Demosthenes

Although this topic might seem more appropriate for the science/skeptism forum, it's all about whether a lifeform simulated on a computer can be considered to be as "real" as one that exists in the physical world?

There's this new project recently established aimed to create an accurate simulation of a biological cell.

<a href="http://www.projectcybercell.com/" target="_blank">Project Cybercell</a>

The project aims to eventually work its way up the scale to multicellular lifeforms. Back to a single cell, if it's reproduced so accuratly within a computer, then what is to prevent it from being a truely functioning cell in its own right? Why is that because it's a "simulation" and exists in the memory of the computer it isn't any real than your regular biological cell.

How about when multicellular lifeforms are created in a computer given sufficent resources? Suppose you've created a terrior fox on a computer, set it free inside a virtual environment complete with a meadow and tasty virtual prey. Since everything about that terrior fox has been accurately reproduced, then isn't it as conscious as it's physical counterpart? The dog has no way of knowing from its own point of view that it's actually a virtual creature.

Now how about we extend that to a human being....

It's meaningless to talk about whether something is "real" or not if it walk and quack like a duck and you can't tell apart between a "real" duck and a "virtual" duck.

[ October 02, 2002: Message edited by: Demosthenes ]</p>

Laurentius

Both simulated life forms and their environment are in fact visualisations of complex systmes of ecuations that have nothing to do with life and nature, except surface resemblences and pale analogies that only the 21st century movie and game computer consumers can buy in their naive enthusiasm.


Till the aliens on my screen have taken over the real world,
AVE

[ October 02, 2002: Message edited by: Laurentius ]</p>

Keith Russell

Greetings:

It's the difference between you, and a picture (or, perhaps, a video) of you.

Keith.

Laurentius

Yeah, but Demosthenes will argue that the picture of his won't develop seeking for equilibrium and self-preservation within its medium, while the software projecting him against the virutal environment will.

elwoodblues

Without delving into the whole question of consciousness, I'd say it simply depends on your definitions, especially of the word 'real'.

It is a 'real' configuration of electrons and silicon, certainly. And it interacts with an environment that is composed of 'real' electrons and silicon. And I am a 'real' configuration of biological components interacting with my own environment.

The obvious objection is that these things are encoded. Without translation (and human understanding?) they mean nothing except 1's and 0's. However, that's really just a matter of convenience. It's a lot easier, cheaper, and clearer to run these things entirely on a computer; they could just as easily be loaded into mobile robots and put into a 'real' environment that it could interact with and change. How now? You've got an agent acting according to patterns in it's 'head'. Outside of consciousness, how is that different than a human being?

Vogelfrei

Duh, why's everyone assuming that a computer simulation necessarily has consciousness?

(I suggest, of course, that if this assumption wasn't in play, the obvious difference between a real person and a computer person is that the real person is conscious.)

Vogelfrei

Oops, I failed to notice elwoodblues' "outside of consciousness" qualification.

But that sounds analogous to "aside from the differences, how are these two things different?"

elwoodblues

Interesting. I'd like to know exactly where consciousness resides in the human mind, how it operates, why it evolved, and, most importantly, why it can't in principle be replicated in a machine.

I've been studying cognitive science for several years and I have very little grasp on exactly what consciousness is. No one seems to. That's why I threw it out of discussion.

Laurentius

I do .

consciousness = self reflection of a being endowed with will (to preserve and possibly multiply itself) and able to think about its own thinking during the process.

I believe in the mind being quite independent and free will representing a pregnant manifestation of its relative independence.

Can a simulated being actually have consciousness. Only in fictions. Some of them quite entertaining though.

AVE

elwoodblues

Yes. Wonderful. Very cute. But can you point to the mechanism that enables this? Can you tell me why, in principle, this mechanism cannot be replicated in a machine? Every argument I've ever heard against it involves, at some level, the idea that consciousness is supernatural, cannot be analyzed or understood by science. If you're asserting that, okay, come out and say it. If not, give me some other reason that science cannot replicate this mechanism.

Again, cut the assertions, start giving reasons. Is it mere complexity? Do you think science just isn't advanced enough to do it? Because I'll go with you on that. As it stands now, we can't. Looking at the state of the industry, almost certainly not this decade, probably not next decade. But I wouldn't bet money past 20 years from now. If it's mere complexity you're worried about, okay, but that's not a valid reason to call it 'impossible' or relegate it solely to fiction.

Are you endorsing a supernatural view of consciousness? Or something else entirely that I've not encountered?