Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Is Matter Conscious? (2017)

nautil.us

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 280 posts

Re: Is Matter Conscious? (2017)

#231

Post by CuriouslyC »

hackinthebochs wrote: post #213
CuriouslyC wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does Occam's Razor apply here? You have evidence that some matter (yourself) experiences its existence. The simplest hypothesis that explains this is that all matter experiences its existence. Any hypothesis that posits that SOME matter experiences its existence and other matter does not requires two different kinds of matter (conscious and not) and a mechanism to switch between the two. Seems that hypothesis req…

>Requires two different kinds of matter (conscious and not) This is just smuggling in the conclusion. We observe conscious matter and non-conscious matter. The simplest explanation (as in requires the fewest entities in our ontology) is that there is just one kind of matter and that physical processes that we already allow into our ontology for external reasons are sufficient to explain why some matter is conscious.

If you mean conscious as in "acts like a human" then sure. If you mean conscious as in "has an internal experience" then that doesn't follow at all.

Re: Is Matter Conscious? (2017)

#232

Post by vokep »

visarga wrote: post #227
daoxid wrote: post #175

Does consciousness produce any measurable effect? For a time I thought consciousness is some kind of by-product of some kinds of computation which doesn't influence the computation itself. But how can I then know that I am conscious? And if I know that I am conscious, then consciousness must have a measurable effect, right? Because the knowledge that you are conscious should be reflected somewhere in your brain. Howe…

> Does consciousness produce any measurable effect? In the morning when you wake up do you make a sandwich? If you didn't have consciousness, you wouldn't. So your body would cease to exist in a short time. Consciousness has measurable effects - every time it saves us from hunger, danger, and other bad situations, or when it leads us to good situations.

But theoretically you could just as well be a philosophical zombie, getting up and making a sandwhich. Electrical lights on in the brain but no light of consciousness.

Re: Is Matter Conscious? (2017)

#233

Post by vokep »

lisper wrote: post #92
jacobsimon wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think opinions like these ignore the immense complexity of the animal brain compared to other natural materials. We are not made of the same stuff as the rest of the external world—living things have a very precise configuration of cells and connections, and the slightest deficiencies or disturbances lead to complete loss of consciousness

Exactly. The sand on the beach and a CPU are made of the same stuff too, but arguing that therefore beach sand can compute is obviously absurd. The consciousness of all matter is just as obviously absurd.

But beach sand DOES compute, once treated and arranged in a certain way.

The ability to compute is present in all matter. The ability for consciousness is present in all matter in the same way.

Perhaps these abilities are one and the same.

Re: Is Matter Conscious? (2017)

#234

Post by itry2develop »

I think some people are using the tests for intelligent life for conciousness, which is wrong.

Does the matter, dead or alive, experience its surroundings at some base level? If you are not a rock, then dont "lifesplain" for that rock.

I question, is it really the presence of energy, which all matter has, that leads to a relationship with other energy in the universe?

Re: Is Matter Conscious? (2017)

#235

Post by a_wild_dandan »

0-_-0 wrote: post #197
CuriouslyC wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does Occam's Razor apply here? You have evidence that some matter (yourself) experiences its existence. The simplest hypothesis that explains this is that all matter experiences its existence. Any hypothesis that posits that SOME matter experiences its existence and other matter does not requires two different kinds of matter (conscious and not) and a mechanism to switch between the two. Seems that hypothesis req…

> You have evidence that some matter (your PC) can run Windows. The simplest hypothesis that explains this is that all matter can run Windows. Any hypothesis that posits that SOME matter can run Windows and other matter does not requires two different kinds of matter and a mechanism to switch between the two. Seems that hypothesis requires a lot more assumptions.

All true and consistent. "All matter can run Windows" is indeed the simplest explanation. It's wrong, but still the simplest, per Occam's Razor, as CuriouslyC pointed out.

Re: Is Matter Conscious? (2017)

#236

Post by acqq »

cybervegan wrote: post #196

The neural network of nematode worms has been modelled in software, and a robotic avatar has been built for this "mind". It behaves very much like a real nematode worm. Real nematode worms appear to be conscious to an extent, in so far as they forage for food and mates, and retreat from danger or threats. I don't think we would argue that nematodes have the same level of consciousness as we do. If the mechanical mode…

> just re-hashing the unfalsifiable concept of a "soul"

Yes. It comes from religiously inclined or deeply religious philosophers and “philosophers”. Once they fix they “belief” they search for any possible way to fit the reality, which otherwise wouldn’t support their belief, with their already pre-decided goal.

Even worse, the last time I’ve checked, nautil.us was financed by the people with such goals:

https://www.templeton.org

"The Foundation takes its vision from its founding benefactor, the late Sir John Templeton, who sought to stimulate what he described as “spiritual progress.”"

And, as a more obvious parallel, if you ever wondered who produces "Ancient Aliens" on History Channel, it's also non-accidentally the guy who wants more "spirituality", in his words:

"It’s really a show about looking for God. Science would have you believe we are the result of nothing more than a chance assemblage of matter" whereas "Ancient Aliens" "offers seekers an origin story."

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/21/style/ancient-aliens.html

Yes, both behind the "conscious matter" and behind https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/158327-ancient-aliens is a "spirituality" drive.

Re: Is Matter Conscious? (2017)

#237

Post by dhruval »

cybervegan wrote: post #196

The neural network of nematode worms has been modelled in software, and a robotic avatar has been built for this "mind". It behaves very much like a real nematode worm. Real nematode worms appear to be conscious to an extent, in so far as they forage for food and mates, and retreat from danger or threats. I don't think we would argue that nematodes have the same level of consciousness as we do. If the mechanical mode…

With infinite time and infinite space, you could do all the computations required for the nematode worm neural network with a pencil and paper rather than an electronic computer. Would you say that this pencil and paper is now conscious?

Does the speed of computation cause emergence? How?

Does building a computer out of organic particles cause consciousness? How?

"Emergence" is mostly lazy thinking and lack of understanding the hard problem of consciousness.

Roger Penrose has some plausible ideas on this, not sure if they are correct, however to me it seems that they must happen at a sub-neural network level.

Re: Is Matter Conscious? (2017)

#238

Post by acqq »

cam_l wrote: post #170
acqq wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry your response is so incoherent that I can't, even though I wish, contribute any more to this thread of the discussion.

I'm sorry you cannot read, or argue in good faith.

Even after the edit it's content- and sense-free, sorry.

Re: Is Matter Conscious? (2017)

#239

Post by natosaichek »

visarga wrote: post #225
Razengan wrote: post #177

Most questions of this sort remind me of "Can submarines swim?" If we build an AI that can interact via natural human language, and ask it about its internal state, and it replies "I am happy.", is it happy? And whatever criteria we use to decide that machines cannot really be happy the way we can be, could a hypothetical species that thinks at a "higher level" than us, use similar criteria to determine that humans c…

An AI would have a goal, even if it is simple curiosity, and its happiness is related to the distance from its goal. It would evaluate each situation and action with regard to the goal and decide on actions that lead to it, learning from past mistakes. 'I am happy' is possible for us because we have an innate goal - to live, to reproduce, to maximise our rewards, rewards which have been programmed into us by evolutio…

I disagree with basically everything you just said. An AI might not have a goal. If it did, its happiness may or may not be related to the distance from the goal. It might not evaluate every situation and action with regard to it's (presumed) goal.

I don't think we do have a (single) innate goal. Everyone has different goals, and they are not innate.

Emotions are not a map from a present situation to a goal. AI might not have emotions.

Re: Is Matter Conscious? (2017)

#240

Post by hackinthebochs »

CuriouslyC wrote: post #231
hackinthebochs wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Requires two different kinds of matter (conscious and not) This is just smuggling in the conclusion. We observe conscious matter and non-conscious matter. The simplest explanation (as in requires the fewest entities in our ontology) is that there is just one kind of matter and that physical processes that we already allow into our ontology for external reasons are sufficient to explain why some matter is conscious.

If you mean conscious as in "acts like a human" then sure. If you mean conscious as in "has an internal experience" then that doesn't follow at all.

It is an open question what exactly internal experience is. It is begging the question to say its obvious that physical processes cannot have internal experience. But if we have no information regarding whether physical processes can have internal experience, then it is reasonable to prefer physicalism on grounds of parsimony.
Post reply on HN