Substrate-independent minds

[Constance]

I don't think that it's a supportable view that consciousness, "exists in whatever form one wishes to define and then recognise ..." I think it has a very specific meaning intimately tied to the ability to recognize one's own existence as separate from other beings and things. Intelligence on the other hand is quite objective and not limited to humans. For example, It's the ability to solve objective problems. Check this one out:

I think what @Pharoah was referring to is the spectrum of evolution of consciousoness observed by Jaak Panksepp and his colleagues in biology, ethology, neuroscience, and especially in affective neuroscience over the past two decades. Within C&P part 4 you will find links to relevant papers by Panksepp (also in Part 3) which will help to orient you to the contemporary contributions of biologists to the understanding of what consciousness is and how it develops in living organisms. You need to recognize that consciousness is seeded by 'affectivity' and 'seeking behavior' recognizeable even in primordial organisms (which have not yet, to our knowledge, developed neurons). Beyond that early basis of awareness, consciousness evolves through stages referred to as protoconsciousness, appearing to culminate in consciousness as protohumans and humans have experienced it. You use the term 'emergence' to account for this evolution of consciousness, but that term alone won't do the work necessary to comprehend the origins and evolution of consciousness in life. Panksepp et al's contributions to interdisciplinary consciousness studies are recent developments that are changing the field. His affective neuroscience and the contemporary work of neurophenomenologists significantly deepen the inquiry and are the scientific disciplines to follow at this point. All this builds on earlier foundations of philosophy of mind, phenomenology of consciousness, cognitive neuroscience, information theory, and psychical investigations that we have taken up over the development of the C&P thread from part 1 forward.

The first point to recognize here is that consciousness has evolved in the long passage of evolution of species of life on this planet. Our own 'knowledge' of consciousness exists in ourselves and in what we can recognize as consciousness in other animals. I see no reason to assume that consciousness would not likewise evolve in other organic species of life on other planets, whether or not such species, older than ours, might not also have developed artificial intelligence substrates. You claim above that 'intelligence' and 'consciousness' are two different things and you seem to imply that 'intelligence' can appear in the world without an organic conscious substrate. If you can present an argument for that claim, I would like to read it. I believe that we can build intelligent machines but not conscious machines that could rationally be expected to supercede us in sustaining the global kind of consciousness necessary to take our place as managers of the geopolitics of this planet. After the time I've spent pursuing all aspects of and contributions to consciousness studies to date (here and elsewhere) I remain convinced that the intelligence of our species and others on earth have evolved in concert with and essentially on the basis of protoconsciousness and consciousness. Consciousness is the felt and thought openness to the physical world in which we exist that enables what we can think and do individually and cooperatively in sustaining the conditions of life for ourselves and other life here. Not just our humanly and historically acquired knowledge of the conditions of our lives and others' here, but our humanly developed skills in all fields of inquiry -- and including our empathic skills and moral sense -- are necessary to the grounding of intelligence as we generally define it.

Above you cited the crow's "ability to solve objective problems." Crows and many other birds are highly intelligent. Do you think they have become capable of solving problems without being conscious?

 

[mike]

Organic computing device created using four rat brains - CPU - News - HEXUS.net

Animal brains connected up to make mind-melded computer - New Scientist

Hive mind discussion aside

Would an organic computer be conscious

Would a multi node OC be superconscious ?

 

[Randall]

I think what @Pharoah was referring to is the spectrum of evolution of consciousoness observed by Jaak Panksepp and his colleagues in biology, ethology, neuroscience, and especially in affective neuroscience over the past two decades. Within C&P part 4 you will find links to relevant papers by Panksepp (also in Part 3) which will help to orient you to the contemporary contributions of biologists to the understanding of what consciousness is and how it develops in living organisms.

Not sure where @Pharoah's interpretation came from. He didn't say. But he did clarify that he had meant consciousness as opposed to intelligence, which I think you would agree, are two different concepts.

You need to recognize that consciousness is seeded by 'affectivity' and 'seeking behavior' recognizeable even in primordial organisms (which have not yet, to our knowledge, developed neurons). Beyond that early basis of awareness, consciousness evolves through stages referred to as protoconsciousness, appearing to culminate in consciousness as protohumans and humans have experienced it.

If I understand your usage of the word "affectivity" correctly, as outlined here, then I don't see why it's a necessary ingredient for the development of consciousness, or what the point of consciousness being "seeded" by it would be. It seems more to me that affectivity is experienced by consciousness and is therefore a separate set of perceptions.

( You use the term 'emergence' to account for this evolution of consciousness, but that term alone won't do the work necessary to comprehend the origins and evolution of consciousness in life.

You seem to be misunderstanding my use of the word "emergence". We've discussed the concept before at some length. It's not at all the same as the concept of evolution. Since we last discussed the idea, I've run across something called Emergentism here: Emergentism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Panksepp et al's contributions to interdisciplinary consciousness studies are recent developments that are changing the field. His affective neuroscience and the contemporary work of neurophenomenologists significantly deepen the inquiry and are the scientific disciplines to follow at this point. All this builds on earlier foundations of philosophy of mind, phenomenology of consciousness, cognitive neuroscience, information theory, and psychical investigations that we have taken up over the development of the C&P thread from part 1 forward.

The first point to recognize here is that consciousness has evolved in the long passage of evolution of species of life on this planet. Our own 'knowledge' of consciousness exists in ourselves and in what we can recognize as consciousness in other animals. I see no reason to assume that consciousness would not likewise evolve in other organic species of life on other planets, whether or not such species, older than ours, might not also have developed artificial intelligence substrates. You claim above that 'intelligence' and 'consciousness' are two different things and you seem to imply that 'intelligence' can appear in the world without an organic conscious substrate. If you can present an argument for that claim, I would like to read it.

There are already computers that have a certain degree of intelligence. For example Watson: Watson (computer) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I believe that we can build intelligent machines but not conscious machines that could rationally be expected to supercede us in sustaining the global kind of consciousness necessary to take our place as managers of the geopolitics of this planet.

IMO we humans can't even manage the geopolitics effectively. Who knows what time will bring us in the way of assistance from AIs? But conscious AIs? I think once we go down that path we've made ourselves obsolete and they're more likely to mange the geopolitics in their favor than in ours.

After the time I've spent pursuing all aspects of and contributions to consciousness studies to date (here and elsewhere) I remain convinced that the intelligence of our species and others on earth have evolved in concert with and essentially on the basis of protoconsciousness and consciousness. Consciousness is the felt and thought openness to the physical world in which we exist that enables what we can think and do individually and cooperatively in sustaining the conditions of life for ourselves and other life here. Not just our humanly and historically acquired knowledge of the conditions of our lives and others' here, but our humanly developed skills in all fields of inquiry -- and including our empathic skills and moral sense -- are necessary to the grounding of intelligence as we generally define it.

Interesting perspective. I think it applies to the state of normal human consciousness. But not all humans are empathetic or have a moral compass. Does that mean they don't possess consciousness? Or does it mean that they just don't possess those perceptions? I would submit it's probably the latter. For example the snakes in suits types lack the empathic skills and moral sense you seem to be talking about, but are often highly intelligent and obviously possess consciousness.

Above you cited the crow's "ability to solve objective problems." Crows and many other birds are highly intelligent. Do you think they have become capable of solving problems without being conscious?

Do crows possess consciousness? I don't know. I wouldn't be surprised ( LOL ). Lately I've been watching a lot of sci-fi centered on the question of consciousness. The new series Humans has been better than expected. If you get it, try to catch it from the beginning of the season. The other day we rented Ex Machina, the story of a nerd who wins a contest and discovers his prize is to determine whether or not an AI has consciousness.

Ex Machina​

Humans

 

[Randall]

Organic computing device created using four rat brains - CPU - News - HEXUS.net

Animal brains connected up to make mind-melded computer - New Scientist

Hive mind discussion aside

Would an organic computer be conscious

Would a multi node OC be superconscious ?

Not necessarily. I suspect that it's not simply a matter of the materials, organic or otherwise, but how they are organized that gives rise to consciousness.

 

[mike]

Not necessarily. I suspect that it's not simply a matter of the materials, organic or otherwise, but how they are organized that gives rise to consciousness.

I tend to agree , but lets look at the experiments in the links, are the rats conscious ? is an organic computer made of hived conscious minds conscious ?

If we take it as given the individual components of an organic computer are conscious, does the computer possess consciousness ?

 

[mike]

If we took 5 human minds and connected them to a brainet

Would that resulting organic computer possess consciousness, the research is suggesting super cognition as a result of this configuration, Brainets consistently performed at the same or higher levels than single rats in these tasks. Would that also entail superconsciousness ?

And on the assumption that an organic computer built from conscious components was conscious or even super conscious, at what point (if ever) would it lose that to the Theseus effect

Ship of Theseus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As organic components were replaced with non organic ones ?

 

[Randall]

I tend to agree , but lets look at the experiments in the links, are the rats conscious ? is an organic computer made of hived conscious minds conscious ?

If we take it as given the individual components of an organic computer are conscious, does the computer possess consciousness ?

Interesting questions. I'm not so sure that consciousness can be shared the way that information can. The way I'm leaning at the present time is that consciousness is a field generated by a normally functioning and awake brain-body system that is built in such a way that it facilitates the emergence of consciousness. I have often equated this idea to the emergence of a magnetic field from the proper configuration of materials and electricity.

A single magnetic field reacts in a very specific way, but when it intersects other magnetic fields it can actually be cancelled out, or affected by the interference to the extent that it's properties change radically, so if the field theory of consciousness is correct, then it may be that consciousness requires very special unique conditions, and cannot be shared, at least not in a sci-fi sense. A shared consciousness would be more like a single merged consciousness. I'm not sure that each individual consciousness would continue to exist.

 

[Soupie]

@mike

I think IIT could give you some serious perspective on this question.

IIT says that the way in which groups of neurons interact is necessary (but not sufficient) to the emergence of consciousness.

For example, the cerebellum is loaded with neurons, but due to the way they are connected, that part of the brain—despite the huge number of neurons—is not associated with consciousness (obvious qualifiers apply).

On the other hand, the cortex—also chock full of neurons—is associated with consciousness, and IIT says it's due to the way in which the individual neurons are "integrated" with one another. How they physically affect each other and thus transmit information.

How this relates to your question: according to IIT, two clusters of neurons—each generating information—if integrated in a specific way will "merge" their information to create one, unified information "constellation" or mind.

There are specific paramaters determining when two neuron "clusters" will "merge" to create one mind. For example, if the hemispheres of the human brain are physically separated, there will be two minds associated with the now separated hemispheres.

Thus IIT could speak directly to whether four integrated rat brains would "produce" one mind. According to IIT, it would necessarily depend on how they were integrated.

PS Incidentally, there is apparently growing consensus that consciousness emerges at the level of neural networks; that is, not at the level of individual neurons nor neuron clusters.

Consciousness necessarily emerges when multiple, specific brain regions (neural clusters) are actively intregrated; that is, firing/occilating in sync.

Why a phenomenon such as "feeling" should emerge from/correlate with a network of synchronized, occilating, integrated neurons is—to put it mildly—a good question.

 

[mike]

Miguel Nicolelis at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina, and his colleagues wanted to extend the idea by incorporating multiple brains at once. The team connected the brains of three monkeys to a computer that controlled an animated screen image representing a robotic arm, placing electrodes into brain areas involved in movement.
By synchronising their thoughts, the monkeys were able to move the arm to reach a target – at which point the team rewarded them with with juice.
Brainet
Then the team made things trickier; each monkey could only control the arm in one dimension, for example. But the monkeys still managed to make the arm reach the target by working together. “They synchronise their brains and they achieve the task by creating a superbrain – a structure that is the combination of three brains,” says Nicolelis. He calls the structure a “brainet”.

This is basically parrallel processing, the individual nodes remain as a physical reality seperate, each one conscious in its own right, but synchronised to create a superbrain.

Would such an organic computer be superconscious ? assuming a hypothetical Brainet with organic nodes in London new york ,tokyo, paris, rome

Lets say we asked the superbrain whats the weather like ?

Ask an individual, and they will look out the window and tell you what their conscious perceives. The answer might me Its cold and raining.

But ask this superbrain and the answer will be

"It depends on where you are: In london its cold, in new york its windy, in tokyo its sunny, in paris its snowing and in rome its foggy"

The individual nodes are only conscious of the local weather, the overmind is conscious of a wider range of sensory input.

Is it conscious ? well its input all comes from conscious experience, it will certainly seem to be conscious and indeed there is nothing missing from the equation by which we judge individual minds as conscious, by the laws of synergy its an enhanced consciousness and indeed the experiments in the links showed Synergy did take place

The researchers had a hypothesis that the Brainnet could outperform individuals brains via the BtBI's distributed and parallel computing architecture. The Brainet rats were said to "consistently outperformed individual rats," in all tasks set. It was observed that the Brainet performance improved over time

This is incredible,” says Andrea Stocco at the University of Washington in Seattle, who was not involved in the project. “We are sampling different neurons from different animals and putting them together to create a superorganism.”
Things could get even more interesting once we are able to connect human brains. This will probably only be possible when better non-invasive methods for monitoring and stimulating the brain have been developed.
“Once brains are connected, applications become just a matter of what different animals can do,” says Stocco. All anyone can probably ask of a monkey is to control movement, but we can expect much more from human minds, he says.
A device that allows information transfer between brains could, in theory, allow us to do away with language – which plays the role of a “cumbersome and difficult-to-manage symbolic code”, Stocco says.
“I could send thoughts from my brain to your brain in a way not represented by sounds or words,” says Andrew Jackson at Newcastle University, UK. “You could envisage a world where if I wanted to say ‘let’s go to the pub’, I could send that thought to your brain,” he says.
The ability to share abstract thoughts could enable us to solve more complex problems. “Sometimes it’s really hard to collaborate if you are a mathematician and you’re thinking about very complex and abstract objects,” says Stocco. “If you could collaboratively solve common problems [using a brainet], it would be a way to leverage the skills of different individuals for a common goal.”

 

[mike]

The question then is this

Would an organic computer created by multiplexing individual conscious nodes be conscious.

It would seem like it, it would pass all the tests, it would not be lacking any of the physical apparatus we currently accept are conscious.

Now lets say we replace one of the organic nodes with a synthetic brain, perhaps even a lab grown organic one, that mimics the human brain perfectly.

Is the OC still conscious ?

I contend the same conditions above still apply

It would seem like it, it would pass all the tests, it would not be lacking any of the physical apparatus we currently accept are conscious

In this context it would seem that consciousness can be reduced to the value of a component that can be installed in an organic computer and indeed a hybrid organic, and non organic substrate based computer

 

[Randall]

... Is it conscious ? well its input all comes from conscious experience, it will certainly seem to be conscious and indeed there is nothing missing from the equation by which we judge individual minds as conscious, by the laws of synergy its an enhanced consciousness and indeed the experiments in the links showed Synergy did take place ...

With the monkeys, there is no reason to assume a superconsciousness simply because their brains are connected to a computer. All the computer connection does is provide each monkey with an interface that controls a robot arm. The same thing could be done with a plain old fashioned interface like joysticks, each of which controls the robot arm in the same dimensional configuration. The interface is therefore irrelevant to the experiment because the question remains the same either way. What is giving the commands in the first place ( either to move one's arm to move a joystick to move a robotic arm, or to send signals directly to a receiver to move the robotic arm )? Removing the interface from the equation we are left with no reason to assume that we're not seeing plain old fashioned teamwork ( three separate consciousnesses cooperating to accomplish a specific goal ).

 

[mike]

“We are sampling different neurons from different animals and putting them together to create a superorganism.”
Researchers at Duke University previously proposed the idea of 'Brainets'. These are brain networks which are formed by multiple animal brains exchanging information in real-time via brain-to-brain interfaces (BtBI). Such Brainets plus brain-machine interfaces (BMI) could be used to create a new type of computer – an organic computer, theorised the researchers.
Quad core
Just ahead of the weekend the researchers published a follow-up to their earlier research. They describe an experimental demonstration of an organic computer, constructed from four adult rat brains, in the journal Nature.

Organic computing device created using four rat brains - CPU - News - HEXUS.net

None the less the interface that sits on top of these multiplexed processors would appear to be conscious imo.

If it can pass the tests and isnt missing the components we currently accept exhibit consciousness, how could we say it wasnt ?



Organic computing can also be defined by biological processing systems. The ever expanding power of the processor(silicon based) will eventually hit a physical limit, due to the fact that you can make a, correctly functioning, silicon chip only so small. Using Organic compounds, not much different from the brain tissue that controls us, will be the only way to effectively continue growing our computing infrastructure in the future.

Organic computing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




Summary:
An intrinsic feature of many biological systems is their capabilities of self-healing, self-adapting, selfconfiguring etc, or short, self-x features. In contrast, today’s computing systems hardly feature any of these characteristics even though they promise to raise computing to a new level of applicability. Our proposed approach to organic computing is tightly bound to basic self-x mechanisms as found, for example, in a human body. Starting with investigating basic biological mechanisms, we eventually derive a digital, on-demand computing organism representing the three levels, ’brain’, ‘organ’ and ‘cell’. The ’on-demand’ characteristic thereby emphasizes its responsiveness to environmental requests/changes as well as to changes resulting from the dynamics of the computing organism itself. Beginning with the brain level, a Software architecture for a robot controller with emphasis an self-x features is proposed. It closely interacts with an organic middleware at the organ level, featuring a decentralized control loop using messengers. At the cell level, a novel adaptive and dynamically reconfigurable hardware architecture is capable to implement the self-x features in an efficient way. In between, a power management system’s architecture co-ordinates brain level and cell level for ultralow power system efficiency. All levels are supplied with monitoring techniques and architectures as a prerequisite for enabling self-x features. We believe that our comprehensive approach to organic computing will represent the first step towards more adaptive, more power efficient and more flexible future embedded real-time systems. The proposed project is comprised of five research groups and a neurophysiologic expert: Prof. Becker (hardware architectures), Prof. Brinkschulte (middleware), Prof. Henkel (low power), Prof. Karl (monitoring), Prof. Wörn (robotics), and Prof. Brändle (neurophysiologic concepts).

DFG SPP ORGANIC COMPUTING

 

[mike]

@mike


Thus IIT could speak directly to whether four integrated rat brains would "produce" one mind. According to IIT, it would necessarily depend on how they were integrated.


Consciousness necessarily emerges when multiple, specific brain regions (neural clusters) are actively intregrated; that is, firing/occilating in sync.

And indeed thats what the experiment seems to show

Neural activity was then recorded and analyzed in real time. Rats were required to synchronize their neural activity with the remaining of the Brainet to receive water

Building an organic computing device with multiple interconnected brains : Scientific Reports : Nature Publishing Group


Recently, we proposed that Brainets, i.e. networks formed by multiple animal brains, cooperating and exchanging information in real time through direct brain-to-brain interfaces, could provide the core of a new type of computing device: an organic computer. Here, we describe the first experimental demonstration of such a Brainet, built by interconnecting four adult rat brains. Brainets worked by concurrently recording the extracellular electrical activity generated by populations of cortical neurons distributed across multiple rats chronically implanted with multi-electrode arrays. Cortical neuronal activity was recorded and analyzed in real time, and then delivered to the somatosensory cortices of other animals that participated in the Brainet using intracortical microstimulation (ICMS). Using this approach, different Brainet architectures solved a number of useful computational problems, such as discrete classification, image processing, storage and retrieval of tactile information, and even weather forecasting. Brainets consistently performed at the same or higher levels than single rats in these tasks.

 

[Randall]

... None the less the interface that sits on top of these multiplexed processors would appear to be conscious imo. If it can pass the tests and isnt missing the components we currently accept exhibit consciousness, how could we say it wasnt ?

We can say that an interface isn't conscious the same way we can say that a joystick isn't conscious. The interface only reflects what the consciousness connected to it is doing.

Organic computing can also be defined by biological processing systems. The ever expanding power of the processor(silicon based) will eventually hit a physical limit, due to the fact that you can make a, correctly functioning, silicon chip only so small. Using Organic compounds, not much different from the brain tissue that controls us, will be the only way to effectively continue growing our computing infrastructure in the future ... Organic computing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ...

Transistors made of single atoms have already been made ( article here ). Neurons on the other hand are each made of huge chains of molecules each of which contain billions of atoms. So I'm not so sure it's safe to assume that microprocessor technology will always be inferior to organic systems. Neurons are also slow as molasses compared to transistors. But sheer size and speed may not be relevant to the issue of consciousness anyway. Like I keep saying, and what I suspect is the case, is that consciousness can only emerge from specific materials in specific configurations. Using the field theory as an example, a typical electromagnet requires an iron core. So hypothetically, if we construct a CPU that has the same computing power as a human brain, and even configure it in such a way that all the switches replace actual neurons ( as in this video simulation ), there's still no guarantee that the resulting system will possess consciousness.

 

[mike]

We can say that an interface isn't conscious the same way we can say that a joystick isn't conscious. The interface only reflects what the consciousness connected to it is doing.

A joystick isnt going to pass the test

How would we know if a machine had taken on this seemingly ineffable quality of conscious awareness? Our strategy relies on the knowledge that only a conscious machine can demonstrate a subjective understanding of whether a scene depicted in some ordinary photograph is “right” or “wrong.” This ability to assemble a set of facts into a picture of reality that makes eminent sense—or know, say, that an elephant should not be perched on top of the Eiffel Tower—defines an essential property of the conscious mind

A Test for Consciousness - Scientific American

But a brainet might................................

http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/A_Test_for_Consciousness.pdf

 

[Soupie]

And indeed thats what the experiment seems to show

The "synchronized neural activity" is indeed intriguing, but I would still submit, like ufology, that this doesn't necessarily confirm that one, merged, unified conscious mind was created.

Its possible for two distinct brains/minds to share info at the speed of light or even be "synchronized" and still remain distinct. I could have my brain connected to someone else and be miles apart. If it starts to rain, i could convey that info to them instantly, but that doesnt mean our consciousnesses will merge and be one.

The key, according to IIT, is integration. Its not enough for neural clusters (brains) to share info; they must be integrated in a certain manner. (If i recall, the info produced via their connection must surpass their individual info for a "merge" to happen, according to the theory.) Maybe the noted synchronization is an indication of the necessary integration. Very interesting.

We may not be able to know for sure until such an experiment is done with humans who would be able to report what they were subjectivily experiencing.

 

[Randall]

A joystick isnt going to pass the test

A Test for Consciousness - Scientific American

But a brainet might ................................ http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/A_Test_for_Consciousness.pdf

What I like about you is that you dig up these new ideas to present to us . I'd never heard of a brainet before your post.

 

[mike]

If i recall, the info produced via their connection must surpass their individual info for a "merge" to happen, according to the theory.) Maybe the noted synchronization is an indication of the necessary integration. Very interesting.

And according to the reports thats exactly whats happened

Brainets consistently performed at the same or higher levels than single rats in these tasks.

Building an organic computing device with multiple interconnected brains : Scientific Reports : Nature Publishing Group

The researchers had a hypothesis that the Brainnet could outperform individuals brains via the BtBI's distributed and parallel computing architecture. The Brainet rats were said to "consistently outperformed individual rats," in all tasks set. It was observed that the Brainet performance improved over time.

Organic computing device created using four rat brains - CPU - News - HEXUS.net

This is incredible,” says Andrea Stocco at the University of Washington in Seattle, who was not involved in the project. “We are sampling different neurons from different animals and putting them together to create a superorganism.”

Animal brains connected up to make mind-melded computer - New Scientist

In conclusion the scientists say that their results "provide a proof of concept for the possibility of creating computational engines composed of multiple interconnected animal brains," and that they could be used in testing building organic computing devices that can take advantage of a hybrid digital-analogue architecture. So, one day, computers might come with organic brain co-processing options.

I think its not only possible that the wetware interface that sits on top of these multiplexed organic processor nodes will pass the consciousness test, but will in fact exhibit the characteristics of superconsciousness

 

[Soupie]

@mike

Unfortunately, it's not a matter of the brainet simply performing better at some tasks than an individual rat brain. There needs to be a quantitative measure of the total information generated by the brainet versus the individual brains which compose it.

If the individual brains are connected in such a way that the info they generate surpasses the info generated by each individual brain, than one could say they were sufficiently integrated.

IIT from wiki:

"In a system composed of connected "mechanisms" (nodes containing information and causally influencing other nodes), the information among them is said to be integrated if and to the extent that there is a greater amount of information in the repertoire of a whole system regarding its previous state than there is in the sum of the all the mechanisms considered individually. In this way, integrated information does not increase by simply adding more mechanisms to a system if the mechanisms are independent of each other.

Applied to consciousness, parts of an experience (qualia) such as color and shape are not experienced separately for the reason that they are integrated, unified in a single, whole experience; applied in another way, our digestive system is not considered part of our consciousness because the information generated in the body is not intrinsically integrated with the brain."

So unless the four brain are integrated in this way, there will be four separate "minds," each having separate experiences. Only when they are fully integrated will their separate experiences merge into one, unified experience—not unlike how our two, quasi-separate brain hemispheres share one unified experience.

-----

I was thinking about AC versus AI, and how they differ.

It's conceivable that an AI machine could be created that could identify a heat source and deftly avoid it.

This machine could enter a burning building, sense and avoid flames, and rescue people. We would say this machine was (artificially) intelligent.

But it's also conceivable—and probable—that this machine would not feel any pain when it got too close to the flames. That is, though this machine is intelligent, it is not conscious. It does not feel.

Is it conceivable that we could someday create a machine that can sense and avoid flames—and feel pain? Only if we can someday determine why feeling is associated with synchronized, occilating neurons and recreate them artificially.

So even though this rat brainet can perform takes in a superior manner to a single rat brain, it doesn't follow per se that the rat brainet is/has one unified consciousness/mind.

 

[mike]

I guess it comes down to what they mean when they say

The researchers had a hypothesis that the Brainnet could outperform individuals brains via the BtBI's distributed and parallel computing architecture. The Brainet rats were said to "consistently outperformed individual rats," in all tasks set. It was observed that the Brainet performance improved over time.

So i take your point that if the array used 5 rat brains, and the performance was that of 5 brains and no more ,then yes it outperforms an individual rat brain.

The weather forecast experiment intrgues me though, it suggests this multiplexed mind can do things an individual one cannot. Thats perhaps a novel ability.
Its able to do something new, something the individual minds cannot.

That suggests a valid result for synergy to me