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

We Are Beast Machines

nautil.us

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–145 of 145 posts

Re: We Are Beast Machines

#141

Post by donkeybeer »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #134
adriand wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One obvious difference between computers and humans is that only one of them is an animal. So far as we can tell, consciousness only arises in animals. This sounds like a truism, but I wonder if using phrases like “complex system“ masks it: both humans and computers are complex systems, and only one of them is conscious, and therefore what could possibly be the difference? Well, the list of differences between the tw…

“ if we had the ability to drill down to the underlying particle physics of bodies, emotions and moods, plus all the other things that comprise our animal natures, then perhaps the problem would be solved.” Doubtful since the medium of our thought is clear to us but impossible to share and difficult to describe.

"If I learn C I would be able to understand the Linux kernel"

It is but a first step, and particle physics/C is the lowest level, we have to understand the complex code written with them and the emergent phenomena.

Re: We Are Beast Machines

#142

Post by joeberon »

nickelpro wrote: post #119
mach1ne wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The so-called "hard problem of consciousness" may be a problem through which one may find a suitable definition for their own humanity, but it absolutely is not a scientific problem. If one wishes to gain concrete data, one needs to define the problem before defining the answer. Any current "problems" relating to consciousness are explainable without needing a consciousness component. I have not encountered a single…

Yes, just like the various interpretations of quantum mechanics, it's not a scientific question because it doesn't allow for any testable hypothesis. Science is bound by the scientific method, questions of philosophy exist outside these bounds. Is math invented or discovered? Does the wave function collapse upon observation, or do observers exist in superposition? Is my "red" the same as your "red"? Even if we could…

As a doctor in quantum physics, we probably will be able to test between interpretations in the future, so you should not use this as an argument.

Re: We Are Beast Machines

#144

Post by jdmichal »

esarbe wrote: post #77

Consciousness is nothing more but the final arbiter of attention. As such it must have a way to evaluate situations, including our own internal state and this is done by emotions. Emotions are our default approach interpret a given situation. I think the 'beast machines' analogy is a good one. We're reproduction machines. We're not thinking machines. We do not evaluate our environment using logical thinking and altho…

For those who want to read more, this is the attention schema theory of consciousness.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention_schema_theory

Re: We Are Beast Machines

#145

Post by jdmichal »

mtberatwork wrote: post #100
53r3PB9769ba wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m quite firmly in the “do not feel the incongruity” camp. What I'm about to say might make no sense at all, but I seem to remember (or at least think I do, it might be a false memory arising from thinking too much about it) slowly gaining consciousness in early childhood. I have a birthmark on the back of my hand and some of my earliest memories are triggered by noticing it and realizing I’m a separate being from o…

I think a lot discussion around consciousness focuses too much on the binary (e.g. either you have it or you don't), but I like to think of consciousness as a spectrum, with organisms falling into various points along that spectrum. Your take fits nicely into that picture I think.

This is precisely one of the reasons I prefer attention schema theory as an explanation of consciousness. It actually has a progressive build up, with each individual stage conferring an advantage while also leading to the next stage. Evolution does not like big-bang progression. And it's also very hard to explain big-bang progression in multiple, drastically-unrelated species -- such as humans and octopuses.

Attention schema instead builds gradually. It starts with selective signal processing, advancing to body schema, then to attention schema, then to social schema (modeling other's bodies and attention).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention_schema_theory

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/06/how-cons...

Post reply on HN