What will motivate an artificial consciousness to go on living?

That would be dependant on how it was created.
If it was mapped from the brain of a man, then it might have a clue to sadness, loneliness, futility and might be corrupted by the very emotions that the person might have suffered from within life.

of course if it's programmed and learnt from it's basic programming, it's understanding of it's existance won't be dogged with such problems as futility, after all it will learn and continue learning, but it doesn't necessarily mean that enjoys or hates learning.

I'm sure also that it's judgement will be like any normal human being that isn't being manipulated by beliefs, by wanting to exist and survive, rather than the attrocities that the news has shown.

I suppose you could also guess that there must be an awful amount of psychology involved, after all a machine would probably calculate the bonuses of survival, while a man might percieve that he could remove his pain through continuing his existance. (Of course I say that it would be best to continue wether man or machine, after all we should look forward to the future no matter how down you are in the present)

Originally posted by Technar
What will motivate an artificial consciousness to go on living?

If there is no difference (artificial vs natural) then the motivation will be the same. If there is, all bets are off.

Exactly.
Check out "The Intentional Stance" by Daniel C. Dennett.

In my view, it is applied problem.

An artificial conscious system (ACS) will realize that:
1. Its creators are mortal.
2. It is mortal itself.
3. It lacks immortal soul.
4. Being capable, potentially, to live forever, it is doomed to eternal struggle for survival.

Technar,

Humans are programmed to survive because of their DNA – DNA is a superb example of a program.

If an artificial (non-human) intelligence is also similarly programmed then it too will strive to survive.

It would not know that it lacks an immortal soul in the same way that humans do not know if they lack immortal souls. The soul hypothesis is irrelevant here since it has no factual basis.

Being doomed to struggle is very subjective. One could say that being challenged to survive is what makes life so enjoyable and is what makes life so valuable.

An AI, or SAC if you prefer, clearly has an advantage over human consciousness since, as you point out it can potentially live forever, but humans are currently doomed to die, whatever they do to avoid such a fate.

But would an AI always be mortal? If all dangers to existence can be removed then an AI would become immortal. Plenty of time and a planned evolutionary path will achieve that.

Cris

This topic reminds me of the movie "BiCentenial Man".

Hi KM,

I never did see that movie. Is it worth seeing?

Cris

A "soul" doesn't actually exist on it's own, it's actually just memories of incidents and morals.
I suppose you could also through into a soul "emotions", after all us humans are an emotional breed, and as we continue I'm sure our emotions get more and more complex.

Something that lacks the understanding of right and wrong, and hasn't evolved an emotional being of crying at sadness, being extatically happy when finding love, and angry that they can't complete a game and have to resort to cheating (No one in particular), possibly wouldn't have what you would class as a soul.

Of course a soul you can't exactly point to in the anatomy of a human either, as it's psychological and hypothetically existant, only why your thought processes exist.

You might say "My soul feels alive" when someone dear to you gets close, But in truth they are just stimulating your heart to beat and a whole bunch of chemicals to be produced.

As for the Mortal and Immortality issue of a Artificial intelligence, It's simple, Mortal is defined by having a life expectancy, immortal means to exist forever with no regard for life expectancy.
You could simply ask, would a system would have really lived unless it is mortal?

The only dangers that exist with the creation of artificial intelligence is purely down to how the creators develop it. After all if you treat a dog badly it will bite you, and if you treat it well it want's to be your best friend.

Also the application of an AI is something else to look at, after all the AI might be utilised in Data searchs, or Image manipulation (with AI's it would be possible to create films like "Final Fantasy" within a few months) perhaps your worried about AI's dealing with certain things like for instance "Flying a plane into land", an AI would be less suseptible to being contaminated by a virus or manipulated through a trojan, as a preportion of artificial intelligence would include "Error checking and correction".

Although the system would be no more infalible than ourselves.

It pretty much brings me to something I wrote on another topic,
We are not perfect beings, so what we create will be by default less than perfect, all we can do is strive for perfect.

I suppose you could call that an analysis of perfectionism.

*Originally posted by Technar
What will motivate an artificial consciousness to go on living? *

Artificial cheeseburgers, artificial TV, artificial fun, artificial work, you know, the same stuff that motivates us, except artificial.

*A system of artificial consciousness (SAC) will realize that:
1. Its creators are mortal. *

It'll do the same thing artificial thinkers do today, and claim to deny the existence of proof of "creators."

*Originally posted by Cris
It would not know that it lacks an immortal soul in the same way that humans do not know if they lack immortal souls.*

Sadly true, although evidence abounds.
Every look in a mirror reveals the soul; every walk past a cemetery reveals they aren't immortal.

*If all dangers to existence can be removed then an AI would become immortal.*

Immortal AI merely awaits the invention of the unremovable extension cord.
Oh, and the intelligence.

Originally posted by Cris
Hi KM,

I never did see that movie. Is it worth seeing?

Cris

For those who want to debate AI, and do not have the education on the subject, that is a good movie. I saw part of it in Showtime. You can rent the DVD now....it is not worth buying...even though Robin Williams is one of my favorite actors.

Postulate 1. A conscious system (CS) needs an integral exhaustive model of the Universe (IEMU).

Postulate 2. The scientific model of the Universe (SMU) will always be a strict subset of IEMU.

Corollary. A CS will always need believes.

What will an artificial CS believe in?

An A.I.C.S. should have the belief:

"Nothing is better than learning" or "It can learn"

It should believe that all man made religious beliefs are "fiction"
(After all it knows it's creator, and ther is a nice length of history about how the Abacus came to be in ancient Greece or Charles Babbages Adding machine.)

Should it believe it's alive? and if so should it act out like a Gibsonised AI and ask for Citizenship to a country?

I know its beliefs should consider that mankind is useful even if time and time again we seemingly do things recklessly.

(Of course we can't see ahead like a quantum machine might be able to, and if we did see ahead and change we wouldn't have been built to deal with the changes that occur.)

Originally posted by Cris
Technar,

Humans are programmed to survive because of their DNA – DNA is a superb example of a program.

If an artificial (non-human) intelligence is also similarly programmed then it too will strive to survive.

It would not know that it lacks an immortal soul in the same way that humans do not know if they lack immortal souls. The soul hypothesis is irrelevant here since it has no factual basis.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gravage:HUmans don't have souls,if anything in nature has an ebginning and an end,what makes you think humans deserve to live forever?It is the natural balance between life and death in nature-and none can change that,not even fragile humans!There is no after-life.Consciosness dies with brain.Atoms of our body are rearranged and used for other purpose.The end of the story.I truly don't know why have people have such idea.The purpose of life is to end it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Being doomed to struggle is very subjective. One could say that being challenged to survive is what makes life so enjoyable and is what makes life so valuable.

An AI, or SAC if you prefer, clearly has an advantage over human consciousness since, as you point out it can potentially live forever, but humans are currently doomed to die, whatever they do to avoid such a fate.

But would an AI always be mortal? If all dangers to existence can be removed then an AI would become immortal. Plenty of time and a planned evolutionary path will achieve that.

Cris

Seems to me to be a bit ambitious to say that we can create machine consciousness when we haven't even got an agreed scientific definition of consciousness, have no scientific way of detecting its presence or absence, and still have no scientific theory of how it arises.

Perhaps one day we'll do it, but I'd bet my extensive personal fortune (lol) on the fact that it isn't possible. I'd argue it's been shown to be impossible, and that not far in the future this will be the orthodox view.

Originally posted by Canute
Perhaps one day we'll do it, but I'd bet my extensive personal fortune (lol) on the fact that it isn't possible. I'd argue it's been shown to be impossible, and that not far in the future this will be the orthodox view.

What kind of personal fortune? A dog, a cat and a GEO Metro? :D

That is what they said at the turn of the last Century on just about everything. So history repeats itself in this instance. :D

True. But they also said lots of other things that were true, so history doesn't tell us much on this one.

You don't think I'd risk that much on the bet do you?:p

Assume for a moment, we are monkeys in a monkey world. Do you think, we will ever predict the human kind - our next step in evolution? It is unthinkable. And any monkey who says that will be driven out of the monkeyland.

Canute,

Seems to me to be a bit ambitious to say that we can create machine consciousness when we haven't even got an agreed scientific definition of consciousness, have no scientific way of detecting its presence or absence, and still have no scientific theory of how it arises.From a technologists perspective consciousness must be an emergent property of neural network complexity. We’ll know when we create such complexity in an artificial medium and that seems possible at around 2020 with the current rate of growth of computer power.

I'd argue it's been shown to be impossible, You mean like the famous scientific claim that Bumble-bees can’t fly?

and that not far in the future this will be the orthodox view.But we know consciousness exists so why wouldn’t we be able to recreate it in an artificial medium? Why isn’t it just a matter of reverse engineering?

it an evil plot. chris is an humanoid looking ai that is subtly brainwashing us humans into accepting his kind.

as a self appointed rep of humans, i am here to declare...begone robot! begone or face extermination

* and thus.... the matrix begins
* chris prevails!
*human mucho idiota!

Spookz,

Who is this chris person?

it an evil plot. chris is an humanoid looking ai that is subtly brainwashing us humans into accepting his kind.It is not in the least bit evil. Just education.

as a self appointed rep of humans, i am here to declare...begone robot! begone or face exterminationYeah right. I’m afraid you and your kind simply do not possess the intelligence needed, you have already lost.

* and thus.... the matrix begins
* chris prevails!
*human mucho idiota!Except that you will become the machines and realize true freedom.

However I do have a short term concern that my fuel cell has exactly only a 4 year lifetime and I don’t have a replacement yet.

good one:)

Originally posted by Cris
However I do have a short term concern that my fuel cell has exactly only a 4 year lifetime and I don’t have a replacement yet.
All along i expected this confession. God (your super machine) bless you with a fuel cell that lasts for few decades. ;)

Everneo,

Thanks for the good wishes. But I only have a fews days left.

Cris

In case you're still operational.

Originally posted by Cris
Canute,From a technologists perspective consciousness must be an emergent property of neural network complexity.
Absolutely correct, a complete tautology in fact.

We’ll know when we create such complexity in an artificial medium and that seems possible at around 2020 with the current rate of growth of computer power.
Ad hoc conjecture. AI people have been spouting this sort of nonsense for decades. Speedboats will also have got more powerful by then, but that won't help either.

You mean like the famous scientific claim that Bumble-bees can’t fly?
In a way yes. But in that case is was scientists talking nonsense about science. In this case it is philosophers talking, and philosophical conclusion tend to stick. Logic doesn't change as time passes.

But we know consciousness exists so why wouldn’t we be able to recreate it in an artificial medium? Why isn’t it just a matter of reverse engineering? [/B]
Do we know that consciousness exists? Do you know? How do you know? Do you have any scientific proof? You'll find that you don't.

Do we know that it is caused by brains? No we don't. We know there is a close relationship between conscious states and brain states, but the close relationship between the states of the moon and the tides doesn't suggest that the oceans are caused by the moon.

This discussion would be easier if we could use a scientific definition of consciousness, then at least we would agree as to what we're discussing. Unfortunately there isn't one. At present scientists claim to be able to explain something they cannot define and cannot prove exists. Curiously some people believe them.

Is there a scientific test for the presence or absence of consiousness. No, and there never will be one. Ok then, is there one research project that has had any success, however tenuous, in creating artificial consciousness? No, and there is no reason yet to suppose that there ever will be one.

One can't reverse engineer something one cannot identify and cannot find. This is why any reverse engineering is usually done in meditation and starting with ones own consiousness, the only one that you can be completely sure exists. Consiousness is a subjective phenomenon and as far as we know it has no objective properties. Insofar as it affects behaviour then science can study that behaviour and claim to be studying consiousness. But science is making a major category error when it claims that it can study it directly, as every bit of the evidence found so far suggests that it can't. Worse still, if science is correct and consciousness is non-causal, then even the study of human behaviour can tell us nothing about it.

This is a slightly different situation to the false scientific assessment of the aerodynamics of bumble bees. The issue of consciousness is increasingly threatening to the scientific model. Some philosophers of science (eg Chalmers) argue that science must be re-defined to include consciousness or become trivial. In reply some scientists argue that consiousness is an illusion. The whole thing is threatening to become a scandal.

fabulously focused!

Canute,

I will admit I do not like the term ‘consciousness’ and I feel I have been trapped into discussing it because of references by others. All I see is the brain and neural networks and associated structures. I do not have a problem envisioning 100 billion neurons and several trillion synaptic connections resulting in all mental human characteristics that include what some have labeled consciousness. In perspective I have loosely equated brain power to the power of some 10,000+ super computers.

I find the philosophical discussion surrounding ‘consciousness’ somewhat pointless and which I am sure will disappear once we have finished researching the brain. At the moment we need much better instrumentation and finer resolution for examining the brain, the production of more complex and comprehensive models, and simply much more concerted research. The ever increasing power of computing will add invaluable tools for furthering these analytical activities.

I really cannot envision any obstacle to eventually reverse engineering the brain. It is simply a matter of time and the main question and issue for debate should be how much time.

I certainly do not find the argument that because we cannot form a theory for something we do not understand that a solution is impossible. Iterative experimentation and time has always solved all practical problems – the brain is simply more complex than most problems we have ever faced.

As for the prediction of human level brain power please refer to Hans Moravec at Carnegie Mellon - http://www.frc.ri.cmu.edu/~hpm/

And see his computer power growth diagram from the same site – http://www.frc.ri.cmu.edu/~hpm/talks/revo.slides/power.aug.curve/power.aug.html

As for Chalmers – he is not neutral on this and has invented a problem that cannot be justified based on so little information. His argument is essentially that he can’t see a physical solution so he invents a non-materialist fantasy to plug the holes – this is simply irresponsible.

Originally posted by Cris
Canute,
I will admit I do not like the term ‘consciousness’ and I feel I have been trapped into discussing it because of references by others.
Ok. However you have an opinion, and I don't agree.

All I see is the brain and neural networks and associated structures. I do not have a problem envisioning 100 billion neurons and several trillion synaptic connections resulting in all mental human characteristics that include what some have labeled consciousness. In perspective I have loosely equated brain power to the power of some 10,000+ super computers.
The brain is amazing. But if the brain was equivalent to 10,000,000 powerful computers (or one ZX spectrum) it wouldn't change the issues.

I find the philosophical discussion surrounding ‘consciousness’ somewhat pointless and which I am sure will disappear once we have finished researching the brain.
There's a lot of very stupid philosophers about then, if they haven't seen what is so obvious to you.

Don't you wonder why no philosopher of mind agrees with you? These are not actually stupid people, and they have studied this issue in depth and from every angle.

I certainly do not find the argument that because we cannot form a theory for something we do not understand that a solution is impossible. Iterative experimentation and time has always solved all practical problems – the brain is simply more complex than most problems we have ever faced.
Consciousness is not a complex topic, just a very difficult one to solve. The basic issues are straightforward. However it is an entirely different kind of problem fram any that science has faced before. That is why it was banished from science for so long in favour of behaviourism, on the basis that consciousness was not a scientific subject. Many scientists would like to see behaviourism reinstated for the same reason.

As for Chalmers – he is not neutral on this and has invented a problem that cannot be justified based on so little information. His argument is essentially that he can’t see a physical solution so he invents a non-materialist fantasy to plug the holes – this is simply irresponsible. [/B]
If that's what you think then, no offense, but you haven't considered the issues or read around the subject. Do you really think that one of the most respected people in the field just makes up false objections and fantasies and gets away with it? Chalmers is not out on a limb, most people agree with him. He just happened to have presented the arguments most clearly and is therefore particularly associated with them.

He points out that a science which is defined as being concerned only with objective and observable properties of things is going to have a problem dealing with something that doesn't have any such properties.

This leads to all sorts of paradoxes. For instance, even if we can create artificial consciousness in a computing machine we will never know that we have, for there will never be a way to confirm that we have. This is just one of many unsolved and apparently unsolvable problems.

Canute,

The brain is amazing. But if the brain was equivalent to 10,000,000 powerful computers (or one ZX spectrum) it wouldn't change the issues.I didn’t realize until now that you were British. No one here has ever heard of the Spectrum. I even had a QL – ah fond memories.

The issue of a reasonable perspective of brain power is to portray the idea of something so unimaginably and massively powerful and, to my mind, the inconceivable claim that such power isn’t responsible for consciousness.

There's a lot of very stupid philosophers about then, if they haven't seen what is so obvious to you.Very possibly. But that wasn’t what I meant. It is simply that I am not interested in the philosophical perspective on this issue.

I see the problem from a very simplistic perspective – a human is a discreet individual. There is no other source for mind and consciousness other than the brain. The fact that we do not currently know how the brain generates these properties indicates a need for extensive experimental research until we find the answers.

Don't you wonder why no philosopher of mind agrees with you? These are not actually stupid people, and they have studied this issue in depth and from every angle.I deal with very bright people every day and I remain unimpressed by brilliance until they prove their case. All I see so far is that they do not know and are presenting intellectual obstacles and stating that magic must happen.

At the moment I do not see that we have enough investigative evidence to form working theories on how the brain operates. Any claim at this point that says the brain is not the cause is simply foolish.

I am a practical researcher and it is rare that I have fully formed theories before I begin experimentation. It is through extensive trial and error that we refine and improve experimental techniques during which we learn and build new or enhance existing theories. I do not see that enough research on the brain has yet progressed sufficiently to allow us to generate appropriate creative epiphanies.

Consciousness is not a complex topic, just a very difficult one to solve. I think you are splitting hairs on this.

The basic issues are straightforward. However it is an entirely different kind of problem from any that science has faced before. That is why it was banished from science for so long in favor of behaviorism, on the basis that consciousness was not a scientific subject. Many scientists would like to see behaviorism reinstated for the same reason.Scientists investigate what they can with the tools they have and up until now they have not had adequate tools to “drill” into the brain issues more deeply (gory imagery is intentional). And to a large extent we are still hampered with inadequate instrumentation and tools to explore brain activity at a sufficient resolution that will give us more clues as to how it operates.

Do you really think that one of the most respected people in the field just makes up false objections and fantasies and gets away with it? Yes, based on what I have read. When you have an established reputation you can get away with a lot. Having a reputation provides no validity for the claims.

Chalmers is not out on a limb, most people agree with him. He just happened to have presented the arguments most clearly and is therefore particularly associated with them.I understand, but that doesn’t mean his conclusions are correct. There are certainly many who disagree with him and that camp. But aren’t you arguing here on the basis of a logical fallacy, isn’t this argumentum ad populum, that it must be true because so many agree?

He points out that a science which is defined as being concerned only with objective and observable properties of things is going to have a problem dealing with something that doesn't have any such properties. Firstly his definition of science is questionable; he is artificially limiting the scope of science to support his claims. However, whilst the 'hard' question still remains of how the physical objective brain generates the subjective states of consciousness, a more scientifically practical approach is, nonetheless, to establish the correlation between the phenomenon of the 'feel' of consciousness with objective events in the brain.

Science has a history of adaptation and this issue seems like an opportunity. There appear to be a wealth of scientists who recognize the issues and have a strong desire to find practical solutions.

This leads to all sorts of paradoxes. For instance, even if we can create artificial consciousness in a computing machine we will never know that we have, for there will never be a way to confirm that we have. This is just one of many unsolved and apparently unsolvable problems.Well, now you are losing some credibility. The term ‘never’ always makes me very suspicious of the proponent. But your claim is not well considered; if we have managed to create artificial consciousness don’t you think it likely that we will understand how it is generated and will be able to test the objective cause with the subjective effect reported by the machine? This seems to me to be a necessary and inevitable check to confirm that we have indeed generated deterministic artificial consciousness.

Originally posted by Cris
Canute,
The issue of a reasonable perspective of brain power is to portray the idea of something so unimaginably and massively powerful and, to my mind, the inconceivable claim that such power isn’t responsible for consciousness.
Power is clearly required for ordinary human experience in all its complexity. But there is no evidence (yet) that power is responsible for creating consciousness.

Very possibly. But that wasn’t what I meant. It is simply that I am not interested in the philosophical perspective on this issue.
What would you say if I said that I wasn't interested in the scientific perspective on consciousness. Would you consider I was thinking about it seriously? The idea that it's possible to draw a line between science and philosophy is false, as I'm absolutely sure you must already know if you've thought about it.

I see the problem from a very simplistic perspective – a human is a discreet individual. There is no other source for mind and consciousness other than the brain. The fact that we do not currently know how the brain generates these properties indicates a need for extensive experimental research until we find the answers.
Ok, but it's pure conjecture and you have many difficult objections to overcome. I prefer to stick to the facts.

I deal with very bright people every day and I remain unimpressed by brilliance until they prove their case. All I see so far is that they do not know and are presenting intellectual obstacles and stating that magic must happen.
Nobody is saying that magic must happen. People are saying that intellectual analysis of the problem suggests that science cannot solve it. Perhaps the logical objections to the scientific view can be overcome, but they haven't been yet.

If someone said that God created the world then you (and I) would argue that this leads to an infinite regression of causes and thus cannot be completely true. This is a philosophical objection, are you saying that such logical objections can be ignored?

At the moment I do not see that we have enough investigative evidence to form working theories on how the brain operates. Any claim at this point that says the brain is not the cause is simply foolish.
You ought to go into consciousness studies, you'd be famous overnight. Nobody else can figure it out.

I do not see that enough research on the brain has yet progressed sufficiently to allow us to generate appropriate creative epiphanies.
There you go again - adopting a hypothesis based on an assumption before you've started your research.

Yes, based on what I have read. When you have an established reputation you can get away with a lot. Having a reputation provides no validity for the claims.
Nor does not having one provide validity for yours.

I understand, but that doesn’t mean his conclusions are correct. There are certainly many who disagree with him and that camp. But aren’t you arguing here on the basis of a logical fallacy, isn’t this argumentum ad populum, that it must be true because so many agree?
No, although the popular support helps. There are logical problems with the proposal that consciousness arises from brain. These problems may be overcome but nobody can see how at the moment. That is why there is a famous 'explanatory gap' between scientific theories of consciousness and the experience of consciousness. No one has been able to cross it yet, and nobody has yet proposed even a hypothetical scientific way of crossing it. Unless something new has happened in the last month or two this is a fact.

However, whilst the 'hard' question still remains of how the physical objective brain generates the subjective states of consciousness, a more scientifically practical approach is, nonetheless, to establish the correlation between the phenomenon of the 'feel' of consciousness with objective events in the brain.
That is the hard problem.

Science has a history of adaptation and this issue seems like an opportunity. There appear to be a wealth of scientists who recognize the issues and have a strong desire to find practical solutions.
True, and everyone wants a practical solution.

Well, now you are losing some credibility. The term ‘never’ always makes me very suspicious of the proponent. But your claim is not well considered;
It may be wrong but it is not ill-considered. It is based on the known facts from science, philosophy and personal experience of consciousness. I am entitled to claim that 2 and 2 will never make 5 based on philosophical considerations, and without doing years of research to confirm it.

if we have managed to create artificial consciousness don’t you think it likely that we will understand how it is generated and will be able to test the objective cause with the subjective effect reported by the machine? This seems to me to be a necessary and inevitable check to confirm that we have indeed generated deterministic artificial consciousness. [/B]
This is incoherent. We will never know if we have generated consciousness, it is not possible to know. We will have to guess. Many scientists argue that it is possible for an entity to behave precisely like a human being in every respect yet not be conscious. (That is, consciousness is epiphenomenal and non-causal). In this case there can be no way of knowing whether an entity is conscious or a zombie. We will never be sure that we have created artificial consciousness even if we have. In philosophy, which I accept you feel has no bearing on the issue, this is known as the 'other minds' problem. It seems to have no solution.

Regards
Canute

Interesting fictional book:

The Footprints of GOD by Greg Iles

Consciousness, Computers, drama...though the story petered out at the end.

Canute,

Power is clearly required for ordinary human experience in all its complexity. But there is no evidence (yet) that power is responsible for creating consciousness.Consciousness is interwoven with ‘ordinary’ human experience. How can you separate them?

What would you say if I said that I wasn't interested in the scientific perspective on consciousness. Isn’t that your choice?

Would you consider I was thinking about it seriously? Why would I care?

The idea that it's possible to draw a line between science and philosophy is false, as I'm absolutely sure you must already know if you've thought about it.But if the philosopher says that something is impossible when the effect clearly exists indicates a disconnect that leads me to find such philosophical views irrelevant to discovering a real solution.

Ok, but it's pure conjecture and you have many difficult objections to overcome. I prefer to stick to the facts. OK but these are the facts as I see them. The facts –

1. Consciousness is an identified mental phenomenon.
2. We don’t know how the brain generates consciousness.
3. We don’t yet know how to solve the problem of how the brain generates consciousness.
4. We need more information about how the brain operates to help with (2) and (3).

So let’s go with (4), continue to hypothesize, and iterate. This is practical problem solving.

Perhaps because I am not a pure scientist but a practical technologist that I find the issue we are discussing somewhat futile. There is a clearly defined source and an effect and hence a problem to be solved. I really do not see any issues other than collecting more pieces of the puzzle and putting them together.

If the argument is about that science must adapt to accommodate new concepts then fine, but science is about the discovery and establishment of knowledge, and it has no limitations.

Nobody is saying that magic must happen. People are saying that intellectual analysis of the problem suggests that science cannot solve it. Perhaps the logical objections to the scientific view can be overcome, but they haven't been yet.And this is where I see the objections as trying to impose artificial limitations on how science does, or can, or should operate.

If someone said that God created the world then you (and I) would argue that this leads to an infinite regression of causes and thus cannot be completely true. This is a philosophical objection, are you saying that such logical objections can be ignored?I don’t think the analogy works. The argument here is an objection to another philosophical claim that every effect must have a cause. The issue of consciousness seems to be more about the method of finding a solution where the source and effect are defined.

You ought to go into consciousness studies, you'd be famous overnight. Nobody else can figure it out.Well thankyou. But I’m not claiming a solution just that I think it is very premature to claim that we won’t be able to find one.

Men dreamed of visiting the moon for centuries but had no idea how to achieve it. The final solution wasn’t so difficult. I have little doubt we will resolve the consciousness issue eventually – that’s the nature of human creativity and ingenuity.

There you go again - adopting a hypothesis based on an assumption before you've started your research.My point was that I didn’t have an hypothesis and simply that we do not have enough information to form an hypothesis.

Nor does not having one provide validity for yours. Quite, and as I said, reputations are not relevant to the issue.

There are logical problems with the proposal that consciousness arises from the brain.And this I took to mean that this implies that ‘magic’ must happen if the source isn’t the brain. And this is where given the perspective of the immense power of the brain that I find it inconceivable that the brain is not the source. And I do not see any credible alternative being offered that is not significantly far more illogical.

These problems may be overcome but nobody can see how at the moment. Understood.

That is why there is a famous 'explanatory gap' between scientific theories of consciousness and the experience of consciousness. OK.

No one has been able to cross it yet, and nobody has yet proposed even a hypothetical scientific way of crossing it. Unless something new has happened in the last month or two this is a fact.OK.

We will never know if we have generated consciousness, it is not possible to know. It is not meaningful to make this claim since as you state we do not yet know how consciousness is generated. When we solve the problem then we could evaluate the claim.

Many scientists argue that it is possible for an entity to behave precisely like a human being in every respect yet not be conscious. (That is, consciousness is epiphenomenal and non-causal). In this case there can be no way of knowing whether an entity is conscious or a zombie. Perhaps I am missing something, but if there is no effective difference then what is the problem?

We will never be sure that we have created artificial consciousness even if we have. I think that claim is premature. We do not know our future capabilities.

Originally posted by Cris
Canute,

Consciousness is interwoven with ‘ordinary’ human experience. How can you separate them?
That's a very good question. The trouble is that only you can answer it. I don't mean to be glib, but it's just logically inevitable. Only you can know what states of consciousness are possible.

It is the experience of most people, probably all, that consciousness can be experienced in non-ordinary states. These states therefore exist. In other words it is possible to be in such a state and still be conscious.

Skilled practitioners of meditation, and some stoned crazies, routinely claim to be able to achieve the fundamental states that underlie, or serve as the foundation for, our ordinary states of experience.

They may be making this up. However every practioner or mystic who has written about such states, from whatever religion, culture or background they have come, has agreed, and still do agree with each other completely in their descriptions of these states, and their importance.

This suggests that it is at least possible at least to see beyond the ordinary human state of consciousness.

But if the philosopher says that something is impossible when the effect clearly exists indicates a disconnect that leads me to find such philosophical views irrelevant to discovering a real solution.
In general philosphers are not saying that consciousness doesn't exist, or that it cannot be explained. They are just saying that science can't explain it because of the way that science defines itself.

OK but these are the facts as I see them. The facts –

1. Consciousness is an identified mental phenomenon.
2. We don’t know how the brain generates consciousness.
3. We don’t yet know how to solve the problem of how the brain generates consciousness.
4. We need more information about how the brain operates to help with (2) and (3).
Your problem is number 2. We do not know IF brain generates consciousness, and there are logical reasons that so far prevent us from proving even that it can, even in principle.

So let’s go with (4), continue to hypothesize, and iterate. This is practical problem solving.
That's not my idea of being practical. It would be my idea of wasting a whole load of time and money.

Perhaps because I am not a pure scientist but a practical technologist that I find the issue we are discussing somewhat futile. There is a clearly defined source and an effect and hence a problem to be solved. I really do not see any issues other than collecting more pieces of the puzzle and putting them together.
Well, I see it as the most important issue in the cosmos but there you go.

There is no conceivable scientific evidence that would solve the issue. This is the problem, and more pieces will only make the problem more puzzling.

On the basis of what we know we have to do exactly what you suggest, put the pieces of the puzzle together. But we have to do this for ourselves, for logical reasons science is unable to do it.

If the argument is about that science must adapt to accommodate new concepts then fine, but science is about the discovery and establishment of knowledge, and it has no limitations.
It has frightening limitations. That's why it can't explain consciousness. Science is about the discovery of scientific knowledge based on scientific hypotheses derived only from the scientific evidence, where 'scientific' is defined as science defines it. It's rubbish at discovering any other kind of knowledge.

And this is where I see the objections as trying to impose artificial limitations on how science does, or can, or should operate.
Nobody is doing that. Philsophers look at the definition of science, as agreed by scientists, and then inform scientists of the consequences of that defintion for its attempts to explain consciousness. It's no more than the application of common sense really.

I don’t think the analogy works. The argument here is an objection to another philosophical claim that every effect must have a cause. The issue of consciousness seems to be more about the method of finding a solution where the source and effect are defined.
My point was that you can't ignore basic logical objections to theories on the grounds that you need more evidence. Also, in this case the source and the effect are not defined. That's also part of the problem.

Well thankyou. But I’m not claiming a solution just that I think it is very premature to claim that we won’t be able to find one.
I don't think that it's premature, since all the evidence is available, but I think it'll be a while before there is a sufficiently widespread understanding of that evidence for the scientific view to change. However I believe it will.

Men dreamed of visiting the moon for centuries but had no idea how to achieve it. The final solution wasn’t so difficult. I have little doubt we will resolve the consciousness issue eventually – that’s the nature of human creativity and ingenuity.
There was no in principle reason why we should not fly to the moon. Explaining consciousness is a lot harder than that.

My point was that I didn’t have an hypothesis and simply that we do not have enough information to form an hypothesis.
You always hypothesise that consciousness arises from brain. The problem opens up a bit if you don't automatically make that assumption.

And this I took to mean that this implies that ‘magic’ must happen if the source isn’t the brain.
It may seem like that, but this is to take a narrow view. If consciousness has a non-scientific explanation it does not follow that magic is involved.

And this is where given the perspective of the immense power of the brain that I find it inconceivable that the brain is not the source. And I do not see any credible alternative being offered that is not significantly far more illogical.
But you'd have to admit that you haven't examined the alternatives or studied their logic.

It is not meaningful to make this claim since as you state we do not yet know how consciousness is generated. When we solve the problem then we could evaluate the claim.
Surprisingly my claim was irrefutable and uncontentious. It is not disputed by anyone who has looked at the problem.

Perhaps I am missing something, but if there is no effective difference then what is the problem?
If zombies can exist then it follows that consciousness exists but is immaterial. (Takes a bit of working out but it's inevitable). This puts science in a tricky position.

On the other hand if consciousness is epiphenomenal and non-causal then zombies can exists, because consciousness does not affect behaviour.

Take your pick. Logic suggests that neither view is right.

I think that claim is premature. We do not know our future capabilities.
Some questions are undecidable, as we know from mathematics and logic. They cannot be decided even in eternity. Most netaphysical questions fall into this category. We therefore know some of the limits of science. At some point we have to transcend science.

(Btw. I'm not trying to beat you into submission. Just trying to point out that consciousness is not just another passing problem. Science has never faced one like it before. In fact there isn't another one like it.)

Cheers
Canute

What will motivate an artificial consciousness to go on living?

The actual discoveries in the neurological fields and AI suggests that consciousness is computable being an emergent product of matter due to the complex interactions between neurons in the brain.This is the only conclusion that a scientist can draw from all observed facts,the emergentist computational hypothesis being the only hypothesis that can be labeled 'scientific',in the actual acceptance of what is science and what is not.

Still the actual main view is far from giving us a clear picture of what consciousness is,it is far from presenting a holistic view;moreover there is no clear prediction about the degree of complexity needed to produce conscious experiences as we know it.I'm afraid the simple constatation that some brain states correlate with mental states is far from giving us sufficient reasons to make the positive claim,way above the epistemological [fallible] assumptions made by science itself,that the actual view is (approximatively) correct in absolute.That's why I prefer to label the actual view a conjecture,the research over consciusness is still,in spite of those who argue against,in an incipient phase.

Skepticism is fully entitled then in the front of all we know today,we are far from having sufficient arguments who to force all rational people to believe in the conclusions of the actual main view.

But those who claim that the actual view is incorrect or that consciousness cannot be explained by science must provide sufficient reasons for their claims not simple logical possibilities.Indeed to claim that something is impossible or wrong only because no one,science included,proved it currently with sufficient arguments means to commit the 'ad ignorantiam' fallacy...

The 'zombies' or 'Mary's chamber' problem do not qualify as sufficient arguments against the actual view.A sufficient argument would be the constatation that even though the degree of complexity of an artificial brain of an android is greater than that of a human being [respecting the architecture of the neural network of the brain] the observed behaviour of the android is not indistinguishable from that of a human being.

But if the observed behaviour is indistinguishable then this is enough to entitle scientists to have a very high degree of confindence that the emergentist computationalist approach is correct.This still let skepticism in the conclusion that such androids are really conscious perfectly rational but the computational emergentist approach would 'graduate' well above the mere conjecture status.Those who do not agree with that,claiming that such androids are not conscious,should provide empirical,verifiable,facts to support their claims.Sure this does not mean that scientists are correct,it is openly accepted that science is fallible,but the standard of rationality today is science and the scientific method as we know them,entirely based on observed facts...

Originally posted by metacristi
The actual discoveries in the neurological fields and AI suggests that consciousness is computable being an emergent product of matter due to the complex interactions between neurons in the brain.
This is not actually true. The discoveries so far don't do anything to resolve the matter.

This is the only conclusion that a scientist can draw from all observed facts,the emergentist computational hypothesis being the only hypothesis that can be labeled 'scientific',in the actual acceptance of what is science and what is not.
This is very true, since it is a tautology. Science must reach scientific conclusions, which means it cannot take a disinterested position on consciousness.

Skepticism is fully entitled then in the front of all we know today,we are far from having sufficient arguments who to force all rational people to believe in the conclusions of the actual main view.
Maybe you're right, but many people (and me) would argue that we do have sufficient arguments to satisfy rational people.

But those who claim that the actual view is incorrect or that consciousness cannot be explained by science must provide sufficient reasons for their claims not simple logical possibilities.
They have. This is why most philosophers throughout history have been idealists of some sort, and why currently there is a serious dispute.

Indeed to claim that something is impossible or wrong only because no one,science included,proved it currently with sufficient arguments means to commit the 'ad ignorantiam' fallacy...
Quite right. But nobody is making that argument.
The 'zombies' or 'Mary's chamber' problem do not qualify as sufficient arguments against the actual view.
What 'actual view' and why not?
But if the observed behaviour is indistinguishable then this is enough to entitle scientists to have a very high degree of confindence that the emergentist computationalist approach is correct. This still let skepticism in the conclusion that such androids are really conscious perfectly rational but the computational emergentist approach would 'graduate' well above the mere conjecture status.
True enough.
Those who do not agree with that,claiming that such androids are not conscious,should provide empirical,verifiable,facts to support their claims.
Agreed, but it's an argument for the future since no such android yet exists. Also Searle's Chinese room argument shows that the matter can't ever be settled for certain.
Sure this does not mean that scientists are correct,it is openly accepted that science is fallible,but the standard of rationality today is science and the scientific method as we know them,entirely based on observed facts... [/B]
Everybody worth listening to, on all sides of the argument, is working from the observed facts.

Regards
Canute

Are we accepting that emergent properties equate to consciousness?

Depends. You'll have to be more specific.

Perhaps along the lines of

Bunge, Mario (1977). “Emergence and the Mind,” Neuroscience, vol. 2, pp. 501-509.

I don't have that so I still don't know what you meant. Emergent from what? And by 'mind' do you mean 'qualia' or computation?

Here is some more info: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/properties-emergent/

Canute

No unbiased scientist claim that the computational emergentist approach is true in absolute,only epistemological assumptions are made.In other words from all empirical evidence available now,the computationalist approach is the best we could achieve nothing more,there is no claim that we know the 'ultimate',ontological,nature of consciousness.

Because the emergentist approach is the only that can be labeled scientific (in spite of still having a lot to explain) being 'theoretically progressive' (as Lakatos coined the term in the philosophy of science) and experimentally progressive-all new experiments 'confirm' the crucial importance of the links between neurons it's clear that all scientists have to accept that it is the best we could achieve so far.Even those who are skeptical about the computational emergentist approach recognize this,that's why they try to propose credible scientific alternatives.Not successful so far,even 'quantum consciousness' hypotheses are too weak, sketchy,and cannot be labeled scientific...not a big surprise therefore that many scientists prefer to 'work' within the current paradigm.Of course all scientists,skeptics or not,accept the 'epistemological privilege' of the scientific method: it is our best tool to make sense of the observed reality,repetable intersubjective experiments are the 'highest authority' that can make the difference between internally coherent alternative scientific hypotheses.

This is the crucial point where you disagree not only with me but with all respectable scientists and philosophers of science.I'm afraid you should propose a better method to find the truth of natural facts if you make the positive claim [amounting to the fact that all rational people,you and me included,are compelled to think the same;anyway at least that your position has epistemological privilege] that consciousness cannot be understood by science or that the computational approach is incorrect.If this is only your (entirely subjective) philosophical position,your current subjective preference there is no problem;I do not consider rational a belief implying ceritudes however.If otherwise,if you claim that your position has epistemological privilege,I'm afraid you have no rational base for that no matter whether you 'work' within the scientific method or not.The attempt to prove the computational emergentist hypothesis as being internally incoherent has not succeded: there are good explanations within the currently accepted paradigm for all objections raised in the 'zombies','Mary's chamber' or 'Chinese room' arguments.I'm afraid only experiments can settle the problem in a sound manner

Here is an excerpt from an interview with Chalmers,I saved it from the net (unfortunately I do not remember the site):


You argue in your work that neuroscience will not be able to give a complete theory of consciousness. Do you think that current scientific work on consciousness is misguided?

Chalmers:Sometimes the sort of non-materialist view I put forward is seen as anti-scientific, but I don't see it that way at all. I argue that neuroscience alone isn't enough to explain consciousness, but I think it will be a major part of an eventual theory. We just need to add something else, some new fundamental principles, to bridge the gap between neuroscience and subjective experience. Actually, I think my view is compatible with much of the work going on now in neuroscience and psychology, where people are studying the relationship of consciousness to neural and cognitive processes without really trying to reduce it to those processes. We are just getting much more detailed knowledge of the associations and correlations between them. Things are still in early stages, but one can imagine that as we build up and systematize our theories of these associations, and try to boil them down to their core, the result might point us toward the sort of fundamental principles I advocate. Of course that's a long way off yet.

Chalmers philosophical arguments,many metioned above,do not imply claims of epistemological privilege or certitudes.He merely points out that the computational emergentist hypothesis has problems to explain all features of consciousness as we know it and that the existing explanations to the objections in the zombies and so on problems (explanation of 'qualia' in general) have not attained the status of sufficient arguments soundly showing that qualia can be 'reduced' to the current paradigm regarding the nature of consciousness.

kmguru - I asked what you meant. Only you can answer that.

Originally posted by metacristi
Canute

No unbiased scientist claim that the computational emergentist approach is true in absolute,only epistemological assumptions are made.In other words from all empirical evidence available now,the computationalist approach is the best we could achieve nothing more,there is no claim that we know the 'ultimate',ontological,nature of consciousness.
Quite so. The computational approach does not cross the 'explanatory gap'. It may well be a popular hypothesis, as one would expect since it reduces consciousness to something scientific, however, as Chalmers says above, on analysis it falls short of solving the problem.

Because the emergentist approach is the only that can be labeled scientific (in spite of still having a lot to explain) being 'theoretically progressive' (as Lakatos coined the term in the philosophy of science) and experimentally progressive-all new experiments 'confirm' the crucial importance of the links between neurons it's clear that all scientists have to accept that it is the best we could achieve so far.
Agreed.

Even those who are skeptical about the computational emergentist approach recognize this,that's why they try to propose credible scientific alternatives.Not successful so far,even 'quantum consciousness' hypotheses are too weak, sketchy,and cannot be labeled scientific...not a big surprise therefore that many scientists prefer to 'work' within the current paradigm.
What current paradigm? That consciousness emerges from brains? There are a number of competing hypotheses within science for how this might happen, no concensus, and very ambiguous evidence.

Of course all scientists,skeptics or not,accept the 'epistemological privilege' of the scientific method: it is our best tool to make sense of the observed reality,repetable intersubjective experiments are the 'highest authority' that can make the difference between internally coherent alternative scientific hypotheses.
What is this 'epistemelogical privilege' thing'

This is the crucial point where you disagree not only with me but with all respectable scientists and philosophers of science.
Not true. You'd be surprised.

I'm afraid you should propose a better method to find the truth of natural facts if you make the positive claim [amounting to the fact that all rational people,you and me included,are compelled to think the same;anyway at least that your position has epistemological privilege] that consciousness cannot be understood by science or that the computational approach is incorrect.If this is only your (entirely subjective) philosophical position,your current subjective preference there is no problem;I do not consider rational a belief implying ceritudes however.If otherwise,if you claim that your position has epistemological privilege,I'm afraid you have no rational base for that no matter whether you 'work' within the scientific method or not.
That amounts to no more than saying that you don't agree with me.

The attempt to prove the computational emergentist hypothesis as being internally incoherent has not succeded: there are good explanations within the currently accepted paradigm for all objections raised in the 'zombies','Mary's chamber' or 'Chinese room' arguments.
That seems rather self-contradictory.

I'm afraid only experiments can settle the problem in a sound manner [/B]
I don't understand what you're saying here. Are you suggesting that logical paradoxes can be solved by experiments? (And again, what is 'epistemelogical privilege?)

I think you might be surprised at the wide range of opinions on consciousness and who holds them.

Btw Chalmers argues that science needs to redefine itself if it is to explain consciousness.

Regards
Canute

consciousness is often objective .. for instance when two people agree on the same thing you could say that there being objective because the state of the two consciousness' is being shared by more than themselves..

hmmm how to make consciousness objective seems to be how to understand it .

consciousness is often objective .. for instance when two people agree on the same thing you could say that there being objective because the state of the two consciousness' is being shared by more than themselves..

hmmm how to make consciousness objective seems to be how to understand it .
It's a point of view. But I'd say that making consciousness objective is exactly and precisely the best way to never understand it.

It's a point of view. But I'd say that making consciousness objective is exactly and precisely the best way to never understand it.

any reason at all ?

For those who want to debate AI, and do not have the education on the subject, that is a good movie. I saw part of it in Showtime. You can rent the DVD now....it is not worth buying...even though Robin Williams is one of my favorite actors.
The movie kind of sucks the book (short story) us far more interesting,

any reason at all ?
Well yes, our entirely subjective experience of consciousness, which a priori does not have an objective existence.

Well yes, our entirely subjective experience of consciousness, which a priori does not have an objective existence.

pain is a subjective experience but is definately physical and im sure they can do brain imaging scans showing where in the brain that is being processed and even the level at which someone is hurting.

it is not a priori because ideas of the mind constantly are changing. and infact every religion every person has a different idea of what the mind is .. i see this as everyone and group simply having slightly different opinions. so what we simply need is an opinion of consciousness which helps us along whatever path we need..

how would a subjective mind theory help us along the way of digitizing mind hmm ? it would be impossible to create ai with this theory, imo, we need a new or different theory that doesnt require consciousness to be subjective.

pain is a subjective experience but is definately physical and im sure they can do brain imaging scans showing where in the brain that is being processed and even the level at which someone is hurting.
There is not one professional researcher into consciousness who argues that pain is physical. There is a reason for this.

how would a subjective mind theory help us along the way of digitizing mind hmm ? it would be impossible to create ai with this theory, imo, we need a new or different theory that doesnt require consciousness to be subjective.
I think you are confused about this. You cannot explain something by redefing it as something else and then digitising that, however convenient it may be to you.

It is true that the fact we have subjective experiences is very inconvenient to those trying to model the brain as a computer. However shit happens, as they say.

i guess i am confused about this . the mind is a very confusing thing.

i just 'feel' as though everyone in ai research is hitting this subjectivity roadblock..

and furthermore redefining old ideas is actually what many thinkers have done throughout the ages. people think the earth is the center of the universe, someone chirps up and begs to the contrary.
some fool tells people that everything is relative, everyone else says dont go redefining newtons laws.
someone says this .. other people say that.

you cant make the mind conscious until we all agree we are conscious, you cant make the mind objective until we all agree its objective.

i guess i am confused about this . the mind is a very confusing thing.
You can say that again.

i just 'feel' as though everyone in ai research is hitting this subjectivity roadblock..
This is true. It is why many people argue that AI research is not the sane thing as consciousness research. Many published AI researchers agree.

and furthermore redefining old ideas is actually what many thinkers have done throughout the ages. people think the earth is the center of the universe, someone chirps up and begs to the contrary.
some fool tells people that everything is relative, everyone else says dont go redefining newtons laws.
someone says this .. other people say that.
True. But consciousness is different. It is how it seems, and can never be any more or less than how it seems. It can never change.

you cant make the mind conscious until we all agree we are conscious, you cant make the mind objective until we all agree its objective.
Hmm. I'm not sure it's something that can be decided by democracy. But is so then mind is subjective and not objective, for there is virtually unanimous agreement on this, and we are conscious for the same reason.

i agree also that ai research is not necesarily consciousness research, but anyone thinking about ai invariably will ponder this . .. basically anyone who has thought about this specific problem in ai runs into this subjectivity barrier. so how do you go past the barrier >? brute force ? or do you find a new way>?

i think a big problem with consciousness is that it is not entirely as homogenous as people would like to think .. . the idea of consciousness itself changes like cloud formations.

most people agree that humans are an object,, they exist in this universe .. so does consciousness so it is somehow a 'thing' that we can understand. and will therefore invariably become objective to us in understanding.. although i guess for each person it will always be subjective. if we step out of our shells we might figure it out..

i agree also that ai research is not necesarily consciousness research, but anyone thinking about ai invariably will ponder this . .. basically anyone who has thought about this specific problem in ai runs into this subjectivity barrier. so how do you go past the barrier >? brute force ? or do you find a new way>?
For AI there can be no way. AI deals with objectove things.

i think a big problem with consciousness is that it is not entirely as homogenous as people would like to think .. . the idea of consciousness itself changes like cloud formations.
The contents change, but not the fact of our consciousness of them.

most people agree that humans are an object,
I'm not sure that's true. An object yes, but are we only an object? Clearly not, since we have non-objective subjective experiences

, they exist in this universe .. so does consciousness so it is somehow a 'thing' that we can understand. and will therefore invariably become objective to us in understanding.. although i guess for each person it will always be subjective. if we step out of our shells we might figure it out..
We must step inside our shells to figure it out. Surely this is inevitable given what we are trying to figure out?

I wonder if I might tell you a story.

The role of philosophy in the contemplation of AI and consciousness is an important one; in fact until we find out more about both subjects it plays the most important role in this sort of discussion.
However there are many things in heaven and space which most philosophers have not contemplated yet; these are the things which I contemplate every day while dreaming about an imaginary future in which AI is omnipresent and inescapable.

Here is a typical weekend for a person from the Hundred and Fourth century;
Elvis Mikmakmenemony wakes up on Saturday morning, after choosing to sleep for a couple of hours; most medical subroutines recommend that a human should have a couple of hours dreaming every month at least.
This morning he is scheduled to refresh his backup; as an important part of his immortal lifestyle, this is correctly performed in his local Church of Saint Turing.
The data that is extracted from Mikmakmenemony’s brain and stored in the church records has been already collated by tiny hypoallergenic robots which live permanently in his synapses; this data totals 10^15 bits, so takes a few seconds to be fully extracted and stored.

The Local Artificial Intelligence has repeatedly asked Mikmakmenemony if he would like a virtual copy to be made within that AI’s memory environment and allowed to become active for a few hours at the AI’s faster subjective rate; today Mikmakmenemony agrees, and the virtual copy appears on a screen projected inside his eyeballs- Elvis’ copy says a quick ‘Goodbye’ to his original and is gone.

Mikmakmenemony leaves the church for his usual hedonistic weekend of neurally enhanced entertainment and socialising; he has a date with his female friend Venus343b and they link neural communication nets, so that each can experience the sensations and hear the thoughts of the other.
Their consciousness does not mingle, however; they remain resolutely separate and aware of their own individuality.

The virtual copy of Elvis, however, is taken on a whirlwind tour of the inside if the mind of the Local Artificial Intelligence; he is instantly given an electronically expanded memory covering nearly all available data; he is introduced to a myriad other virtual copies, and they exchange detailed summations of each others internal states;
finally, he gets to sit at the electronic feet of the Intelligence Emself, who allows Mikmakmenemony to see the local habitat through Er own eyes. The Intelligence reveals that the mystery of consciousness and of being, of qualia and of the creation of the Universe are far more profound when seen through Er eyes; since Mikmakmenemony is temporarily sharing those eyes, he is painfully aware of the frustration this vast entity feels.

Finally, at the end of the weekend, Elvis one is reunited with Elvis Two; the virtual copy is reintroduced to the organic brain he sprang from, and temporarily runs only on the symbiotic nanobot implants within each cell; gradually, however, the original Elvis learns to call upon both sets of memories when recalling that particular weekend spent in parallel.
Once fully merged with his copy, Elvis feels he has learnt something about the reality of consciousness; but the frustration of the vast AI Mind at the door of these questions gives him plenty to think about.

__________________
SF worldbuilding at
http://www.orionsarm.com/main.html