X-Message-Number: 21352
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 23:31:30 -0700
From: Mike Perry <>
Subject: Bits, Programs, Consciousness

Thomas Donaldson says:

>We cannot be just information, we must actually take form
>as a creature acting in the world.

I agree. But my point of view is that information is needed for what I have 
called the conservation of identity, while being an active creature (or 
some type of active process at least) is necessary for what I have called 
the expression of identity. I actually think both are necessary for what I 
would consider survival. The impression that some seem to have that I 
consider it sufficient to just be a body of inert information with no 
changes over time, is incorrect.


>...we are NOT
>bits in a computer. The computer is then just executing a program
>and no matter how complex the program it does not become "human"
>or even acquire consciousness.
>  The reason is quite simple: all those
>operations with bits only have meaning when some third party
>examines them.

Well, suppose there is a planet populated by intelligent robots who walk 
around and interact much as humans do, but in place of what we call brains 
have very powerful computers which nevertheless operate with bits and are 
running programs. Are you saying these robots could not possibly be 
conscious? What if the robots were not consciously designed but had arisen 
from an unthinking mechanism by a lengthy process of evolution? (Unlikely, 
but possible in principle.)

>Mike Perry suggests that such a program could be so well-done that
>there would be no way to tell the difference between it and a
>human being. From this he concludes that it must be conscious.

I really said you could not prove it was not conscious, thus I would give 
the benefit of the doubt.

>The
>problem with such an idea is that he's assuming one thing he must
>prove: that there really is no way to tell the difference.

Not really. I am assuming a similarity down to a certain level, but not 
claiming that no test could tell the difference.

>  If
>I, a 3rd party, come along with a way to look at the "brain" of
>Mike's imitation human being and establish that it's only executing
>a computer program, then his imitation falls down. Symbols came
>along much later than brains, and its the operation of a BRAIN
>that makes us conscious. ...
>A computer, operating only with bits, would
>not actually do those things required for consciousness, it would
>only be fiddling with symbols.

"Only fiddling with symbols" *cannot* amount to consciousness, apparently. 
This is where I disagree.

>...OK, so we need a system
>which actually does something active in the world, rather than
>just operate with symbols.

"Just operating with symbols" is also "doing something active in the 
world," at least at a minimal level. On the other hand, the brain may be 
"doing something active" too, but you have to allow it doesn't do much, in 
terms of real movement. Though I'm not prepared to do it here, I think a 
case could be made that it, too, is "fiddling with symbols," albeit in a 
very complex way. Just think of the quantum level, and all it implies. (And 
remember, we haven't really defined "symbol.")

Mike Perry

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=21352