Machine Consciousness Experiment Conceivability

[SteveKlinko]

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.

[JackDaydream]

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.

I have read your outpost above and looked at the links but it seems more of applicable to the development of electronics than the philosophy of consciousness as known by human beings or other living beings. Even if the machines did appear to have some volition it doesn't seem comparable to sentient beings. In some ways, machines have independent energy fields but not in a way comparable to human beings.

For example, they can become damaged and even lose their memories. I remember that my Kindle had surgery in a computer shop when its battery wore out and the man in the shop took it apart and tried to put it together again with new parts. It was almost like it had organ failure as its light stopped working and it lost its memory completely. It was like it had dementia or died, as far as a Kindle can die.

But machines don't function like human beings. They don't have skin, blood or living organs. So, apart from for creating robotic forms I don't see how they throw light on consciousness as we know it. Also, the intermind model seems too mechanical because consciousness is bound up with sensory experiences and the divisions which you speak of seem more related to information retention as opposed to the emergence of consciousness connected with life and sentience.

[psyreporter]

Interesting information and experiment!

In a topic about the website TheInterMind.com we discussed the following citation:

Today it is clear that there is a causality trajectory from the Physical World to the Conscious World and not the other way around."

I replied with the following:

"When it concerns sensing to be primary, wouldn't you agree that the same can be said with regard Visual Experience (Visual Cortex and the causality trajectory of which you argue that it is 'clear' that it precedes conscious experience) and that before such a physical process is possible, the act of sensing (which involves moral valuing!) must have taken place beforehand?

Before the act of sensing is originated, do you not agree that there must be a factor that will facilitate the sensing potential and that results in subjective experience?

What can possibly 'say' (figuratively speaking) that it has sensed if it had never sensed? Is it possible to overcome this absurdity with logic? If not, how can a physicalist perspective (CM originating from PM) be valid? "

You replied with the following:

I don't subscribe to the Physicalist Perspective. I promote the Connectist Perspective where the Conscious Mind is Connected to the Physical Mind (Brain). With Connectism the Conscious Mind exists in a separate Conscious Space concept apart from the Physical Mind which is in the normal Physical Space that we know from Science. The Inter Mind is the Bridge between the Physical Mind and the Conscious Mind.

Some questions:

1) When you indicate that PSp is primary and thus the origin of both Inter Mind and CSp, how can it be said that you do not subscribe to a physicalist perspective?

2) What is the basis for the idea that CSp can be simulated by a machine (if not a physicalist perspective)?

3) When CSp would be primary, how can it be said that machines can become conscious?

I mentioned the following in a different topic:

"The 'brain in a vat' idea (or purely empirical Machine Volition) is nonsensical. A brain is a posteriori in the face of the senses and the senses are a posteriori in the face of the potential required for sensing, which is moral valuing which itself derives its potential from what can be indicated as pure meaning or 'good per se'."

This logic would indicate that what you name CSp would be primary (the origin of PSp) and it would also indicate that it might not be 'a CSp' (consciousness as a substantial factor by itself) but merely the potential for moral valuing within the scope of PSp which origin is also (the origin of) moral valuing.

(2018) Is the Universe a conscious mind?
It turns out that, for life to be possible, the numbers in basic physics – for example, the strength of gravity, or the mass of the electron – must have values falling in a certain range. And that range is an incredibly narrow slice of all the possible values those numbers can have. It is therefore incredibly unlikely that a universe like ours would have the kind of numbers compatible with the existence of life. But, against all the odds, our Universe does.

Here are a few of examples of this fine-tuning for life:

The strong nuclear force has a value of 0.007. If that value had been 0.006 or 0.008, life would not have been possible.
https://aeon.co/essays/cosmopsychism-ex ... d-for-life

[SteveKlinko]

I have read your outpost above and looked at the links but it seems more of applicable to the development of electronics than the philosophy of consciousness as known by human beings or other living beings. Even if the machines did appear to have some volition it doesn't seem comparable to sentient beings. In some ways, machines have independent energy fields but not in a way comparable to human beings.

For example, they can become damaged and even lose their memories. I remember that my Kindle had surgery in a computer shop when its battery wore out and the man in the shop took it apart and tried to put it together again with new parts. It was almost like it had organ failure as its light stopped working and it lost its memory completely. It was like it had dementia or died, as far as a Kindle can die.

But machines don't function like human beings. They don't have skin, blood or living organs. So, apart from for creating robotic forms I don't see how they throw light on consciousness as we know it. Also, the intermind model seems too mechanical because consciousness is bound up with sensory experiences and the divisions which you speak of seem more related to information retention as opposed to the emergence of consciousness connected with life and sentience.

Connectism specifies that Conscious Experiences happen in Conscious Minds that are in some sort of Conscious Space. Connectism also specifies that a Conscious Mind is Connected to a corresponding Physical Mind (Brain) in Physical Space. It is not known how this Connection is accomplished but it has been speculated that it is probably through Quantum Mechanical principles. Connectism also implies that the Brain is just a Processing Machine and has no Consciousness in and of itself. So a Brain is no more Conscious than any other Machine because the Brain is just another kind of Machine. But we know that the Brain is somehow Connected to a Conscious Mind. The thought immediately comes up, that since the Brain is just a Machine that is Connected to Consciousness, then maybe other kinds of Machines could be Connected to Consciousness. That is what the Machine Consciousness Experiments are trying to determine. I am trying to Connect a Machine to the highly theoretical concept of Conscious Space. Conscious Space may or may not exist, but it will be Experiments like these, with much greater resolution, that will prove it or eventually disprove it by a continuing series of negative results.

[SteveKlinko]

Interesting information and experiment!

In a topic about the website TheInterMind.com we discussed the following citation:

Today it is clear that there is a causality trajectory from the Physical World to the Conscious World and not the other way around."

I replied with the following:

"When it concerns sensing to be primary, wouldn't you agree that the same can be said with regard Visual Experience (Visual Cortex and the causality trajectory of which you argue that it is 'clear' that it precedes conscious experience) and that before such a physical process is possible, the act of sensing (which involves moral valuing!) must have taken place beforehand?

Before the act of sensing is originated, do you not agree that there must be a factor that will facilitate the sensing potential and that results in subjective experience?

What can possibly 'say' (figuratively speaking) that it has sensed if it had never sensed? Is it possible to overcome this absurdity with logic? If not, how can a physicalist perspective (CM originating from PM) be valid? "

You replied with the following:

I don't subscribe to the Physicalist Perspective. I promote the Connectist Perspective where the Conscious Mind is Connected to the Physical Mind (Brain). With Connectism the Conscious Mind exists in a separate Conscious Space concept apart from the Physical Mind which is in the normal Physical Space that we know from Science. The Inter Mind is the Bridge between the Physical Mind and the Conscious Mind.

Some questions:

1) When you indicate that PSp is primary and thus the origin of both Inter Mind and CSp, how can it be said that you do not subscribe to a physicalist perspective?

2) What is the basis for the idea that CSp can be simulated by a machine (if not a physicalist perspective)?

3) When CSp would be primary, how can it be said that machines can become conscious?

I mentioned the following in a different topic:

"The 'brain in a vat' idea (or purely empirical Machine Volition) is nonsensical. A brain is a posteriori in the face of the senses and the senses are a posteriori in the face of the potential required for sensing, which is moral valuing which itself derives its potential from what can be indicated as pure meaning or 'good per se'."

This logic would indicate that what you name CSp would be primary (the origin of PSp) and it would also indicate that it might not be 'a CSp' (consciousness as a substantial factor by itself) but merely the potential for moral valuing within the scope of PSp which origin is also (the origin of) moral valuing.

(2018) Is the Universe a conscious mind?
It turns out that, for life to be possible, the numbers in basic physics – for example, the strength of gravity, or the mass of the electron – must have values falling in a certain range. And that range is an incredibly narrow slice of all the possible values those numbers can have. It is therefore incredibly unlikely that a universe like ours would have the kind of numbers compatible with the existence of life. But, against all the odds, our Universe does.

Here are a few of examples of this fine-tuning for life:

The strong nuclear force has a value of 0.007. If that value had been 0.006 or 0.008, life would not have been possible.
https://aeon.co/essays/cosmopsychism-ex ... d-for-life

Answer 1) I don't think I have ever said that PSp is Primary, in fact the website has a whole section on the Primacy of Consciousness. I say that PSp and CSp both exist as separate and different Phenomena. Conscious Space could even be prior to PSp.

Answer 2) The Machine Consciousness Experiments do not Simulate Conscious Space, but rather they try to Connect to a theoretically already Existing Conscious Space.

Answer 3) Machines can become Conscious just like the Human Brain machine has become Conscious. Both Connect to Consciousness but are not Conscious in and of themselves.

[stevie]

Connectism specifies that Conscious Experiences happen in Conscious Minds that are in some sort of Conscious Space. Connectism also specifies that a Conscious Mind is Connected to a corresponding Physical Mind (Brain) in Physical Space. It is not known how this Connection is accomplished but it has been speculated that it is probably through Quantum Mechanical principles. Connectism also implies that the Brain is just a Processing Machine and has no Consciousness in and of itself. So a Brain is no more Conscious than any other Machine because the Brain is just another kind of Machine. But we know that the Brain is somehow Connected to a Conscious Mind. The thought immediately comes up, that since the Brain is just a Machine that is Connected to Consciousness, then maybe other kinds of Machines could be Connected to Consciousness. That is what the Machine Consciousness Experiments are trying to determine. I am trying to Connect a Machine to the highly theoretical concept of Conscious Space. Conscious Space may or may not exist, but it will be Experiments like these, with much greater resolution, that will prove it or eventually disprove it by a continuing series of negative results.

The error is in the concepts of "consciousness", "conscious minds". There is no scientific evidence of "consciousness" or "mind" but there is scientific evidence of "brain".
When an experimental model is based on the mere beliefs of ordinary people it is doomed. Therefore your model is doomed. The ordinary belief it relies on does rely itself on far to many speculative premises (again merely ordinary beliefs).

In terms of bottom-up there is no way other than to follow the scientific path of hypothesis -> experiment -> theory or rejection of hypothesis - 'elementary scientifically traceable micro step' by 'elementary scientifically traceable micro step'. The challenge is to break down the cognitive process into 'elementary scientifically traceable micro steps' and not get sidetracked/deluded by ordinary and traditional beliefs. And of course the objective basis has to be living brain [tissues]. When the functioning of the brain in the context of subject experience is understood then a corresponding machine can be constructed.
An alternative way to approach 'machine cognition' is AI which however should be in a position to learn and express 'qualia' experiences if the reference system is human. However even if such a machine could act/react like a human system that could not count as scientific evidence of 'similarity of cognitive processes'.

[SteveKlinko]

Connectism specifies that Conscious Experiences happen in Conscious Minds that are in some sort of Conscious Space. Connectism also specifies that a Conscious Mind is Connected to a corresponding Physical Mind (Brain) in Physical Space. It is not known how this Connection is accomplished but it has been speculated that it is probably through Quantum Mechanical principles. Connectism also implies that the Brain is just a Processing Machine and has no Consciousness in and of itself. So a Brain is no more Conscious than any other Machine because the Brain is just another kind of Machine. But we know that the Brain is somehow Connected to a Conscious Mind. The thought immediately comes up, that since the Brain is just a Machine that is Connected to Consciousness, then maybe other kinds of Machines could be Connected to Consciousness. That is what the Machine Consciousness Experiments are trying to determine. I am trying to Connect a Machine to the highly theoretical concept of Conscious Space. Conscious Space may or may not exist, but it will be Experiments like these, with much greater resolution, that will prove it or eventually disprove it by a continuing series of negative results.

The error is in the concepts of "consciousness", "conscious minds". There is no scientific evidence of "consciousness" or "mind" but there is scientific evidence of "brain".
When an experimental model is based on the mere beliefs of ordinary people it is doomed. Therefore your model is doomed. The ordinary belief it relies on does rely itself on far to many speculative premises (again merely ordinary beliefs).

In terms of bottom-up there is no way other than to follow the scientific path of hypothesis -> experiment -> theory or rejection of hypothesis - 'elementary scientifically traceable micro step' by 'elementary scientifically traceable micro step'. The challenge is to break down the cognitive process into 'elementary scientifically traceable micro steps' and not get sidetracked/deluded by ordinary and traditional beliefs. And of course the objective basis has to be living brain [tissues]. When the functioning of the brain in the context of subject experience is understood then a corresponding machine can be constructed.
An alternative way to approach 'machine cognition' is AI which however should be in a position to learn and express 'qualia' experiences if the reference system is human. However even if such a machine could act/react like a human system that could not count as scientific evidence of 'similarity of cognitive processes'.

Hahhhhhh! Doomed you say! Maybe so. As long as you reject, out of hand, anything that is not Physicalist Dogma you just might be missing something very important with regard to Consciousness. It made sense a hundred years ago that Consciousness must somehow be a result of Neural Activity. To test this, Science has Probed, Measured, Scanned, and Mapped the Brain in every conceivable way. But after a hundred years of trying, there is identically Zero Understanding of how Conscious Experience could arise out of Brain Neural Activity. Someone has got to break out of that Physicalist Box that Science is in and try new things. I'm taking the first steps on a new path, using a new Perspective, for studying Conscious Experience.

[stevie]

As long as you reject, out of hand, anything that is not Physicalist Dogma you just might be missing something very important with regard to Consciousness.

It isn't dogma that there isn't any scientific evidence of "consciousness", there simply isn't scientific evidence.

It made sense a hundred years ago that Consciousness must somehow be a result of Neural Activity.

No, it neither made scientific sense a hundred years ago nor does it make scientific sense at present. It may have made sense for ordinary believers in "consciousness" a hundred years ago and at present.

To test this, Science has Probed, Measured, Scanned, and Mapped the Brain in every conceivable way. But after a hundred years of trying, there is identically Zero Understanding of how Conscious Experience could arise out of Brain Neural Activity.

Which isn't surprising since there hasn't been scientific evidence of "consciousness" or "conscious experience" in the first place.

Someone has got to break out of that Physicalist Box that Science is in and try new things. I'm taking the first steps on a new path, using a new Perspective, for studying Conscious Experience.

No new path but same mistake again.

[GE Morton]

Hahhhhhh! Doomed you say! Maybe so. As long as you reject, out of hand, anything that is not Physicalist Dogma you just might be missing something very important with regard to Consciousness. It made sense a hundred years ago that Consciousness must somehow be a result of Neural Activity. To test this, Science has Probed, Measured, Scanned, and Mapped the Brain in every conceivable way. But after a hundred years of trying, there is identically Zero Understanding of how Conscious Experience could arise out of Brain Neural Activity.

Oh, there is no question that conscious experience is the result of neural activity. Without the neural activity there is no consciousness, and numerous alterations and disturbances to that neural activity alter conscious experience, in predictable ways. That "mind talk" is not reducible to "brain talk" is not evidence of an ontological disconnect between mind and brain; it is not reducible because "mind talk" refers to idiosyncratic, subjective phenomena which are not accessible to third parties, and are therefore beyond the reach of scientific method.

Your "Conscious Space" is just another term for panpsychism, and like the latter, derives from a fallacious reification of a universal. "Consciousness" is not a "thing" --- a place, entity, alternate universe, or "realm of being." It has no ontological substance. It is just a property we attribute to certain systems which behave in certain characteristic ways, and to the subjective phenomena we experience when behaving in those ways. We say a system which behaves in those ways is "conscious," or that it "exhibits consciousness," which just means that it displays that property. We may also say that a rose is red, or that it exhibits redness. But those latter constructions don't imply that "consciousness" or "redness" are substances of some sort.

Moreover, the physical experiments you describe in your OP would not reveal what you think they would. The departures from randomness you mention would only suggest some physical variable had not been properly controlled, or was overlooked, or perhaps was unknown. It would in no way support a conclusion about an intervention from a hypothetical "Conscious Space." Further, if you insisted upon that explanation, you'd be in the same position physicists are now in with respect to the "Hard Problem" --- trying to explain just how that interaction, or mediation, was accomplished.

[GE Morton]

It isn't dogma that there isn't any scientific evidence of "consciousness", there simply isn't scientific evidence.

Well, you're making the opposite mistake SteveKlinko makes. While there is indeed no evidence of "consciousness" understood as some sort of substance ("realm of existence," field, entity, etc.), evidence that it exists as a property of certain systems is ubiquitous and beyond question. The term "conscious" applies to systems which exhibit certain distinctive patterns of behavior. It also denotes the subjective phenomena we experience in the course of our waking lives, and which we infer others also experience, based on their behavior.

If there is a useful, empirically supported distinction to be made between systems or entities which are conscious (animals) and systems which not (plants, rocks, hurricanes, tides, etc.) then consciousness exists --- as a property of the former class of systems, but not as "realm of being" distinct from the physical realm.

[psyreporter]

Answer 1) I don't think I have ever said that PSp is Primary, in fact the website has a whole section on the Primacy of Consciousness. I say that PSp and CSp both exist as separate and different Phenomena. Conscious Space could even be prior to PSp.

Then, how would you explain a causality trajectory from Physical World (=PSp?) to Consious World?

"Today it is clear that there is a causality trajectory from the Physical World to the Conscious World and not the other way around."

Answer 2) The Machine Consciousness Experiments do not Simulate Conscious Space, but rather they try to Connect to a theoretically already Existing Conscious Space.

Is there a theory or clue available for the potential to connect a machine to Conscious Space?

Answer 3) Machines can become Conscious just like the Human Brain machine has become Conscious. Both Connect to Consciousness but are not Conscious in and of themselves.

Do you consider a brain to be a machine that operates out of itself and facilitates consciousness?

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?

Did you consider the thought experiment: "What can possibly 'say' (figuratively speaking) that it has sensed when it had never sensed? "

The 'brain in a vat' idea (purely empirical Machine Volition) is nonsensical. A brain is a posteriori in the face of the senses and the senses are a posteriori in the face of the potential required for sensing, which is moral valuing which itself derives its potential from what can be indicated as pure meaning or 'good per se'.

[psyreporter]

Well, you're making the opposite mistake SteveKlinko makes. While there is indeed no evidence of "consciousness" understood as some sort of substance ("realm of existence," field, entity, etc.), evidence that it exists as a property of certain systems is ubiquitous and beyond question. The term "conscious" applies to systems which exhibit certain distinctive patterns of behavior. It also denotes the subjective phenomena we experience in the course of our waking lives, and which we infer others also experience, based on their behavior.

That statement is not valid. There is no scientific evidence for consciousness.

When it concerns consciousness (meaningful experience) it concerns an aspect that is impossible to grasp or explain within the scope of empirical value (the foundation of scientific evidence) so that any argument by which it can be said that consciousness is to be considered a factor would originate from one's assignment of value to one's own conscious experience. Such value would not be empirical value which causes incompatibility with what science deems valid so that one is obligated to either neglect it or to pose arguments for which scientific evidence is not possible.

As a result, consciousness is ignored as a factor beyond the scope of empirical value.

The philosophical zombie theory illustrates the problem and shows that science cannot explain consciousness (meaningful experience).

(2022) The philosopher’s zombie: What can the zombie argument say about human consciousness?
The infamous thought experiment, flawed as it is, does demonstrate one thing: science can’t explain consciousness.
Source: https://aeon.co/essays/what-can-the-zom ... sciousness

[stevie]

It isn't dogma that there isn't any scientific evidence of "consciousness", there simply isn't scientific evidence.

Well, you're making the opposite mistake SteveKlinko makes. While there is indeed no evidence of "consciousness" understood as some sort of substance ("realm of existence," field, entity, etc.), evidence that it exists as a property of certain systems is ubiquitous and beyond question. The term "conscious" applies to systems which exhibit certain distinctive patterns of behavior. It also denotes the subjective phenomena we experience in the course of our waking lives, and which we infer others also experience, based on their behavior.

If there is a useful, empirically supported distinction to be made between systems or entities which are conscious (animals) and systems which not (plants, rocks, hurricanes, tides, etc.) then consciousness exists --- as a property of the former class of systems, but not as "realm of being" distinct from the physical realm.

Your argumentation is an argumentation of a believer based on believed premises. The arguments you are applying have been applied in ancient times to "prove" the existence of "the soul". Concomitant concepts of "consciousness" have inherited much from concomitant concepts of "soul" but "consciousness" appears to be more satisfying for the secular believer.
No reasonable person would posit "consciousness" on the basis of "certain distinctive patterns of behavior" of a computer/robot. Why? Because the material basis and the mechanisms of its functionings are known. In the same way once the material basis and the mechanisms of the functionings of human organisms will be known ("functioning" including all kinds of alleged "subjective experiences" which are aspects of self-regulation) the word "consciousness" will become meaningless. But to get to know the material basis and the mechanisms of the functionings of human organisms scientific principles have to be applied rigorously and one principle is that hypotheses must not be based on mere beliefs and must be directly testable. Therefore an approach '[elementary scientifically traceable micro] step' by '[elementary scientifically traceable micro] step' is needed.

[SteveKlinko]

As long as you reject, out of hand, anything that is not Physicalist Dogma you just might be missing something very important with regard to Consciousness.

It isn't dogma that there isn't any scientific evidence of "consciousness", there simply isn't scientific evidence.

What are you looking for? A machine that measures Consciousness? The Human Brain is a Machine and the Human Brain Measures Conscious Experience. As an example, given the group of Humans with normally developed Visual Systems and showing them something colored Red, 99% will report a Redness Experience in their Minds. This is a Scientifically significant result and it shows that there is something going on in the Human Mind that needs to be further investigated. A truly open minded Scientific person will have to ask, What is that Redness Experience?

It made sense a hundred years ago that Consciousness must somehow be a result of Neural Activity.

No, it neither made scientific sense a hundred years ago nor does it make scientific sense at present. It may have made sense for ordinary believers in "consciousness" a hundred years ago and at present.

It never made sense? Now I don't know where you are coming from.

To test this, Science has Probed, Measured, Scanned, and Mapped the Brain in every conceivable way. But after a hundred years of trying, there is identically Zero Understanding of how Conscious Experience could arise out of Brain Neural Activity.

Which isn't surprising since there hasn't been scientific evidence of "consciousness" or "conscious experience" in the first place.

The evidence is in the Human Mind. Science does not have any Clue what the Human Mind is and what Conscious Experience could be. Do you deny the Existence of your own Conscious Experience? What is Redness in your own Conscious Experience? How do you Explain it. There is no Scientific Explanation for Redness, but there it is, Embedded in the front of your face as part of your Visual Experience

Someone has got to break out of that Physicalist Box that Science is in and try new things. I'm taking the first steps on a new path, using a new Perspective, for studying Conscious Experience.

No new path but same mistake again.

Could be, but somebody has got to risk that mistake to settle this one way or the other.

[SteveKlinko]

Hahhhhhh! Doomed you say! Maybe so. As long as you reject, out of hand, anything that is not Physicalist Dogma you just might be missing something very important with regard to Consciousness. It made sense a hundred years ago that Consciousness must somehow be a result of Neural Activity. To test this, Science has Probed, Measured, Scanned, and Mapped the Brain in every conceivable way. But after a hundred years of trying, there is identically Zero Understanding of how Conscious Experience could arise out of Brain Neural Activity.

Oh, there is no question that conscious experience is the result of neural activity. Without the neural activity there is no consciousness, and numerous alterations and disturbances to that neural activity alter conscious experience, in predictable ways. That "mind talk" is not reducible to "brain talk" is not evidence of an ontological disconnect between mind and brain; it is not reducible because "mind talk" refers to idiosyncratic, subjective phenomena which are not accessible to third parties, and are therefore beyond the reach of scientific method.

Your "Conscious Space" is just another term for panpsychism, and like the latter, derives from a fallacious reification of a universal. "Consciousness" is not a "thing" --- a place, entity, alternate universe, or "realm of being." It has no ontological substance. It is just a property we attribute to certain systems which behave in certain characteristic ways, and to the subjective phenomena we experience when behaving in those ways. We say a system which behaves in those ways is "conscious," or that it "exhibits consciousness," which just means that it displays that property. We may also say that a rose is red, or that it exhibits redness. But those latter constructions don't imply that "consciousness" or "redness" are substances of some sort.

Moreover, the physical experiments you describe in your OP would not reveal what you think they would. The departures from randomness you mention would only suggest some physical variable had not been properly controlled, or was overlooked, or perhaps was unknown. It would in no way support a conclusion about an intervention from a hypothetical "Conscious Space." Further, if you insisted upon that explanation, you'd be in the same position physicists are now in with respect to the "Hard Problem" --- trying to explain just how that interaction, or mediation, was accomplished.

Conscious Space is not Panpsychism. Panpsychism is the theory that all matter has an element of Consciousness built in. So even an Electron is slightly Conscious. I promote the Connection Perspective of Connectism. Connectism stipulates the there is a Conscious Space that is separate from normal Space which we can call Physical Space. Connectism then stipulates that Conscious Space can be Connected to Physical Space under special circumstances. The Circumstance thet we best know is that a Conscious Mind in Conscious Space is Connected to a Physical Mind (Brain) in Physical Space. The Connection seems to be located specifically in the Brain and probably more specifically to only the Cortex. See https://theintermind.com/#ConnectionPerspective.

Of course all variables of the Experiment must be analyzed and properly controlled. It will only be after years of running these kinds of Experiments that we would be confident in any results. There were a number of false positives during the initial runs of these Experiments. But the real problem was that the fidelity of these Experiments were only as good as could be done in a home lab situation and with a limited budget.