Skip to main content

Computers produce virtuality only - no way they show consciousness

A computer, no matter how fast and complex it might be, will at best simulate consciousness and imitate intelligence since - by the way a computer is constructed and used today – the computer is a generator for objects and states in a virtual reality. Virtual reality adds to but does not overlap with the physical reality (corporeality) of our everyday life. Intelligence and consciousness are products of corporeality and are therefore separate from the virtual world computers produce and play in.
The border between these realities is sharp and clear and can not be transcended. As long as a computer is the medium for a simulation, imitation, visualization it will produce objects well within the virtual world. It will never produce intelligence or show consciousness.
But is the computer doomed to be a medium only? No.
Aren't our brains also just media for the play of sensations, thoughts, feelings? No.
The difference lies in the way of operation. Todays computers have separated areas for data and programs. The software is mainly impressed from the outside and only little (if at all) altered by the flow of data coming from an internal or external process.
In the brain data and 'program' are intertwined results of 'hardware' and states. The homoeostasis of the system balances the relations between data-intake, output, flow and – mode of operation. The sensoric and operations- parts of the system are influenced by the data-stream. The whole system is a balance of states, where input and output are often not clearly distinguishable. There is no well-defined separation of software and data.

Comments

Ferdinand Hucho said…
Verry interresting, but also verry bullshitty: We have not the slightest idea how consciousness works. How then can we make such apodictive statements! All we know (until somebody proves different): The brain is pure chemistry/physics, no transcendence nor metaphysics involved. We know most of the building blocks (molecules), some of the wiring, little about its dynamics. This is why we hide behind bloomy words like 'emergence' when we wish to talk about consciousness, free will and the like.
   Most likely the brain does not operate like a computer: you point out correctly to the software/hardware dichitomy which does not exist in the brain (as far as we know today). This does not mean that a computer, properly constructed, cannot have consciousness (if only traces). "Virtuality" as the principle underlying computers, is nothing more than a smokescreen hiding our ignorance.

   Our fundamental problem with the brain and its 'higher functions' is its complexity which prevents us from copying it and simulating its actions. Manfred Gierer has shown that this complexity is a matter of principle, not of technical capability: a simple 'thought' of the human brain implies more digital operations than a computer comprising all atoms of the universe and all their quantum transitions could perform during the billions of years of its possible existence.
   Sorry, it seems I just don't know what 'virtuality' really is
Carsten Hucho said…
Exactly, we have no idea how consciousness works. Some build the smokescreen of 'emergence', some go adrift in cozy introspection and warm flows of esterics (as David Gelernter does), others stun by shock and awe with breathtaking comparisons (see Manfred Gierer) when adding up every particle or state of the universe to explain the unimaginable complexity of a human thought.
Well.
This describes exactly what is going wrong. No matter how little we understand about consciousness - we will not progress a single step if we try to model it in the wrong system. Let's ask Manfred Gierer: how much words do you need to describe a symphony (or even a simple child-song) so exact that everybody gets the same as if listening to the real thing? Even if you use as many words as there are particles in the universe(etc. etc.), you will not manage. Why? Because projecting music on words just does not fit.
Projecting brain-activity on a binary computer does not work. You will be able to simulate appearances' of brain-activities, you might succeed in mimicking some output, or in modelling some processes. But you will never get the real product of brain-ctivity. A simulated lake might show all the appearances that you intend to reproduce - but only that. The simulated lake will lack wetness.
Ferdinand Hucho said…
You got a point! But then what kind of system would you chose (instead of a computer) if you don't know how the system to be simulated works! The computer (or an appropriate computer network) at least is complex like a primitive nerve system. Perhaps such a computer network like the www is the most complex technical system humans have invented.
Again: what would the 'brain simulator' look like? Perhaps it would be a human brain, but one we understand (if that is ever possible)?
As a positivist I am convinced: let us stop talking. Let us do all out brain research. Let us collect more and more facts and mechanisms about those 1,100 g tissue which comprises all the answers.
As Wolf Singer said: there are much fewer mechanisms in the brain than phenomena. Doesn't this make hope?
Anonymous said…
Thank you amazing blog, do you have twitter, facebook or something similar where i can follow your blog

Sandro Heckler
Carsten Hucho said…
Thanks for the nice words! I am glad you enjoy the blog. You can follow on twitter (click the twitter follow-button in the upper left corner of this blog) or you can get an rss-feed by clicking on the feed-button.
Sincerely,
Carsten Hucho

Popular posts from this blog

Academics should be blogging? No.

"blogging is quite simply, one of the most important things that an academic should be doing right now" The London School of Economics and Political Science states in one of their, yes, Blogs . It is wrong. The arguments just seem so right: "faster communication of scientific results", "rapid interaction with colleagues" "responsibility to give back results to the public". All nice, all cuddly and warm, all good. But wrong. It might be true for scientoid babble. But this is not how science works.  Scientists usually follow scientific methods to obtain results. They devise, for example, experiments to measure a quantity while keeping the boundary-conditions in a defined range. They do discuss their aims, problems, techniques, preliminary results with colleagues - they talk about deviations and errors, successes and failures. But they don't do that wikipedia-style by asking anybody for an opinion . Scientific discussion needs a set

My guinea pig wants beer!

Rather involuntary train rides (especially long ones, going to boring places for a boring event) are good for updates on some thoughts lingering in the lower levels of the brain-at-ease. My latest trip (from Berlin to Bonn) unearthed the never-ending squabble about the elusive 'free will'. Neuroscientists make headlines proving with alacrity the absence of free will by experimenting with brain-signals that precede the apparent willful act - by as much as seven seconds! Measuring brain-activity way before the human guinea pig actually presses a button with whatever hand or finger he desires, they predict with breathtaking reproducibility the choice to be made. So what? Is that the end of free will? I am afraid that those neuroscientists would accept only non-predictability as a definite sign of free will. But non-predictability results from two possible scenarios: a) a random event (without a cause) b) an event triggered by something outside of the system (but caused).

No theory - no money!

A neuroscientist I was talking to recently complained that the Higgs-research,even the Neutrino-fluke at CERN is getting humungous funding while neuroscience is struggling for support at a much more modest level. This, despite the undisputed fact that understanding our brain, and ultimately ourselves, is the most exciting challenge around. Henry Markram of EPFL in Switzerland   is one of the guys aiming for big, big funding to simulate the complete brain. After founding the brain institute and developing methods to analyze and then reconstruct elements of the brain in a supercomputer he now applies for 1.5 Billion Euro in EU-funding for the 'flagship-projects' of Blue Brain -and many believe his project is simply too big to fail. Some call the project daring, others audacious. It is one of the so very few really expensive life-science endeavours. Why aren't there more like that around? Why do we seem to accept the bills for monstrous physics experiments more easily? Is