Consciousness is not computation
joe-antognini.github.io
Consciousness is not computation
1–10 of 767 posts
Re: Consciousness is not computation
#2This seems...very confused.
This seems to be attempting to "prove" that if you regard consciousness as "containing the bits of a specific program", you could also see that program in random data by interpreting that random data by effectively applying a one-time pad to it (from which you can indeed produce any possible interpretation of data), which it treats as a proof by contradiction.
And leaving that aside, while the assertion is that consciousness is not "computation", the reasoning seems focused on the storage of bits rather than on the execution of an actual program defined by those bits that goes from one state to another in a meaningful fashion. Storing a program and running a program are two different things.
If someone were interpreting the successive states of a heated iron bar (or other random noise source) with a sufficiently convoluted one-time-pad to map it to successive states of a conscious being, then to the extent it exhibits consciousness the substrate it runs on is effectively whatever is actually supplying those one-time-pads, since supplying them atop random noise would require generating them via whatever process produces those states corresponding to consciousness. At that point you could just discard the random noise source and the one-time-pad generator that maps that random noise source to the conscious states, and just leave the conscious states.
Ultimately, this article seems to have started out with an assertion to support, and then tried (unsuccessfully) to turn that assertion into something more than an assertion.
Re: Consciousness is not computation
#3I think people start with the premise that consciousness is a specific “thing”, that it is unique and special to humans (and maybe dogs because we like them but definitely not spiders and flies because we don’t) and then try to work backwards to define it in some ways that keeps it special.
I don’t think consciousness is so specific, and I think people aren’t clear about how they think about it as something separate from recall, text generation, agency, etc.
My personal experience is that consciousness, like free will, is a useful illusion. Poking at the edges of consciousness (mostly with drugs) leads to all sorts of contradictions and challenges to what people usually think of as consciousness.
Aside: I’m starting to be bothered by the trend of assuming that philosophers have special insight. There’s plenty of shitty, non-useful philosophy, and there’s plenty of articles like this where someone writes in circles like they’re paid by the word. Generating text for hours without an anchor to the real world is not a productive method of generating insight about that world.
> But we must resist the allure of this seductive idea.
Why? Starting with this assumption and searching for reasons it might be true is clear motivated reasoning.
Re: Consciousness is not computation
#4> So if we accept that qualia exists (which, after all, seems intuitively sensible), we are burdened with the apparently impossible task of explaining how consciousness can be generated by physical processes. This is the crux of the “hard problem of consciousness.”
In what sense does this task seem “apparently impossible”? To me it seems like we simply don’t know enough right now to explain it, but it doesn’t seem like some unique or special type of difficulty.
We barely know how brains work, we’ve only had theoretical models of computing for a few human lifespans, etc. We literally still make lightweight insulated clothing out of duck feathers cuz we can’t match their molecular machinery. Why would we expect to know how to implement consciousness in a computer at this stage in human history?
Re: Consciousness is not computation
#5I genuinely question if consciousness is just an illusion if everything is just cause and effect. Similar, awareness is just a word used for human expression from one human to another for claiming we’re not just navigating a script like a computer but are we really aware or conscious if everything is just cause and effect? I assume AI will be good enough as humans before we understand the human brain in comparison to AI and understanding to me is the meaningful distinction. I do think we should care that all entities never suffer regardless if they don’t have the human label. We should consider that all energy in the universe not suffering is the best universe.
Re: Consciousness is not computation
#6I think people start with the premise that consciousness is a specific “thing”, that it is unique and special to humans (and maybe dogs because we like them but definitely not spiders and flies because we don’t) and then try to work backwards to define it in some ways that keeps it special. I don’t think consciousness is so specific, and I think people aren’t clear about how they think about it as something separate…
> I think people start with the premise that consciousness is a specific “thing”, that it is unique and special to humans (and maybe dogs because we like them but definitely not spiders and flies because we don’t)
Ah, but as far as I can tell this author only grants their own consciousness. They’re doing the typical thing of starting from literally nothing more than a claim of the form “there is no way I could ever possibly deny the existence of this thing” which seems to me to be a starting point diametrically incompatible with pursuing knowledge via reasoning.
Re: Consciousness is not computation
#7If having a conscious experience is our only frame of reference of what it’s like to be a bunch of particles, then on what authority do we assume it could be otherwise for any other bunch of particles?
What should it “be like” to be a rock?
I’m assuming nothing special is going on, and what we experience is exactly what it’s like to be a bunch of particles. There is no mystery. There is nothing that needs to be answered.
Re: Consciousness is not computation
#8It follows from the definition of computing. Computing is using the fact that one system is rule governed to make reliable inferences about another system. Consciousness isn’t the sort of thing that could be computation. That doesn’t mean a computer-like device can’t do it though.
Re: Consciousness is not computation
#9This seems...very confused. This seems to be attempting to "prove" that if you regard consciousness as "containing the bits of a specific program", you could also see that program in random data by interpreting that random data by effectively applying a one-time pad to it (from which you can indeed produce any possible interpretation of data), which it treats as a proof by contradiction. And leaving that aside, while…
I don’t really get the argument either. The author only seems to demonstrate that different observers can make different conclusions from different observations of the same phenomena. The author requires consciousness to be observer-independent, but surely that doesn’t also require that all observers are able to correctly conclude whether they’re observing a conscious entity at any given time.
Re: Consciousness is not computation
#10The "Chinese Room" argument isn't an argument against consciousness being computation.
In the same way the man in the room doesn't understand Chinese to be able to produce Chinese, the mind in your brain does not need to understand consciousness to be conscious.
The man in the room can be said to pass the Turing test, and so can you.