Live data from Hacker News

The unending quest to explain consciousness

bookforum.com

251–255 of 255 posts

Re: The unending quest to explain consciousness

#251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any adequate description of consciousness will break down in to "does this thing have an internal life of the mind, a subjective experience of reality, so to speak, or is it merely an extremely convincing automaton?" Of course, this applies to other people too if you want to be solipsistic about it.

> Any adequate description of consciousness will break down in to "does this thing have an internal life of the mind, a subjective experience of reality, so to speak, or is it merely an extremely convincing automaton?" Not so. Not all theories of consciousness allow for the existence of 'p-zombies'.

Without dualism what is a p-zombie? Anything that related external events to an internal state that contained a model of self would be conscious. Where would there be a line between fake and real even if artificial?

Re: The unending quest to explain consciousness

#252
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it can influence how the wave collapses, it is conscious.

That is an interesting starting point. How do you set the bounds of a conscious entity though? Does the concept make sense in QM? How would it explain the persistance of identity across lapses of consciousness?

>How do you set the bounds of a conscious entity though?

Honestly, I believe there is a closed system inside us that is kept "alive" by bodily functions and kept safe from decoherence - somehow. I can't explain why. Some claim it's inside microtubules, but I'm currently lacking knowledge in biology/physics combo to trust the papers enough without diving more into the matter.

The concept itself does make sense and it's been a point of discussion of many physicists, I'd refer you too look at quantum consciousness theories, there are a few familiar names there that suggest it and the explanations will be far more detailed and accurate then I can provide. I'd say that the ability to influence a wave collapse is "free will" and it's related to intelligence, consciousness of the subject and current state of mind/body. And I'd say it's distributed, so even tho one might have a strong pull on the wave, the decision is ultimately made by summing the vectors of all beings focused on that particular result.

>How would it explain the persistance of identity across lapses of consciousness?

Now, that's a good question - especially if someone is 100% completely dead and comes back to life. I'd say your "soul/consciousness" know wheres to return when you lapse but on one hand, that's astral mumbo jumbo. Possibly brain patterns? My theory is that when you're born, the soul comes in and is "hashed" by current state of the universe (check out Jyotish, I know it's astrology but damn that shit got me wondering a lot of times), this effects your brain patterns and it keeps this unique "hash" until you die, then the next life is your soul being rehashed again (so karma still applies, hashes change but they're like a blockchain let's say - the next one is the result of the previous ones and their work).

So I'd say that activating the human body - biologically bringing it back to "conscious" state - starts a process that creates specific patterns which match the signature of your current conscious soul (consciousness, whatever) and entangles them. Complete comeback of someone who is really dead isn't possible because the system is so damaged and you cannot activate it to create that pattern again (could possibly be linked to DMT being released/bound and activated, which opens a port for your consciousness to detach.

Tried to keep it as short and understandable, so sorry about the non-scientific mumbo jumbo, but it provides great metaphors and shortens my thoughts - and I assume a lot of it is true, but boilerplated and snake oiled for generic masses.

Re: The unending quest to explain consciousness

#253
post #3

If the Human Brain Were So Simple That We Could Understand It, We Would Be So Simple That We Couldn’t

I personally don't think so. A computer could simulate / emulate itself, for example.

Sure but then a computer doesn’t understand its own simulation so it’s apples and oranges

Re: The unending quest to explain consciousness

#254
post #176
post #3

If the Human Brain Were So Simple That We Could Understand It, We Would Be So Simple That We Couldn’t

That's easy to disprove. A calculator isn't sophisticated enough to simulate itself, but a modern computer can perfectly simulate itself.

Simulate yes. But not understand.

Re: The unending quest to explain consciousness

#255
post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because no matter how advanced of a computer hardware/software you build, you will not have a 'mind' in it. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room

Do individual cells understand Chinese? What a flawed argument, it doesn't at all address the proposition that consciousness is an emergent property of computation. The guy would, stuck in his room for thousands of years, provide unknowingly the computational fabric for the a potential consciousness of the AI.

No, individual cells don't understand Chinese. Neither would individual transistors if strong AI was possible. But that's not what the argument is about. The argument refutes the notion that you could have a complex (in terms of both hardware and software) system that implements an actual mind. This complex system could act exactly has a real mind on the outside, but would have no semantic parsing (i.e. understanding) on the inside.
Post reply on HN