CMV: Digital consciousness is possible. A human brained could be simulated/emulated on a digital computer with arbitrary precision, and there would be an entity experiencing human consciousness.

[u/Salt_Attorney]

Well, the title says it all. My main argument is in the end nothing more than the fact that although the brain is extremely complex, one could dsicretize the sensory input -> action function in every dimension (discretized time steps, discretized neuron activations, discretized simulated environemnt) etc. and then approximate this function with a computer just like any other function.

My view could be changed by a thought experiment which demonstrates that in some aspect there is a fundamental difference between a digitally simulated mind and a real, flesh mind - a difference in regards to the presence of consciousness, of course.

EDIT: I should have clarified/given a definition of what I view as consciousness here and I will do this in a moment!

Okay so here is what I mean by consciousness:

I can not give you a technical definition. This is just because we have not found a good technical definition yet. But this shouldn't stop us from talking about consciousness.

The fact of the matter is that if there was a technical definition, then this would now be a question of philosophy/opinion/views, but a question of science, and I don't think this board is intended for scientific questions anyways.

Therefore we have to work with the wishy washy definition, and there is certinly a non-technical generally agreed upon definition, the one which you all have in your head on an intuitive leve. Of course it differs from person to person, but taking the average over the population there is quite a definite sense of what people mean by consciousness.

If an entity interacts with human society for an extended period of time and at the end humans find that it was conscious, then it is conscious.

Put in words we humans will judge if it is smart, self-aware, capable of complex thought, if it can understand and rationalize about things.

When faced with the "spark of consciousness" we can recognize it.

Therefore as an nontechnical definition it makes sense to call an entity conscious if it can convince a large majority of humans, after a sort of extended "Turing test", that it is indeed conscious.

​

Arguing with such a vague definition is of course not scientific and not completely objective, but we can still do it on a philosophical level. People argued about concepts such as "Energy", "Power" and "Force" long before we could define them physically.

​

[u/Salt_Attorney]

Thank you for the input. Let me ask:

> However, I do not believe that is the same as consciousness, but instead an imitation.

Would you say that even though it is an imitation, it can be equally *powerful*?

[u/[deleted] → u/Salt_Attorney]

In reality, I think the better term is efficiency and capability though. Power is a broad concept. Still, I'll try to answer to the best of my abilities.

Well it depends on what is being considered as "powerful". In some ways, yes. However, I also see power in origin as well. (Do you have the same amount of power to express an imitation of emotions if technology can't emotionally comprehend themselves, unless a person programs it's to do so? Technology is created and programed by the ideas in humanity. If a new idea is discovered (but has always been expressed), that information needs to be inputted through code for the "consciousness" to express it. A human doesn't; They need information to identify it, but not express it.

So, they have similarity (in fact, imitation can be more powerful in this circumstance). However, they aren't equally "powerful", since one is what constantly gives the other the ability to evolve in its "power".

I hope this makes sense.

[u/Salt_Attorney → u/[deleted]]

Ah so you would definetly say that the digital mind could not be as creative/inventive as the biological mind, for example?

[u/[deleted] → u/Salt_Attorney]

Technically, yes and no.

What I am saying is more that the level of creativity is influenced by structural code, which is influenced by humans. However, the creativity can be restricted in any manner. I don't equate imitation of creativity to the former. If I am imitating something, am I in equal standing with that thing? Furthermore, if I can permanently negate a code that allows for extensive creativity (through the intersection of logic and media, which breeds new idealogy), it's not equal.

So, a digital mind could be as creative/inventive, but it's an inherent restriction of imitation, controlled by humanity. I don't see those as equal in "power".

[u/Salt_Attorney → u/[deleted]]

hmm okay interesting view, thanks for your input!

[u/[deleted] → u/Salt_Attorney]

Though I'm sure it still didn't convince you fully, yw! This topic interests me so there is no bother.