Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, just like a thermostat doesn’t experience the feeling of temperature, there is no need for human to feel it, so I understand that we need to explain why is it that we still feel the feeling rather than just observe the signal and react. So why is it wrong to explain this by the necessary recursiveness of predictive modeling that includes modeling “self”? We observe the temperature but we also observe ourselves…
Yes but where does this observer come from in the first place? Some theories do presume the thermostat experiences the temperature, just in a less-sophisticated form of consciousness. If an "observer" is nothing more than neurons firing in response to stimuli, then it's not fundamentally different from the thermostat.
Physicists found a new quantum paradox that casts doubt on a pillar of reality
151–158 of 158 posts
Re: Physicists found a new quantum paradox that casts doubt on a pillar of reality
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
disagree on the junior dev part and on the god part. what you’re describing is called “simulation theory” and it has been proposed and discussed at length i think lazy evaluation makes sense in that context. i also think that having a few basic rules and after that applying them consistently across your simulation space make sense. if your basic space unit of reality is way smaller than the sims in it can perceive an…
> disagree on the junior dev part and on the god part. Good lord, some people here are definitely on the spectrum. FYI that was an attempt at humor. In case you want to mimic human social behavior in the future: you don't _disagree_ with a joke, you either find it funny or you don't. > what you’re describing is called “simulation theory” and it has been proposed and discussed at length I'm aware of the theory, just l…
yes. people here are definitely on the spectrum. the spectrum of awesomeness that is.
i did find the idea of god being a senior dev/architect grumpy type being funnier then your overused tired meme
Re: Physicists found a new quantum paradox that casts doubt on a pillar of reality
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why hard problem is even here? Consciousness isn't magic, because chinese room in conscious, and it has nothing to do with quantum mechanics, because of paradoxes.
That still doesn't explain why I'm conscious, something that I have direct, first-hand experience of. > Consciousness isn't magic, because chinese room in conscious That doesn't explain anything. Does that explain to the person experiencing consciousness why they are? No it doesn't. It just says "something else is conscious so you are too". Which is not an explanation, it's circular. Is it relevant if the Chinese roo…
Hard problem suggests that consciousness is magical, in which case it could mess with physics. But if consciousness isn't magic, then hard problem is a problem of understanding, not a problem of physics.
>without actually performing any of the rules?
Chinese room works like human mind, so it should run to be conscious.
Re: Physicists found a new quantum paradox that casts doubt on a pillar of reality
#154Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wouldn’t that imply FTL travel, at least for information?
No, non-locality simply means that effects happen at infinite speeds, not that they carry information. For example, the Copenhagen interpretation of QM abandons both locality and realism - particles don't have definite states, and they also communicate at infinite speed (but in a way that can't carry information).
What does it mean to communicate without information? That genuinely sounds like an oxymoron.
Re: Physicists found a new quantum paradox that casts doubt on a pillar of reality
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's only wrong because it's not really an explanation. At best, it's a weak one. Saying that an active model of self "is" what we experience as the consciousness we experience doesn't tell us why we have that experience. We can just as easily imagine a complex machine with an active self-model that isn't conscious, as one that is.[1] So an active self-model doesn't tell us about consciousness. This shows them to be…
lots of interesting replies, thanks. i'll aggregate my thoughts into single comment to keep this discussion more focused. it seems to me the only rebuttal is "sure, self-models can exist but it's concievable that they can exist without an observer, so why is there an observer?" and to me it sounds similar to "sure, an eye can exist without abiogenesis, so why do we only find it in organisms that resulted from abiogen…
Commenting a bit late since I had this tab open for a while, but I find this discussion interesting. Even more magical than consciousness itself, are people denying that there even is a hard problem of consciousness to begin with (if you assume the standard model) ;) You started with asking if consciousness is really that magical and finished with basically admitting that we don't have an answer for how it works yet.
The hard problem of consciousness is not just about the why, it's also about the how. That's exactly the magical part: how subjective, non-physical experiences (supposedly) come from physical interactions. Brushing it off as "evolution" is not sufficient to explain the how.
Re: Physicists found a new quantum paradox that casts doubt on a pillar of reality
#156Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, non-locality simply means that effects happen at infinite speeds, not that they carry information. For example, the Copenhagen interpretation of QM abandons both locality and realism - particles don't have definite states, and they also communicate at infinite speed (but in a way that can't carry information).
What does it mean to communicate without information? That genuinely sounds like an oxymoron.
Basically when you measure the state of two particles that are entangled, you find that their state is correlated in some way. For example, they may be entangled in such a way that their spins are the same. So if you measure one to be spin up (when measured along any axis), the other will also be spin up (when measured along the same axis). This happens regardless of the separation distance between the two particles. By carefully adjusting the axes along which you do your measurements, you can prove that the spins that you get are not predetermined (this is Bell's Theorem) and yet the particles are not communicating at the speed of light with each other either (the correlation remains even if you move the particles far apart and then do the measurements at the same time). Note that the actual spin value itself is random, and once you do the measurements the entanglement is broken, so you can't use this to transfer information faster than light. Hence what the parent poster means by "communication without information": each particle individually appears to be completely random, and yet when you compare them you see both particles are random _in the same way_ (or in the opposite way, particles can be anti-correlated too).
Re: Physicists found a new quantum paradox that casts doubt on a pillar of reality
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
lots of interesting replies, thanks. i'll aggregate my thoughts into single comment to keep this discussion more focused. it seems to me the only rebuttal is "sure, self-models can exist but it's concievable that they can exist without an observer, so why is there an observer?" and to me it sounds similar to "sure, an eye can exist without abiogenesis, so why do we only find it in organisms that resulted from abiogen…
Commenting a bit late since I had this tab open for a while, but I find this discussion interesting. Even more magical than consciousness itself, are people denying that there even is a hard problem of consciousness to begin with (if you assume the standard model) ;) You started with asking if consciousness is really that magical and finished with basically admitting that we don't have an answer for how it works yet.…
You’re right, I have no idea how and that’s hard to figure out. Probably I misunderstood the statement of the problem by only focusing on the why part.
Coming from engineering background, I would say we need to be looking for self perpatuating loops of neuronal activity (“strange loops” may be quite appropriate concept), but how would we go about looking for them - I have no idea because I’m not up to date on modern brain scanning tech.
Re: Physicists found a new quantum paradox that casts doubt on a pillar of reality
#158Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does it mean to communicate without information? That genuinely sounds like an oxymoron.
Basically when you measure the state of two particles that are entangled, you find that their state is correlated in some way. For example, they may be entangled in such a way that their spins are the same. So if you measure one to be spin up (when measured along any axis), the other will also be spin up (when measured along the same axis). This happens regardless of the separation distance between the two particles.…
Thanks for the detailed answer. I guess the word “communication” threw me off.