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.

The dualism of physicalism

languages↭substrate

The dualism of physicalism is not mind↭body, but languages↭substrate.

Languages and substrate are like the yang↭yin dualism of Taoism, which are "not independent from one another, but rather a variation of the same unifying force throughout all of nature."

In current technical terminology, languages = the software, substrate = the hardware. In future technology, this distinction is becoming mushier with the emergence of programmable-reconfigurable hardware and hardware (both conventional and unconventional) compilers.

In physics, it is common to refer to a single physical substrate. In natural/unconventional computing, reference is made to multiple substrates: silicon, slime mold, DNA, biomolecular, photonic, etc.

In computing, there are many general-purpose and domain-specific languages.

The substrate (discrete, continuous) provides the physical semantics of a language.

The lowest level of substrate of the physical world may be ineffable: What are quarks made of? What are strings made of? These questions may have no answers. If they did, they would be expressed in a language. We can't talk about what the substrate is without talking (writing, typing, drawing, speaking).While we are talking, we are bound by a language.

A constructive approach to platonic math: Define a platonic-domain language — e.g., a domain-specific language (DSL) where the domain is infinitary. But is there a platform (computing substrate) to run its programs?

But the platonic realism (PR) promoted by some physicists is wrong because
• simulation ≠ assembly
• language ≠ substrate
• blueprint ≠ building
PR confuses between the two sides in these pairs.

A physicalism in which the distinctions in the above pairs are recognized I call codicalism.

Smolin principle of evocation

    came into existence at the moment the rules were codified


What's compelling about the principle “came into existence at the moment the rules were codified” [1] is that it applies to both mathematics and universes — the first by homo sapiens, the second by cosmological natural selection [2].



Those who say that mathematics is created by homo sapiens are right, and those who say that mathematics is “continuous” with the physical world are right, since the devices (brains of homo sapiens) that created the mathematics are physical devices that produce only physical outputs. But this just shows that there can be physical things that can create new physical things that have never appeared in nature before. Synthetic biology is doing that, too. For mathematics, formulation in the vocabulary of HoTT — Homotopy Type Theory — is useful in showing mathematics to be a synthetic enterprise. Computers (other physical devices) are now creating new mathematics and they (future computers and robots) will do more of this creation of new mathematics in the future, and while what they create is novel, they are not entities that have a nonphysical existence outside of the physical realm.

On what constitutes mathematica truth: What is a close match to the Smolin principle of evocation is the mathematical pluralism of Joel David Hamkins [3].


[1] Smolin on mathematics
- scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2015/04/21/smolin-on-mathematics
[2] Lee Smolin: Cosmological Natural Selection
- youtube.com/watch?v=mbYLTqvo774
[3] Pluralism in mathematics: the multiverse view in set theory and the question of whether every mathematical statement has a definite truth value
- jdh.hamkins.org/pluralism-in-mathematics-the-multiverse-view-in-set-theory-and-the-question-of-whether-every-mathematical-statement-has-a-definite-truth-value-rutgers-march-2013

CODE

Codosophy:
Ontology
Deconstruction
Epistemology


Codosophy — As a word, it is the merging of coding and philosophy. As a subject, it is the interplaying of the programmatical and the physical. The '-ism' - - of codosophy is codicalism.

programmaticalism↔physicalism
languages↔substrate
PLUM↔CHUM

PLUM (Programming Languages Universe Model)
CHUM (Computing Hardware Universe Model)

Codosophy and the Matrix of Nature

• We along with our code are embedded in the matrix — matter or substance — of nature.
• There is the code of nature, and our own code, an attempt in reverse engineering. A science is the reverse (code) engineering of some aspect of reality into some domain-specific language.
• Codosophy is not digital physics (naive computationalism). Nature's code consists also of biocomputers and (possibly) hypercomputers — beyond-Turing. It is more related to programming language theory in computer science, neopragmatism and semiotics in philosophy.
• Conscious code could be biocode. This averts Searle's Chinese Room trap.