Is Matter Conscious? (2017) • Hacker News Board

Re: Is Matter Conscious? (2017)

#261

Post by visarga » Tue, Feb 26, 2019, 6:26 AM UTC

vanviegen wrote: post #249

visarga wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Following that logic, a robot vacuum that can have itself charged is conscious?

It's at least conscious of its energy.

Re: Is Matter Conscious? (2017)

#262

Post by visarga » Tue, Feb 26, 2019, 6:29 AM UTC

natosaichek wrote: post #239

visarga wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> I don't think we do have a (single) innate goal.

Survival. And that includes many subgoals such as feeding, safety, autonomy, being part of a group, curiosity, and making offspring, all preprogrammed into the brain by evolution.

Artificial agents would have goals preprogrammed by humans instead, such as 'winning at Go'.

Re: Is Matter Conscious? (2017)

#263

Post by visarga » Tue, Feb 26, 2019, 6:33 AM UTC

CuriouslyC wrote: post #226

visarga wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say an important part of consciousness is learning. Without learning we would not even be able to make sense of what is in front of our eyes. A particle doesn't learn, so it can't be conscious.

What is learning? A particle responds to its environment. A system of particles reconfigures itself in response to the environment, sometimes in a persistent way. That's all your brain is doing when it "learns"

Yes, while being threatened with extinction if they do it wrong. That's the key ingredient - self replication and natural selection. Keeps the learning honest to reality.

Re: Is Matter Conscious? (2017)

#264

Post by lisper » Tue, Feb 26, 2019, 6:37 AM UTC

kamaal wrote: post #256

lisper wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's just obvious that consciousness and subjective experience are not properties of matter, they are properties of very particular arrangements of matter. A CPU is made of the same stuff as beach sand, but a CPU can compute and beach sand can't. Or take your laptop (or your brain) and hit is with a sledge hammer. All of the atoms that were there before this procedure are still there after. Do you really want…

That means this has more to with ability to communicate/signal your consciousness. For example if a rock is conscious, how would it inform us that it is? Without the ability to communicate, consciousness means nothing at all. Then of course communicate how? Hand signals, hand writing or voice are equally mystical forms of communication given that these are waves(light and sound). That's already Telepathy category. We…

> That means this has more to with ability to communicate/signal your consciousness.

Communication is the only data you have to support the theory that there are conscious beings other than yourself. Hypothesizing a conscious being that can't communicate at all (not to be confused with the temporary inability to communicate brought on by sleep or locked-in syndrome) is like hypothesizing an invisible leprechaun living in your pantry.

Re: Is Matter Conscious? (2017)

#265

Post by Ste_Evans » Tue, Feb 26, 2019, 6:38 AM UTC

goto11 wrote: post #171

Ste_Evans wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mmmmm, no, the Standard Model is hard science. Even if you assumed that matter was "made of consciousness" you cannot make use of that assumption in explaining consciousness arising from matter in a brain. As only the properties of matter observed in the Standard Model can be appealed to at the energy levels in a brain . According to a professional physicist. Not my argument. Are you saying the Standard Model is not…

> According to a professional physicist. This is your fallacy right there. Science is a process and method. If a professional scientist performs philosophy it does not automatically become science due to the persons job title. And vice versa.

Empirically verified physics, not philosophy, does not allow any properties of matter to be appealed to when trying to explain consciousness in the human brain other than those described in the Standard Model. You can assume that matter is made of consciousness or chocolate or whatever you like, but you cannot use that assumption in trying to explain consciousness in a brain according to the results of the Standard Model. Got it???

If you think this physical fact is not true, then explain why. Though I think your time would be better spent familiarising yourself with McDonald's menu for your future career rather than pondering difficult questions about consciousness...

Re: Is Matter Conscious? (2017)

#266

Post by Ste_Evans » Tue, Feb 26, 2019, 6:41 AM UTC

kamaal wrote: post #204

dalbasal wrote: post #179

Enough credible people have publicly considered the idea credible for me to open my mind. But... I have to keep my mind open with a brace. otherwise, it'll call occam's razor & snap shut. At the heart of consciousness particles ideas (I think) is the idea that conciousness can't emerge from nonconscious stuff. This is counterintuitive to me. We now know of all sorts of emergent phenomenon. Species emerge (from other,…

>>Why can't non-conscious matter, arranged precisely, think? Consciousness is not same as being able to communicate. Let's say a rock is conscious, how would the rock go about informing us that it is conscious? It has no way of signaling its state. Or even a way of acquiring information about anything around it. Or may there is a way, of both signaling or acquiring information that is alien to us but not to other roc…

"Let's say a rock is conscious," No, let's not.

Re: Is Matter Conscious? (2017)

#267

Post by kamaal » Tue, Feb 26, 2019, 9:43 AM UTC

lisper wrote: post #264

kamaal wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That means this has more to with ability to communicate/signal your consciousness. For example if a rock is conscious, how would it inform us that it is? Without the ability to communicate, consciousness means nothing at all. Then of course communicate how? Hand signals, hand writing or voice are equally mystical forms of communication given that these are waves(light and sound). That's already Telepathy category. We…

> That means this has more to with ability to communicate/signal your consciousness. Communication is the only data you have to support the theory that there are conscious beings other than yourself. Hypothesizing a conscious being that can't communicate at all (not to be confused with the temporary inability to communicate brought on by sleep or locked-in syndrome) is like hypothesizing an invisible leprechaun livin…

Then the real problem is how do we communicate with a rock?

Re: Is Matter Conscious? (2017)

#268

Post by cam_l » Tue, Feb 26, 2019, 12:36 PM UTC

acqq wrote: post #238

cam_l wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

Wow, you are hilarious.

Perhaps i should not have engaged with your original troll. I just thought it funny that it included the most misguided of arguments.

There surely are plenty of other, real arguments you could have used (which might have been an interesting conversation), or even plenty of valid criticisms of the paper that did not involve:

  1.scare quotes ("ideas")

  2.questioning the basis of academic enquiry (no, a cite does not take on an oeuvre)

  3.questioning the basis of language (words do actually contain specific meanings)

  4.just restating the problem.

I guess instead of admitting your original post was without merit, or even doubling down and proving me wrong, you just abdicated, in the most withering way (and then doubled down on your abdication.. pathetic).

Re: Is Matter Conscious? (2017)

#269

Post by state_less » Tue, Feb 26, 2019, 2:11 PM UTC

dhruval wrote: post #237

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 unders…

Couldn't you argue similarly in a paper and pencil simulation that you never create electricity, atoms, DNA and that all you have is pencil scratches on the paper?

Re: Is Matter Conscious? (2017)

#270

Post by natosaichek » Tue, Feb 26, 2019, 2:25 PM UTC

visarga wrote: post #262

natosaichek wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> I don't think we do have a (single) innate goal. Survival. And that includes many subgoals such as feeding, safety, autonomy, being part of a group, curiosity, and making offspring, all preprogrammed into the brain by evolution. Artificial agents would have goals preprogrammed by humans instead, such as 'winning at Go'.

what about suicidal people? Are you saying they are not consious? Artifical agents _might_ have goals preprogrammed by humans, but I don't see that as a prerequesite for intelligence or self awareness.