This is exactly the point. Simulated rain isn't real rain, it's a digital representation. So, the argument goes, that a simulated consciousness is not a real consciousness, but a digital approximation. It's as real as the fake rain.

In other words, there is something inherently biological about consciousness. Simulating rain doesn't produce water, and simulating a brain doesn't produce consciousness.

This discussion lead me to an idea:

When we simulate a brain, the brain is unreal, not running on the hardware at all. It's represented by something else running on the hardware.

If we made brain like hardware of sufficient complexity so that it could differentiate "itself" from everything else, that closed loop may invoke consciousness. It would be running on the hardware directly.

This, to me, is the one thing conscious organisms have in common. And yes, I know that idea of anything but us being conscious is highly debatable. Let's just say my cat is conscious, and I believe that it is conscious. You, of course, can disagree and that's fine. None of us knows anything, and we are all sharing thoughts and that concept below is mine:

To simplify, consciousness may require a feedback loop. The nervous system, brain and body all are integrated with sufficient complexity and fidelity so as to make it possible for the brain to arrive at a sense of "self", able to differentiate itself from everything else. Self-simulation is different from outside stimulation, and awareness of the body falls out of that for free.

This is why a simulation won't render consciousness. Whatever consciousness ends up being is not a part of the simulation. The very nature of simulation means it's all about things we know and at least understand exist. And since we do not yet understand consciousness, it's not going to rise as an emergent artifact of things we build.

Or... at the very least, we need to build something complex and robust enough for it to be able to differentiate itself from the greater environment it is in before we have a chance at consciousness happening for it.

This all does allow for consciousness to be computable. It's just that the computation needs to be done on a system capable of self-differentiation and awareness.

>When we simulate a brain, the brain is unreal, not running on the hardware at all. It's represented by something else running on the hardware.

I think this is an important thing to consider. A simulated brain does not interact with the rest of the world in the same way that a non simulated brain does. In order to have that we would need to ensure that the simulation has all the right inputs and output. Similar to simulated rain, if the simulation would somehow have the same inputs and outputs and normal weather it could integrate with the rest of the system (earth's weather patterns)

Its really about partitioning and mode of information transfer

I suspect it matters more than we may realize.

It is something like how quantum effects work when we measure them. A conscious capable entity has the closed loop needed to have the capacity to [something] "self."

(Yeah, there is a word missing and it is missing because I lack understanding.)

Sensory deprivation seems to really impact us as well! Maybe that closed loop is always needed, like oxygen is for our bodies. We may endure a brief excursion "all inside the box", but a longer time leads to madness, damage.

However it works, the fact is we have a robust and high fidelity perception of ourselves and the world and we feed on all like food and water. It is very suggestive, and I find thoughts along these lines compelling and difficult to reason about. We are missing something basic. Of that I am sure.

Our interpretation of sensory experience is a large part of what our "self" is

Considering that our conscious experience is the experience of processing information, when we lack sensory input shit kinda gets wild (technical terms only here)

Sensory processing is happening literally constantly and its essentially inseparable from our every day experience. Because it is our everyday experience

The way we interact is important, back to the simulation question if the inputs and outputs can be sufficiently matched to how real molecules interact with out receptor proteins we can absolutely blur that line between digital and physical even more

The problem here is the definition of real, which is ultimately a matter of perspective. What is simulated rain to an external observer is real rain to one that only sees the simulation from within. In this sense real rain can be just computation.

Also by the article's definition, a simulated consciousness (should it somehow exist) is no less real since only the consciousness' own qualia matters and the hypothetical simulated consciousness must have one by definition.