if Energy is needed. I certainly don't assume that just any deviations are attributable to Conscious Space. You are being dishonest when you say these kinds of things. The results will need to be analyzed inside and out by Experts and the results must ultimately be reproducible. We are at the threshold of a New Science of Consciousness and we don't know what the ultimate answers will be. And Yes, maybe the Conscious Space Speculation is not correct. I am going to find out.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Machine Consciousness Experiment Conceivability

Post by GE Morton »

SteveKlinko wrote: April 22nd, 2022, 10:06 am
But you are wrong. You can't possibly know that Conscious Space is not Verifiable or Falsifiable. It is your Belief based on Physicalist Dogma.
Of course I can. An hypothesis is verifiable or falsifiable if there is some test, some experiment or observation, that will confirm or disconfirm it. Your "conscious space" hypothesis would have to enable you to predict a specific result from specific properties of that "space." But you can't even characterize that "space," or say what properties it has, or how they are to be observed and quantified. So you can't correlate any measured result with any observable, measurable properties or changes in that "space."

Compare your hypothesis with Einstein's hypothesis that gravitational fields alter the geometry of space. Since we know that gravitational fields are functions of mass, and we can estimate the Sun's mass from its size and composition, Einstein could predict that starlight passing close to the limbs of the sun would be deflected and the stars would appear to be displaced by X degrees. During the next eclipse astronomers confirmed that exact displacement.

With your experiment someone else might explain the result, whatever it may be, as due to "evil spirits," or "the Will of God," or "alien Z-rays," or just "magic." Any of those hypotheses are just substantive as yours.

As for "physicalist dogma," you are setting up a physical experiment. That commits you to the logical and methodological requirements of physical experiments.
Of course, Points of View are not enough, but Points of View are an essential foundational element for studying Conscious Experience. The Physicalist Point of View has gotten Science nowhere in the Quest to understand Conscious Experience.
Actually, it has gotten us quite a ways. We know, for example, that conscious experience is only produced by certain physical systems, and we have a rough idea of what sort of systems will produce that phenomena. If we manage to build a system that can satisfy Turing's test, then we will understand conscious experience as well as it can ever be understood. We will never be able to derive the subjective phenomena of conscious experience from the properties of the physical substrate which produces them, however, for logical reasons.
There is no need for a Physicalist type of Force here. I am hypothesizing that something in Conscious Space can affect Wave Functions. This would be done by a New kind of, let's call it an Influence, that will not be a Physicalist type of Force.
If it has a measurable effect on a physical system it will be a force, by definition. The measured magnitude of the effect will also be a measure of the force applied.
User avatar
psyreporter
Posts: 1022
Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Machine Consciousness Experiment Conceivability

Post by psyreporter »

SteveKlinko wrote: April 19th, 2022, 8:15 am
SteveKlinko wrote: April 18th, 2022, 8:25 am"Today it is clear that there is a causality trajectory from the Physical World to the Conscious World and not the other way around."
psyreporter wrote: April 19th, 2022, 1:50 am What about my criticism with regard the argument that the senses are primary, and that the potential for sensing, which is moral valuing must therefore underlay consciousness a priori in the face of a physical brain?
You are saying the word Sensing and Moral Valuing as if they are connected things. I take Sensing to mean things like the Visual Experience or the Hearing Experience. No Moral Valuing there.
When there is no moral valuing involved it wouldn't be possible to facilitate (manifest) subjective experience which is moral in nature relative to a 'good' of a self.
PsyReporter.com | “If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.”
User avatar
psyreporter
Posts: 1022
Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Machine Consciousness Experiment Conceivability

Post by psyreporter »

GE Morton wrote: April 19th, 2022, 1:32 pm Well, you seem to be using "value" in some idiosyncratic way. I have no idea what "empirical value" might be. Are you referring to say, the value of (for example) of an electrical current read by an ammeter? Value assignments are one of the categories of conscious experience, but not all conscious experience involves values or assignment of values.
Empirical value is anything of which it can be considered to be of substance (i.e. real) within the scope of what science deems valid.

GE Morton wrote: April 19th, 2022, 2:30 pm
psyreporter wrote: April 19th, 2022, 1:50 amWhat about my criticism with regard the argument that the senses are primary, and that the potential for sensing, which is moral valuing must therefore underlay consciousness a priori in the face of a physical brain?
Well, that is mysterious. First, you seem to be equating morality (deontology) with valuing (axiology). Those are two different subjects. Also, "potential for sensing" is so vague as to be useless. A photodiode has a potential for sensing, as does a neuron. But those potentials have nothing to do with either morality or values, as far as I can see, except in the sense that a stimulus must have a certain strength value before it can trigger one of those potentials. Can you elaborate on this?
Deontology is ethics based on predetermined rules (ethical theory as precursor to denoting good and bad). It would be grounded on the idea that morality is purely subjective and that ethical theory is all that there could be.

"In moral philosophy, deontological ethics or deontology is the normative ethical theory that the morality of an action should be based on whether that action itself is right or wrong under a series of rules, rather than based on the consequences of the action."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontology

My question intended to denote that the idea that moral judgement can have an empirical cause is nonsensical and that morality cannot be subjective.

The question: "What can possibly 'say' (figuratively speaking) that it has sensed when it had never sensed?" (how can it be perceived that a living creature can make a subjective moral judgement before it had ever sensed?)

At question is the potential required for sensing to be possible which in the case of life forms lays at the basis of their ability to exist.

My argument is that moral valuing underlays conscious experience and that it can be considered the root of a priori intelligence.
PsyReporter.com | “If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.”
SteveKlinko
Posts: 710
Joined: November 19th, 2021, 11:43 am

Re: Machine Consciousness Experiment Conceivability

Post by SteveKlinko »

GE Morton wrote: April 22nd, 2022, 2:35 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: April 22nd, 2022, 10:06 am
But you are wrong. You can't possibly know that Conscious Space is not Verifiable or Falsifiable. It is your Belief based on Physicalist Dogma.
Of course I can. An hypothesis is verifiable or falsifiable if there is some test, some experiment or observation, that will confirm or disconfirm it. Your "conscious space" hypothesis would have to enable you to predict a specific result from specific properties of that "space." But you can't even characterize that "space," or say what properties it has, or how they are to be observed and quantified. So you can't correlate any measured result with any observable, measurable properties or changes in that "space."

Compare your hypothesis with Einstein's hypothesis that gravitational fields alter the geometry of space. Since we know that gravitational fields are functions of mass, and we can estimate the Sun's mass from its size and composition, Einstein could predict that starlight passing close to the limbs of the sun would be deflected and the stars would appear to be displaced by X degrees. During the next eclipse astronomers confirmed that exact displacement.
I like being compared to Einstein. But Einstein was not trying to show the existence of Gravitational Fields. They clearly Existed. He was just trying to show a particular aspect of G Fields that was novel at the time. As for me I'm trying to show the existence of Conscious Space which is something New and is not known to clearly exist at this time.
GE Morton wrote: April 22nd, 2022, 2:35 pm With your experiment someone else might explain the result, whatever it may be, as due to "evil spirits," or "the Will of God," or "alien Z-rays," or just "magic." Any of those hypotheses are just substantive as yours.
If the result cannot be Explained by normal Science then yes it could be Consciousness, Evil Spirits, the Will of God, or Alien Z-Rays. That will need to be further researched. But the important thing at this early stage is that something outside the realm of Science has been shown to Exist.
GE Morton wrote: April 22nd, 2022, 2:35 pm As for "physicalist dogma," you are setting up a physical experiment. That commits you to the logical and methodological requirements of physical experiments.
No, I am proposing that I am Connecting to Conscious Space. Conscious Space is clearly not a Physicalist Phenomenon.
GE Morton wrote: April 22nd, 2022, 2:35 pm
Of course, Points of View are not enough, but Points of View are an essential foundational element for studying Conscious Experience. The Physicalist Point of View has gotten Science nowhere in the Quest to understand Conscious Experience.
Actually, it has gotten us quite a ways. We know, for example, that conscious experience is only produced by certain physical systems, and we have a rough idea of what sort of systems will produce that phenomena. If we manage to build a system that can satisfy Turing's test, then we will understand conscious experience as well as it can ever be understood. We will never be able to derive the subjective phenomena of conscious experience from the properties of the physical substrate which produces them, however, for logical reasons.
But what is the Experience of Redness, or of the Standard A Tone, or of the Salty Taste? Science has Zero understanding and Explanation for these kinds of Conscious Experiences. Science can only explore the Correlates of Conscious Experience (Neural Activity). Science, because it insists that Conscious Experiences have to be some Physical Phenomenon in the Physical World, cannot properly study Actual Consciousness as we know it exists in our Minds. Show me how Science has greater than Zero Explanation for the Experience of Redness and all the other Experiences?
GE Morton wrote: April 22nd, 2022, 2:35 pm
There is no need for a Physicalist type of Force here. I am hypothesizing that something in Conscious Space can affect Wave Functions. This would be done by a New kind of, let's call it an Influence, that will not be a Physicalist type of Force.
If it has a measurable effect on a physical system it will be a force, by definition. The measured magnitude of the effect will also be a measure of the force applied.
Spoken like a true Physicalist who thinks that there are no, New and Great, Scientific principles yet to be discovered. Do you Believe that Science knows everything there is to know about Matter, Energy, the Universe, and Conscious Exitance? If your answer is Yes then you are as arrogant as people in the late 1800s and early 1900s that thought the same way. If your answer is No then why are you resisting Conscious Space using arguments from the last Century? I invite you to come out of your Physicalist Box and join the Quest for Consciousness. You will need to think in New Ways.
SteveKlinko
Posts: 710
Joined: November 19th, 2021, 11:43 am

Re: Machine Consciousness Experiment Conceivability

Post by SteveKlinko »

psyreporter wrote: April 23rd, 2022, 6:08 am
SteveKlinko wrote: April 19th, 2022, 8:15 am
SteveKlinko wrote: April 18th, 2022, 8:25 am"Today it is clear that there is a causality trajectory from the Physical World to the Conscious World and not the other way around."
psyreporter wrote: April 19th, 2022, 1:50 am What about my criticism with regard the argument that the senses are primary, and that the potential for sensing, which is moral valuing must therefore underlay consciousness a priori in the face of a physical brain?
You are saying the word Sensing and Moral Valuing as if they are connected things. I take Sensing to mean things like the Visual Experience or the Hearing Experience. No Moral Valuing there.
When there is no moral valuing involved it wouldn't be possible to facilitate (manifest) subjective experience which is moral in nature relative to a 'good' of a self.
I apologize, but I am never going to understand the connections you are trying to make between Moral Valuing and Conscious Experience. Conscious Experience has no connection to any Moral Valuing that I might do. I Experience Redness as a complete separate Phenomenon in my Mind. Your connection of Moral Valuing and my Experience of Redness, as an Example, seems completely Incoherent. I cannot get there, and we are therefore at an Impasse, as I have said in the past on other threads.
SteveKlinko
Posts: 710
Joined: November 19th, 2021, 11:43 am

Re: Machine Consciousness Experiment Conceivability

Post by SteveKlinko »

FYI: This OP was copied from TheInterMind.com. The following lines were recently added to the beginning of the website section:

The steps for implementing the Scientific Method for a Machine Conscious Experiment can be stated as follows:

Ask a Question: Are there such things as Conscious Minds in Conscious Space?

Background Research: Read and Study everything possible about Consciousness and Conscious Experience. Emphasis will be on Human Brain Physiology and especially what happens at the Neural Activity Level with regard to Conscious Experience. Unfortunately, and Surprisingly, it was found that no Scientific Explanation, using known Scientific Phenomena, exists for Consciousness and Conscious Experience.

Hypothesis: Conscious Experience happens in a separate Conscious Space from the normal Physical Space. It is hypothesized that Conscious Minds in Conscious Space can Connect with and affect Physical Brains or other Material in Physical Space. It is further hypothesized that Quantum Mechanical principles may be involved in this Connection process.

Experiment: Use the Quantum Mechanical Tunneling Phenomenon to see if it can be used to show a Connection between Physical Space and Conscious Space. (Details below.)

Analyze Data: Let Experiment run for a long time to collect massive amounts of Data. Try to find behavior in the data that indicates Non Random behavior.

Make Conclusions: Decide if there is Non Random behavior. If there is, then analyze and reanalyze to be sure there is no normal Physical reason for the results.

Communicate: The remainder of this section is the Communication of the results that have been generated so far.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Machine Consciousness Experiment Conceivability

Post by GE Morton »

psyreporter wrote: April 23rd, 2022, 6:10 am
GE Morton wrote: April 19th, 2022, 1:32 pm Well, you seem to be using "value" in some idiosyncratic way. I have no idea what "empirical value" might be. Are you referring to say, the value of (for example) of an electrical current read by an ammeter? Value assignments are one of the categories of conscious experience, but not all conscious experience involves values or assignment of values.
Empirical value is anything of which it can be considered to be of substance (i.e. real) within the scope of what science deems valid.
Well, as I said, you're using "value" in some idiosyncratic way. Value is a term for measuring someone's desire for something, and for ranking things desired. Apprehending or asserting the existence of something does not entail any desire for it, and thus no value for it is implied (unless you count zero as a value).
Deontology is ethics based on predetermined rules (ethical theory as precursor to denoting good and bad). It would be grounded on the idea that morality is purely subjective and that ethical theory is all that there could be.
Yes, morality consists of rules. A public morality is a set of rules governing interactions between moral agents in a social setting. A private morality may include rules governing one's actions in other contexts. Those rules are not predetermined, however. They're generated by some moral theory. A sound moral theory, however, is not based on anyone's values. Values --- the strength of someone's desire for something --- is, of course, subjective. Rules derived from a sound moral theory, however, are pragmatic and objective.
My question intended to denote that the idea that moral judgement can have an empirical cause is nonsensical and that morality cannot be subjective.
You seem to be contradicting yourself. Or perhaps I'm not understanding your claims there.
The question: "What can possibly 'say' (figuratively speaking) that it has sensed when it had never sensed?" (how can it be perceived that a living creature can make a subjective moral judgement before it had ever sensed?)
Yes, moral judgments (and theories, rules) presuppose sensory experience. Has anyone here argued otherwise?
My argument is that moral valuing underlays conscious experience and that it can be considered the root of a priori intelligence.
Again, you're contradicting yourself. Above you ask, " . . . how can it be perceived that a living creature can make a subjective moral judgement before it had ever sensed?" Now you're claiming that "moral valuing underlays experience."

And what is this "a priori intelligence" of which you speak?
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Machine Consciousness Experiment Conceivability

Post by GE Morton »

SteveKlinko wrote: April 23rd, 2022, 8:29 am As for me I'm trying to show the existence of Conscious Space which is something New and is not known to clearly exist at this time.
But that is precisely what you're not doing. You're assuming the existence of this "space," not showing it.
If the result cannot be Explained by normal Science then yes it could be Consciousness, Evil Spirits, the Will of God, or Alien Z-Rays. That will need to be further researched. But the important thing at this early stage is that something outside the realm of Science has been shown to Exist.
Well, that is a mistake. Consciousness is most certainly not "outside the realm of science." It is an observable phenomenon known to be produced by, and only by, certain physical systems. It is a physical phenomenon. The subjective aspects of those phenomena cannot be described or predicted from physical laws, not because they exist in some different realm or plane of existence, but because they are subjective --- private, idiosyncratic --- and thus beyond the reach of empirical methodology. Subjective sensations are beetles in Wittgenstein's box.

https://virtualphilosopher.com/2006/09/ ... in_an.html
But what is the Experience of Redness, or of the Standard A Tone, or of the Salty Taste? Science has Zero understanding and Explanation for these kinds of Conscious Experiences. Science can only explore the Correlates of Conscious Experience (Neural Activity). Science, because it insists that Conscious Experiences have to be some Physical Phenomenon in the Physical World, cannot properly study Actual Consciousness as we know it exists in our Minds. Show me how Science has greater than Zero Explanation for the Experience of Redness and all the other Experiences?
Science has a perfectly good explanation for the experience of "redness" (or of salty tastes, or of pains, etc.). Those experiences are induced by well-understood physical stimuli. Present a subject (with the right kind of nervous system) with a red object, and it will report a red experience, or reveal it by its behavior. Similarly for all other subjective experiences. But since we cannot observe those subjective experiences in anyone but ourselves, we can't describe them or predict what that experience "will be like" for any other conscious creature. But there is no question that those experiences are physical phenomena.

The "Hard Problem" arises because subjective experiences are intrinsically inaccessible to public scrutiny --- not because they belong to some mystical, transcendental, "alternative" realm of existence.
SteveKlinko
Posts: 710
Joined: November 19th, 2021, 11:43 am

Re: Machine Consciousness Experiment Conceivability

Post by SteveKlinko »

GE Morton wrote: April 23rd, 2022, 10:50 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: April 23rd, 2022, 8:29 am As for me I'm trying to show the existence of Conscious Space which is something New and is not known to clearly exist at this time.
But that is precisely what you're not doing. You're assuming the existence of this "space," not showing it.
If the result cannot be Explained by normal Science then yes it could be Consciousness, Evil Spirits, the Will of God, or Alien Z-Rays. That will need to be further researched. But the important thing at this early stage is that something outside the realm of Science has been shown to Exist.
Well, that is a mistake. Consciousness is most certainly not "outside the realm of science." It is an observable phenomenon known to be produced by, and only by, certain physical systems. It is a physical phenomenon. The subjective aspects of those phenomena cannot be described or predicted from physical laws, not because they exist in some different realm or plane of existence, but because they are subjective --- private, idiosyncratic --- and thus beyond the reach of empirical methodology. Subjective sensations are beetles in Wittgenstein's box.

https://virtualphilosopher.com/2006/09/ ... in_an.html
But what is the Experience of Redness, or of the Standard A Tone, or of the Salty Taste? Science has Zero understanding and Explanation for these kinds of Conscious Experiences. Science can only explore the Correlates of Conscious Experience (Neural Activity). Science, because it insists that Conscious Experiences have to be some Physical Phenomenon in the Physical World, cannot properly study Actual Consciousness as we know it exists in our Minds. Show me how Science has greater than Zero Explanation for the Experience of Redness and all the other Experiences?
Science has a perfectly good explanation for the experience of "redness" (or of salty tastes, or of pains, etc.). Those experiences are induced by well-understood physical stimuli. Present a subject (with the right kind of nervous system) with a red object, and it will report a red experience, or reveal it by its behavior. Similarly for all other subjective experiences. But since we cannot observe those subjective experiences in anyone but ourselves, we can't describe them or predict what that experience "will be like" for any other conscious creature. But there is no question that those experiences are physical phenomena.

The "Hard Problem" arises because subjective experiences are intrinsically inaccessible to public scrutiny --- not because they belong to some mystical, transcendental, "alternative" realm of existence.
If Conscious Experience is some Phenomenon of Science, then what is it? Is it Energy? Is it some sort of Matter? Is it some aspect of Space itself? I think Conscious Experience will never be classified into any of the above categories. Conscious Experiences don't even seem like they could be any of the above. I'm betting that Conscious Experiences are truly something different. We are at an Impasse on this.
Atla
Posts: 2540
Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm

Re: Machine Consciousness Experiment Conceivability

Post by Atla »

SteveKlinko wrote: April 17th, 2022, 2:07 pm The Connection Perspective of the Inter Mind Model (IMM) enables the conceivability of actually designing Experiments for Machine Consciousness (MachCon). See TheInterMind.com learn about the Inter Mind Model. The Connection Perspective stipulates that there is a separate Conscious Space (CSp) concept apart from normal Physical Space (PSp). The IMM also stipulates that there is an Inter Mind (IM) concept that bridges the Gap between PSp and CSp. The basic premise of any MachCon Experiment having this structure is that something in CSp is able to affect something in PSp. This would correspond to a Conscious Volition (CV) concept existing in CSp. The CV will need the resources of an IM in order to have an effect on anything in PSp. There are two Quantum Mechanical (QM) phenomena that can be considered as a resource that the IM might implement. The first QM phenomena involves the Wave Function of an Electron and the second QM phenomenon involves the effect of Quantum Fluctuations on Electrons.

The following Experiment descriptions depend on the existence of a latent Consciousness of some kind in CSp. It is also assumed that this Consciousness can use QM principles to affect PSp. Each Experiment provides a method to detect changes in some parameter that can be controlled by a QM principle. A series of measurements will have the characteristics of a random signal when there is no Conscious control. If there seems to be a bias or correlation in the data that is not purely random then that could be evidence of Conscious control. This is what we will look for.

It is known that Electrons can travel through Energy barriers and actual Physical barriers due to the Quantum Tunneling effect. The probability that an Electron will Tunnel through a barrier is controlled by the Wave Function of the Electron. The speculation is that maybe something in CSp is able to control Wave Functions in a way that will enable higher or lower probabilities of Tunneling. This speculation can be tested with certain Electronic devices that exist today. Tunnel Diodes and Floating Gate Transistors have been used in separate Experiments. The Tunnel Diode based experiment is described in https://www.theintermind.com/MachConExp ... Legacy.asp. The Floating Gate Transistor based experiment is currently running and generating data for analysis.

The Tunnel Diode experiment ran for 2 years and generated GBytes of data. Unfortunately the results were swamped by the random noise in the system. There was never any indication that a Conscious Mind was controlling the experiment. This first experiment was really a Hail Mary Pass in order to try to at least Do Something. The first problem was that the Experiment used only two Diodes which probably was the equivalent of having only two Neurons. The second problem was that it was measuring the changes in a 1nA current which is 6.24 billion electrons per second. It was the best that could be done using bread board level electronics in a spare bedroom lab situation. The coarseness of the measurement doomed it from the start. Practically speaking there is no way to reduce the coarseness to a low enough level to make an analog experiment like this sensitive enough.

The Floating Gate Transistor version of the MachCon Experiment has been running for a couple of months. See https://www.theintermind.com/MachConExp ... riment.asp. However it too has not exhibited anything except random behavior. But it is early and maybe given more time some positive results can be realized. A 1 Mega bit Flash memory is used in this Experiment. Now we effectively have 1 Million Neurons. To program a Zero into the memory about 50000 Electrons must Tunnel onto the Floating Gate. This is vastly less coarse than the Tunnel Diode situation but is still pretty coarse. The next MachCon Experiment will have to incorporate an array of Single Electron Transistors. As it's name implies these devices can handle single electron charge movements. This will enable a Coarseness that is Billions of times less than the situation with the Tunnel Diode and 50 Thousand times less than the Flash Memory. Unfortunately, the Single Electron Transistor is still at the experimental laboratory stage.

Even if there is a latent Consciousness in CSp that is ready to interact with the world through QM principles, the question could be asked as to why this Consciousness would want to interact with the world in a case like this? A Consciousness would probably need some kind of Motivation to act. Maybe an act of CV will be activated only when we understand how to produce a Discomfort or Pleasure in CSp. This might motivate an act of CV that will affect the Tunneling characteristics of an Electron. The Experiment should be programmed to then reward the act of CV by lessening the Discomfort or increasing the Pleasure to close the loop. This could be how it all works at the single cell level or at the Amoeba level.

The negative results of the first two MachCon Experiments should not discourage further Experiments especially since it is understood why they did not work. But the real point of talking about these Experiments is to show that it is conceivable and feasible to do Experiments given the right Perspective on the problem.

Quantum Fluctuations are highly hypothetical events where small bursts of Energy or Particles appear briefly and randomly out of supposedly empty space. It is thought that if a Quantum Fluctuation occurs near an Electron that it could have an effect. There is anticipation that the Single Electron Transistor could be exploited to measure these Quantum Fluctuations. The speculation is that maybe there could be evidence of Consciousness in the occurrence of Quantum Fluctuations given the right circumstances.
Read somewhere that meta studies on parapsychological QM studies might indicate a 3% or so deviation from random chance.

Unfortunately for you even if this is true, it's much more probable that it has to do with quantum biological exploitation of a nested extradimensional structure of our nondual universe, than an inter mind.
True philosophy points to the Moon
User avatar
psyreporter
Posts: 1022
Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Machine Consciousness Experiment Conceivability

Post by psyreporter »

GE Morton wrote: April 23rd, 2022, 10:17 pm
psyreporter wrote: April 23rd, 2022, 6:10 amEmpirical value is anything of which it can be considered to be of substance (i.e. real) within the scope of what science deems valid.
Well, as I said, you're using "value" in some idiosyncratic way. Value is a term for measuring someone's desire for something, and for ranking things desired. Apprehending or asserting the existence of something does not entail any desire for it, and thus no value for it is implied (unless you count zero as a value).
Value is anything of which it can be said that it has meaning. Value can be a number in physics, a pattern or a personal ethical principle.

Meaning in a pure form is equal to 'good per se' (good that cannot be valued).

Empirical value would be any value relative to what science deems 'good' (valid in the face of observation).

Moral value would be value relative to what one deems to be 'good' according to morality. My logic has indicated that the origin of morality is a moral sense (moral compass) that underlays conscious experience.

Basic sensory experience such as Vision requires a priori moral valuing to be possible because it involves valuing on behalf of what is to be considered 'good'.

Good in sensory experience is the 'good' of the Universe, i.e. what is considered to be 'reality'.

If the 'good' of the Universe would be given to a life form, there would be no reason for the life form to exist since there would be nothing to be sensed (the sense-data would have been predetermined and thus meaningless = senseless).

GE Morton wrote: April 23rd, 2022, 10:17 pm
Deontology is ethics based on predetermined rules (ethical theory as precursor to denoting good and bad). It would be grounded on the idea that morality is purely subjective and that ethical theory is all that there could be.
Yes, morality consists of rules. A public morality is a set of rules governing interactions between moral agents in a social setting. A private morality may include rules governing one's actions in other contexts. Those rules are not predetermined, however. They're generated by some moral theory. A sound moral theory, however, is not based on anyone's values. Values --- the strength of someone's desire for something --- is, of course, subjective. Rules derived from a sound moral theory, however, are pragmatic and objective.
You are confusing morality with ethics. While morality is involved in the creation of ethical theory, by the simple addressing of the question 'What is good?', morality does not reside in theory or denoted good and bad (i.e. morality does not reside within the scope of a retro-perspective).

GE Morton wrote: April 23rd, 2022, 10:17 pm
The question: "What can possibly 'say' (figuratively speaking) that it has sensed when it had never sensed?" (how can it be perceived that a living creature can make a subjective moral judgement before it had ever sensed?)
Yes, moral judgments (and theories, rules) presuppose sensory experience. Has anyone here argued otherwise?
What is argued is that the senses (as being primary before subjective experience is possible) presuppose a priori moral valuing.

GE Morton wrote: April 23rd, 2022, 10:17 pm
My argument is that moral valuing underlays conscious experience and that it can be considered the root of a priori intelligence.
Again, you're contradicting yourself. Above you ask, " . . . how can it be perceived that a living creature can make a subjective moral judgement before it had ever sensed?" Now you're claiming that "moral valuing underlays experience."
It is argued that non-subjective and non-objective moral valuing necessarily underlays conscious experience.

The 'brain in a vat' idea (causally explainable consciousness) would suppose that an empirical cause of moral judgement can have preceded the sense-data. You would need to envision an empirical cause of consciousness to reside within absolute nothingness to suddenly receive a bit of information to magically judge subjectively. It would be a nonsensical idea.

The question intends to indicate that intelligence and moral valuing is a priori in the face of a mechanical sensing facility and that it cannot be explained with an empirical cause. It implies that morality cannot be subjective.

The logic indicates that humans are naturally equipped with a moral compass (moral sense) and that morality is to be found in an eternal philosophical exploration on behalf of the simple question "What is 'good'?". Further, the logic indicates that moral valuing underlays conscious experience as an a priori intelligence factor.

GE Morton wrote: April 23rd, 2022, 10:17 pmAnd what is this "a priori intelligence" of which you speak?
For sensing-ability to have come into existence without predetermination or design by a being (e.g. an alien or 'God'), an explanation is required that addresses that most basic aspect required for sensing-ability to be possible, which is moral valuing of which by simple logic it can be said that it's origin is necessarily pure meaning or 'good per se' (the origin of moral valuing cannot be valued itself and therefore the primary characteristic 'meaning' can be said to be pure).
PsyReporter.com | “If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.”
SteveKlinko
Posts: 710
Joined: November 19th, 2021, 11:43 am

Re: Machine Consciousness Experiment Conceivability

Post by SteveKlinko »

Atla wrote: April 24th, 2022, 4:44 pm Read somewhere that meta studies on parapsychological QM studies might indicate a 3% or so deviation from random chance.

Unfortunately for you even if this is true, it's much more probable that it has to do with quantum biological exploitation of a nested extradimensional structure of our nondual universe, than an inter mind.
Meta Studies on Parapsychological QM Studies are Irrelevant to the Machine Consciousness Experiment configuration. Yes of course, Quantum Biological Exploitation of a Nested Extradimensional Structure of our Nondual Universe is the only other Explanation.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Science”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021