Being conscious of difference between simulating and assembling consciousness

Questions in the comments of a post on Ned Block's consciousness research:

"Does a simulated brain produce simulated language or real language? ..."

One begins by distinguishing a simulation from an assembly.

Given a DSL (domain-specific language) program p that models something in nature, p can be compiled into (the target object) a simulation Sml(p) (which could be an incomplete mimicry) or an assembly Asm(p). Sml(p) is code (e.g., Intel machine code) that runs in a conventional computer. Asm(p) is the output of what was once called a matter compiler, which is now technology that assembles what is called programmable matter.

Biological, chemical. and quantum DSLs are themselves in very primitive stages of development. There are also (deep) neural-network DSLs. But what are the higher cognitive and consciousness DSLs? And it isn't clear how intertranslatable (between "lower" and "higher") these languages will be. Perhaps not very. And compiling a consciousness program (which will be developed some day) into a working conscious output (one that actually lives in the world, contradicting the naysayers) perhaps will require a biomolecular compiler.

A simulation (of consciousness) and an assembly (of consciousness) do not end up being the same things.

(Perhaps this is the way an engineer sees things, vs. a scientist or vs. a philosopher?)


"Alternatively, can the mathematical model, in the right circumstances, have those phenomenal experiences?"

As I responded above, the mathematical model — the source program — cannot. But the target object of a biomolecular compiler — a biomolecular assembly — can.


"The external, functional point of view is the one used by researchers such as Ned Block but it is intrinsically incapable of revealing the programming language of the mind. It is for this reason that understanding the functioning of consciousness will always be beyond us. I am afraid the mysterians are right, but for the wrong reasons."

There may not be a good "programming language of the mind" DSL yet. But I see no reason why there can't be (and many paths — e.g., "A Calculus of Ideas: A Mathematical Study of Human Thought" by Ulf Grenander, AMS Notices review — could combine to lead to one, including Ned Block's) unless it's based on some sort of antiphysicalist bias.

One thing to keep in mind (!) though is the skepticism of neural and glial processing as sufficiently providing a "programming language of mind" (PLOM). The brain (with consciousness) is such a complex structure that a usable PLOM is likely to include higher-order components.