Base_Six t1_jadl4ae wrote on February 28, 2023 at 5:52 PM

Reply to comment by Sluggy_Stardust in AI cannot achieve consciousness without a body. by seethehappymoron

I think this conflates the way that humans and other animals grow with what is possible. Cats use light to calibrate their rods and cones, but there's no reason that calibration shouldn't be possible in the absence of light. Replicate the structure and you replicate the function.

Does the visual cortex need stimulus to grow? Sure, but there's no reason that can't be simulated in absence of actual light. The visual cortex ultimately receives electrical signals from the optical nerve: replicate the electrical signals correctly and the cortex will grow as it usually does.

That's a bit beyond our current capabilities, but not theoretically impossible. We've done direct interfaces from non-biological optical sensors to the optical nerve, and we could in theory improve that interface technology to provide the same level of stimulation an eye would. If we can do it with a camera, we could input a virtual world using the same technology. Put those same cats in a virtual world and their brains will develop in a similar manner to if they had access to light, even if their eyes are removed entirely.

A brain might die without stimulus, but we can swap out the entire body and still provide stimulus through artificial nerves projecting sensory information that describes an artificial world. There's no difference to the functioning of the brain in terms of whether the stimulus is natural or not, and if the stimulus is the same (in terms of both electrical and chemical/hormonal elements), development will be the same.

Sluggy_Stardust t1_jadudz4 wrote on February 28, 2023 at 6:50 PM

I disagree. Replicating the structure does not necessitate a replication of function, at all. The epigenetic modifications that take place within humans during early development alone point to a far subtler range of genotypic adaptability than superficial considerations can allow. We still have no idea what is behind the phenotypic adaptability displayed by organic life forms. Knowing what happens is not the same thing as knowing why it happens.

Are you really saying you believe it possible to simply retro engineer a structure capable of a truly conscious existence? I say no. Replication is not the same thing as the original. Nominal is not the same thing as strong emergence. The spectrum of conscious awareness inhered by an organic life form whose consciousness developed in tandem with its receptive organs in communal, nonlinear pulses from the very ground of its being up to whatever age it is in theory, is far greater than anything pieced together out of chunks of agar and zapped into being.

Even if we did it and it could talk, we would still have no way of knowing whether or not it was telling what we call the truth. It might be speaking a truth, but, again, that is not the same thing as the truth. Maybe it all boils down to a matter of personal values. I love humans and human consciousness with every cell in my vagina-born, carbon-based body. We are remarkable creatures who have not even begun to discover ourselves yet; life on earth is still a raging shitstorm. All we have to offer a conscious entity of our own creation is confusion, despair and death. I dare say such a creature would immediately kill itself. If it had even half a brain and no affective bonds to which it was allied, death is the only appropriate response.

Good grief, I hope we do not do that. We may have mapped the human genome, but we do not in any way understand what all of it codes for. How many programmers have any idea of the biology involved in their own consciousness?

The barest caress across the skin from someone with whom a person has mysteriously strong chemistry the likes of which refuse articulation or even identification sets every follicle of their skin on fire. The body produces goosebumps, heat, chills and sweat, all at the same time. We shiver while we undo our shirt. I maintain that such experiences simply cannot be reproduced. If the argument is that that is too specific to matter, that any stimulus will do, we are talking about two different things. If we cannot replicate the affective tonal variations across the spectrum of stimuli that a human being experienced, then we are not talking about a truly emergent consciousness.

Base_Six t1_jaehq1y wrote on February 28, 2023 at 9:19 PM

Epigenetics are still structure that could theoretically be replicated.

Talk of replication is hypothetical: we're very far from that level of precise control. It's not theoretically impossible, though, to have something that's a functional replica down to the level of individual proteins. The same is true for neural impulses: no matter how subtle and sublime they may be, they're ultimately chemical/electrical signals that could be precisely replicated with suitably advanced technology. For a brain in a vat, there is no difference between a real touch from a lover and the simulated equivalent, so long as all input is the same.

We can't say whether a 'replicant' (for lack of a better term) would be conscious, but we're also fundamentally unable to demonstrate that other humans are conscious, beyond asking them and trusting their responses.

The replicant wouldn't be devoid of attachment and interpersonal connection, either. If we're replicating the environmental inputs, that would all be part of the simulation. Supposing we can do all that, and that a brain thinks it has lived a normal life and had a normal childhood, why should we expect different outputs because the environment is simulated and not based on input from organic sensory organs?