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.

Why the universe appears mathematical should be no surprise.

Suppose the universe is a computer U (which could include quantum-, bio-, and/or hyper-computational capabilities). A scientist attempts to reverse engineer some part P of the universe. What is produced by the scientist is a separate computer C that models the observations—inputs/outputs—of P. But C is not P. P could consist of a different (unknown) architecture/programming than what C is made of. (Also, another scientist may produce a computer D that works as well as C in modeling the i/o of P.) But since C and U—of which P is a part—are both computers, that the universe appears mathematical comes as no surprise.

Programmaticalism

“What difference does it make if pragmatism is centered on language or experience?"

European Journal of Pragmatism and American Philosophy
Symposia. Language or Experience:
Charting Pragmatism’s Course for the 21st Century
Editor: David L. Hildebrand (University of Colorado)
PDF: EJPAP, 2014, Volume 6, Number 2

Computationalism is typically meant to be limited to Turing machine formulations and digital physics. Programmaticalism subsumes computationalism by encompassing all programming languages for all domains (including potentially super-recursive/hyper-computational ones) that can be experienced. With programmaticalism, the linguistic (computational) and the non-linguistic (physical) side are in balance.

The Programmatical⇔Physical Universe

Programmatical⇔Physical


means


all programs have a physical form
+
all physical entities have a programmatical nature.

All programs have a physical form: glyphs on paper, pixels on screen, magnetic orientations on hard drive, capacitances in memory—of computers or brains. New (unconventional) programs are made of biomolecular, photonic, quantum materials.

All physical entities have a programmatic nature: Everything can be reverse engineered into an expression of some (domain-specific) programming language.


The physical and the programmatical is a type of anti-platonist*, yin and yang dualism from Chinese philosophy: the non-linguistic and the linguistic aspects of reality.


* Abstractions exist in the constructive (computational) sense, not in the idealistic (philosophical) sense. The programmatical and the physical supervene on each other!

Synthetic robots

The object code of conscious robots will (likely) be composed of actual biochemical materials — certain chemical interactions are needed for awareness and consciousness. In other words, the synthetic biology and biological (domain-specific) programming approach to AI is in the roadmap to making a conscious robot.


refs:

What can Synthetic Biology offer to (Embodied) Artificial Intelligence?
- philevents.org/event/show/13736
- plluisi.org/ecal2013/SB-AI_satellite_ecal2013.htm

Special issue on What Synthetic Biology can offer to Artificial Intelligence

Origin of codosophy

The word 'codosophy' is formed by merging 'coding' (programming) and 'philosophy'.

Codosophy is about viewing and representing the world programmatically.

Can silicon-based brains feel pain?

"Why fish (likely) don’t feel pain" presents the architecture of the circuitry needed for brains that can experience pain: Human brains have it; fish brains don't. There remains a question about artificial brains (ABs). Could an AB that is made of just silicon-based material that matched the architecture as described experience pain, or would it have to sufficiently involve biochemical material like what's in our human brains? In other words, the chemical components (present in a biochemical-based AB, but missing in the silicon-based AB) play a critical role in the pain experience.

Platonists, Positivists, Pragmatists, and Programmists

Richard Rorty described three kinds of Philosophers: Platonists, Positivists, and Pragmatists. [1]

Programmists — Programmism says that everything there is is made of (programming language) code — are likely to be Pragmatists.

[1] in Introduction to Consequences of Pragmatism

     forums.philosophyforums.com/link.php?action=detail&id=613&format=print
     books.google.com/books/about/Consequences_of_Pragmatism.html?id=6L2Wkls7UnwC

Codosopher defined

A philosopher is a lover of knowledge.
A codosopher is a coder of knowledge.*


What are the types of code in the technological, natural, and cultural worlds?

philo-
from Greek, before vowels phil-, word-forming element meaning "loving, fond of, tending to"

code (in the computer sense from 1947)
the symbolic arrangement of data or instructions in a computer program or the set of such instructions

sophia
from Greek, "skill, knowledge of, acquaintance with; sound judgement, practical wisdom; cunning, shrewdness; philosophy"

* Or a coder|philosopher portmanteau.

Codosophy, irony, and singularity

Codosophy (code of sophia, or the merging of coding and philosophy). Science is reverse code engineering of some aspect of reality into some domain-specific (programming) language (DSL).


Irony. According to Richard Rory (Contingency, irony, and solidarity), ironists are never certain of their final vocabularies programming languages.


Singularity. Source code written in scientific DSLs compile to two different kinds of target code: computer simulations or active biomolecular/chemical/atomic assemblies. The latter — assemblies, not simulations — will threaten live among us.

computer simulation vs. programmable assembly

A compiler translates code of one language into code of another language — source code into target code. [1]

Source code written in a biological/chemical/physical domain-specific language could compile to different kinds of target code: computer simulation or molecular/chemical/atomic assembly. [2]

Codosophy defined

What is codosophy?

Definition: the coding of knowledge, or the knowledge of code
Etymology: "code of sophia"
Practitioner: codosopher

Purpose: to view and grok the world utilizing existing and novel coding languages and programing language theory (PLT)

Where does codosophy appear?

1. "code" in pop-psy, self-help, and culture: The Code Age
2. synthetic biology, biomolecular compilers, code-as-matter, 3D/4D "printing", matter compilers
3. self-assembly, evolutionary programs, code-from-"nothing"
4. domain-specific languages
5. declarative vs. imperative language
6. PLT in nature, physicalism/codicalism, super-Turing machines
7. the coding of math (a HoTT subject)
8. echoes of semiotics
9. "language" philosophy, neopragmatism, ironsim
10. ontic pancompuationalism (but assemblage-not-simulation)

PLUM

PLUM — Programming Languages Universe Model (or Metaphysics) — is the (growing) Curry-Howard-type correspondence[1] between scientific theories and computer programs. While PLUM provides a unity aspect of all scientific theories, a disunity[2] aspect occurs as theories are coded in different (domain-specific[3]) programming languages. One could have a language for molecular genetics and a language for particle physics, for example. The metaphysical issue then is not really about reduction and emergence, but becomes about what happens when attempting to translate or compile from one language to another.

PLUM asserts that code in multiple languages at multiple (abstraction[4]) levels is the basis for everything.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry-Howard_correspondence (the correspondence between mathematical proofs and computer programs)
[2] http://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2014/12/01/on-the-disunity-of-the-sciences
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain-specific_language
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction_(computer_science)

The Code Age (2)

Would you call the current era “The Code Age”? ... I have dared to propose for so long that “code” is the fundamental building-block which creates the structure of human expressions and thoughts in the current era and all major influencing vectors like technology, economy and language are almost driven by codes and as human structure is code-dependent the power of code to influence human actions, functions, expressions and ideas cannot be denied … now, if the current era is influence in so overpowering manner by “codes”, would it not be proper to define this era as “The Code Age”? …

Saibal Barman
Introspective Mind

Much of why we are in The Code Age comes from media, pop culture, and self-help gurus. An Amazon search of popular books with the word "Code" in the title comes up with titles including "The Confidence Code: The Science and Art of Self-Assurance---What Women Should Know", "The Bro Code", "The Talent Code: Greatness Isn't Born. It's Grown. Here's How.", "The Emotion Code", "Your Personal Paleo Code: The 3-Step Plan to Lose Weight, Reverse Disease, and Stay Fit and Healthy for Life", "The Healing Code: 6 Minutes to Heal the Source of Your Health, Success, or Relationship Issue", "Life Code: The New Rules for Winning in the Real World", "The Woman Code: 20 Powerful Keys to Unlock Your Life", "Your Quantum Breakthrough Code: The Simple Technique That Brings Everlasting Joy and Success", "The Leader's Code: Mission, Character, Service, and Getting the Job Done", "Cowboy Ethics: What Wall Street Can Learn From The Code Of The West". More than a meme or buzzword, it appears we are looking for code that makes our lives better. In biology, there is a code revolution in the making with synthetic biology and biomolecular compilers. Code is not compiled just to be run inside standard computers but is compiled into actual biological forms living outside in the world. In mathematics, it's the recoding of mathematics in the language of homotopy type theory, Coq, and Agda. Then there's programmable matter, 3D printing, scientific domain-specific languages, ...


The Code Age (1)

unconventional computationalism (uncomp)

Programmatically speaking ... saying "the brain is a program" or "the universe is a program" raises some eyebrows. Likewise, replacing "brain" with "mind" or "program" with "computer".

The first objection might be that while there might be the possibility of a program on some supercomputer that simulates the brain, it will not be able to experience feelings like our brains actually do. Our brains, for one thing, are interacting with different kinds of chemicals, and a computer without these chemical molecules cannot experience things like how food tastes. A simulation running in a silicon-based computer will never experience anything like that.

I think this objection is correct. But counter unconventional conomputationalism to be the natural (or physical) alternative to what has been called computationalism (the idea that everything is some sort of abstract computation or simulation). There are not just silicon-based computers, but a variety of other natural (e.g. chemical-based) computers as well. (Now a program running on a silicon-based computer is a physical thing as well, just a different type of physical thing: electrons flowing through silicon gates.) This is the what is called "unconventional computing".

So in the view of uncomp (to shorten "unconventional computationalism") that there are no such things as "abstract" (in the sense of idealism or Platonism) computers or programs, only natural ones, and that silicon-based computers are not the only kinds of computers, then the brain could be viewed as follows: The brain is a neuron-based, chemical-based computer that can experience feelings that a silicon-based computer cannot by the nature of its physical substrate.

Uncomp sees nature as programs/computers. But as with programs on silicon-based computers, natural programs are compiled into a native code which are made of natural materials. ("Printouts" from 3D printers are becoming the realization of manufacturing versions of this, making even biological tissues that could replace organs in the human body.) There is even the far-out idea of black hole programs which can process an actual infinite number of steps in finite time, but that is just speculation.

On "program" vs. "computer": In terms of abstraction (in the concrete sense of this word in computer science, not in the idealistic sense of philosophy) layers, a program goes all the way down to pushing electrons through circuits. So taking the whole set of layers as a unit, one could refer to the while unit as (an integrated) program/computer. But talking about a "program/computer" is a little clumsy, so using "program" or "computer" should suffice without confusion as long as one refers to the upper layers as programs, the lower levels as "computer". Some hardware is microprogrammable, and some hardware is reconfiguarable.

So in the example of the robot that can experience taste like we can: In conventional computationalism, one might claim (dubiously, I think) that a silicon-based robot brain with the right programming might "experience" the same. But in uncomp, the actual chemicals involved in the human brain may have to be involved in the processing in the robot brain as well.

A simulation is not an assembly.



References:

Unconventional computing
Chemical computer
Blobotics
Malament-Hogarth spacetime
Abstraction layer
Programming the Universe
Reverse engineering
Molecular assembler
Unconventional Computation & Natural Computation 2014

Three codosophical principles

1. Code is physical (not ideal)
2. The universe is an assembly (not a "simulation")
3. The universe is made of code