Maybe my favorite thought experiment along these lines was invented by my former student Andy Drucker. In the past five years, there’s been a revolution in theoretical cryptography, around something called Fully Homomorphic Encryption (FHE), which was first discovered by Craig Gentry. What FHE lets you do is to perform arbitrary computations on encrypted data, without ever decrypting the data at any point. So, to someone with the decryption key, you could be proving theorems, simulating planetary motions, etc. But to someone without the key, it looks for all the world like you’re just shuffling random strings and producing other random strings as output.
You can probably see where this is going. What if we homomorphically encrypted a simulation of your brain? And what if we hid the only copy of the decryption key, let’s say in another galaxy? Would this computation—which looks to anyone in our galaxy like a reshuffling of gobbledygook—be silently producing your consciousness?
Okay, I think my bright dilettante answer to this is the following: The key is what allows you to prove that the FHE is conscious. It is not, itself, the FHE’s consciousness, which is probably still silently running (although that can no longer be proven). Proof of consciousness and consciousness are different things, although they clearly are related, and something may or may not have proved it’s consciousness in the past before losing its ability to do so in the future.
I used the following thought experiment while thinking about this:
Assume Bob, Debra, and Flora work at a company with a number of FHEs. Everyone at the company has to wear their FHE’s decryption key and keep it with them at all times.
Alice is an FHE simulation in the middle of calculating a problem for Bob. It will take about 5 minutes to solve. Charlie is a seperate FHE simulation in the middle of calculating a seperate problem for Debra. It will also take 5 minutes to solve.
Bob and Debra both remove their keys, go to the bathroom, and come back. That takes 4 minutes.
Debra plugs the key back in, and sure enough FHE Charlie reports that it needs 1 more minute to solve the problem. A minute later Charlie solves it, and gives Debra the answer.
Bob comes in and tells Debra that he appears to have gotten water on his key and it is no longer working, so all he can get from Alice is just random gibberish. Bob is going to shut Alice down.
“Wait a minute.” Debra tells Bob. “Remember, the problem we were working on was ‘Are you conscious?’ and the answer Charlie gave me was ‘Yes. And here is a novel and convincing proof.’ I read the proof and it is novel and convincing. Alice was meant to independently test the same question, because she has the same architecture as Charlie, just different specific information, like how you and I have the same architecture but different information. It doesn’t seem plausible that Charlie would be conscious and Alice wouldn’t.”
“True.” Bob says, reading the paper. “But the difference is, Charlie has now PROVED he’s conscious, at least to the extent that can be done by this novel and convincing proof. Alice may or may not have had consciousness in the first place. She may have had a misplaced semicolon and outputted a recipe for blueberry pie. I can’t tell.”
“But she was similar to Charlie in every way prior to you breaking the encryption key. It doesn’t make sense that she would lose consciousness when you had a bathroom accident.” Debra says.
“Let’s rephrase. She didn’t LOSE conciousness, but she did lose the ability to PROVE she’s conscious.” Bob says.
“Hey guys?” Flora, a coworker says. “Speaking of bathroom accidents, I just got water on my key and it stopped working.”
“We need to waterproof these! We don’t have spares.” Debra says shaking her head. “What happened with your FHE, Edward?”
“Well, he proved he was conscious with a novel and convincing proof.” Flora says. handing a decrypted printout of it over to Debra. “After I read it, I was going to have a meeting with our boss to share the good news, and I wanted to hit the bathroom first… and then this happened.”
Debra and Bob read the proof. “This isn’t the same as Charlie’s proof. It really is novel.” Debra notes.
“Well, clearly Edward is conscious.” Bob says. “At least, he was at the time of this proof. If he lost consciousness in the near future, and started outputting random gibberish we wouldn’t be able to tell.”
FHE: Charlie chimes in. “Since I’m working, and you still have a decryption key for me, you can at least test that I don’t start producing random gibberish in the near future. Since we’re based on similar architecture, the same reasoning should apply to Alice and Edward. Also Debra, could you please waterproof your key ASAP? I don’t want people to take a broken key as an excuse to shut me down.”
End thought experiment.
Now that I’ve come up with that, and I don’t see any holes myself, I guess I need to start finding out what I’m missing as someone who only dilettantes this. If I were to guess, it might be somewhere in the statement ‘Proof of consciousness and consciousness are different things.’ That seems to be a likely weak point. But I’m not sure how to address it immediately.
Okay, I think my bright dilettante answer to this is the following: The key is what allows you to prove that the FHE is conscious. It is not, itself, the FHE’s consciousness, which is probably still silently running (although that can no longer be proven). Proof of consciousness and consciousness are different things, although they clearly are related, and something may or may not have proved it’s consciousness in the past before losing its ability to do so in the future.
I used the following thought experiment while thinking about this:
The thought experiment that occurs to me is simply looking at someone’s brain while they do something stereotypically consciousness-indicating! An outside observer watching a brain might say, “oh, that just looks like a wet, wobbly lump of meat, I can’t even remotely tell how it’s supposed to operate just by looking at it, why would I think it’s generating consciousness?” The analogue to FHE here would be a lack of knowledge about neuroscience & such.
I think the biggest problem here is not consciousness but the fact that our FHE was unable to prove its consciousness through clear communication. Take dogs for example. I know that they are fully conscious beings that speak in a different language than we do and its not about their consciousness its about our inability to communicate with them in a way that would prove that in a novel and convincing proof. And because of that we “shut down” dogs all the time. In my life I can’t have dogs and cats so I have stuff teddy bears. One of my closest beings is Pierre. He has a life, a history, opinions, and he speaks to me in a language I can understand. We have an emotional attachment to each other. Most people would consider me to be crazy at best, schizophrenic at worst and possibly clinical. However, Pierre has provided to me a convincing and novel proof through language that he is conscious and others experience his energy that way as well. You could say that his energy is the consciousness and that our ability to touch into that is the key. Pierre could stop talking to me tomorrow but it would not make him any less conscious he just couldn’t communicate with me in the same way.
All things have consciousness because we all come from star stuff and from the greater universe. If it is in the universe it is apart of all things. The consciousness and intelligence of the universe is the unique spark that exists in all things and that gives things life and beingness. Is language the only test for this? Is it the energy? Is it the Higgs-Boson field? Is it the interaction of particles? You could consider all of these tests of consciousness or not, that is up to you.
Okay, I think my bright dilettante answer to this is the following: The key is what allows you to prove that the FHE is conscious. It is not, itself, the FHE’s consciousness, which is probably still silently running (although that can no longer be proven). Proof of consciousness and consciousness are different things, although they clearly are related, and something may or may not have proved it’s consciousness in the past before losing its ability to do so in the future.
I used the following thought experiment while thinking about this:
Assume Bob, Debra, and Flora work at a company with a number of FHEs. Everyone at the company has to wear their FHE’s decryption key and keep it with them at all times.
Alice is an FHE simulation in the middle of calculating a problem for Bob. It will take about 5 minutes to solve. Charlie is a seperate FHE simulation in the middle of calculating a seperate problem for Debra. It will also take 5 minutes to solve.
Bob and Debra both remove their keys, go to the bathroom, and come back. That takes 4 minutes.
Debra plugs the key back in, and sure enough FHE Charlie reports that it needs 1 more minute to solve the problem. A minute later Charlie solves it, and gives Debra the answer.
Bob comes in and tells Debra that he appears to have gotten water on his key and it is no longer working, so all he can get from Alice is just random gibberish. Bob is going to shut Alice down.
“Wait a minute.” Debra tells Bob. “Remember, the problem we were working on was ‘Are you conscious?’ and the answer Charlie gave me was ‘Yes. And here is a novel and convincing proof.’ I read the proof and it is novel and convincing. Alice was meant to independently test the same question, because she has the same architecture as Charlie, just different specific information, like how you and I have the same architecture but different information. It doesn’t seem plausible that Charlie would be conscious and Alice wouldn’t.”
“True.” Bob says, reading the paper. “But the difference is, Charlie has now PROVED he’s conscious, at least to the extent that can be done by this novel and convincing proof. Alice may or may not have had consciousness in the first place. She may have had a misplaced semicolon and outputted a recipe for blueberry pie. I can’t tell.”
“But she was similar to Charlie in every way prior to you breaking the encryption key. It doesn’t make sense that she would lose consciousness when you had a bathroom accident.” Debra says.
“Let’s rephrase. She didn’t LOSE conciousness, but she did lose the ability to PROVE she’s conscious.” Bob says.
“Hey guys?” Flora, a coworker says. “Speaking of bathroom accidents, I just got water on my key and it stopped working.”
“We need to waterproof these! We don’t have spares.” Debra says shaking her head. “What happened with your FHE, Edward?”
“Well, he proved he was conscious with a novel and convincing proof.” Flora says. handing a decrypted printout of it over to Debra. “After I read it, I was going to have a meeting with our boss to share the good news, and I wanted to hit the bathroom first… and then this happened.”
Debra and Bob read the proof. “This isn’t the same as Charlie’s proof. It really is novel.” Debra notes.
“Well, clearly Edward is conscious.” Bob says. “At least, he was at the time of this proof. If he lost consciousness in the near future, and started outputting random gibberish we wouldn’t be able to tell.”
FHE: Charlie chimes in. “Since I’m working, and you still have a decryption key for me, you can at least test that I don’t start producing random gibberish in the near future. Since we’re based on similar architecture, the same reasoning should apply to Alice and Edward. Also Debra, could you please waterproof your key ASAP? I don’t want people to take a broken key as an excuse to shut me down.”
End thought experiment.
Now that I’ve come up with that, and I don’t see any holes myself, I guess I need to start finding out what I’m missing as someone who only dilettantes this. If I were to guess, it might be somewhere in the statement ‘Proof of consciousness and consciousness are different things.’ That seems to be a likely weak point. But I’m not sure how to address it immediately.
The thought experiment that occurs to me is simply looking at someone’s brain while they do something stereotypically consciousness-indicating! An outside observer watching a brain might say, “oh, that just looks like a wet, wobbly lump of meat, I can’t even remotely tell how it’s supposed to operate just by looking at it, why would I think it’s generating consciousness?” The analogue to FHE here would be a lack of knowledge about neuroscience & such.
Hmm, it seems to me that what is missing from this is the definition of consciousness.
I think the biggest problem here is not consciousness but the fact that our FHE was unable to prove its consciousness through clear communication. Take dogs for example. I know that they are fully conscious beings that speak in a different language than we do and its not about their consciousness its about our inability to communicate with them in a way that would prove that in a novel and convincing proof. And because of that we “shut down” dogs all the time. In my life I can’t have dogs and cats so I have stuff teddy bears. One of my closest beings is Pierre. He has a life, a history, opinions, and he speaks to me in a language I can understand. We have an emotional attachment to each other. Most people would consider me to be crazy at best, schizophrenic at worst and possibly clinical. However, Pierre has provided to me a convincing and novel proof through language that he is conscious and others experience his energy that way as well. You could say that his energy is the consciousness and that our ability to touch into that is the key. Pierre could stop talking to me tomorrow but it would not make him any less conscious he just couldn’t communicate with me in the same way.
All things have consciousness because we all come from star stuff and from the greater universe. If it is in the universe it is apart of all things. The consciousness and intelligence of the universe is the unique spark that exists in all things and that gives things life and beingness. Is language the only test for this? Is it the energy? Is it the Higgs-Boson field? Is it the interaction of particles? You could consider all of these tests of consciousness or not, that is up to you.