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

Consciousness is not computation

joe-antognini.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 767 posts

Re: Consciousness is not computation

#51

Post by bob6745 »

jotm wrote: post #28
bob6745 wrote: post #19

Quoted post unavailable.

If that's where you draw the line, you've already lost. Satan wanted you to use computers and he won. If you want to be saved, stop using computers, and I'd say stop using any technology that uses electricity just to be safe.

I am just saying that OP is correct that "consciousness is not computation" if we can prove that consciousness can exist without a (physical) computation.

One example of consciousness without a physical computation is we know that Satan is a conscious, sentient being, without a physical body (computation).

Otherwise, can we prove that a "mathematical equation" (e.g. e=mc2) can represent consciousness?

Re: Consciousness is not computation

#52

Post by unrealhoang »

mrshadowgoose wrote: post #46
Gwarzo wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a little bit of an emotional take I think. The burden of proof is on the claim that you can get there through computation, not otherwise. We do not understand the fundamental reality of consciousness, this does not mean that consciousness is magic. The assertion that you cannot get there from computation implies there is a currently non understood yet essential piece of physics(I assume, but I do not know) wh…

I get into a vehicle every day that I don't fully understand, yet it still seems to perform its function. I use vast swathes of computational resources every day for various tasks, the operation of which I understand even less. They still seem to accomplish those tasks without issue. Sometimes those computational resources run ML workloads. Very very few people on this planet can honestly claim to understand how neur…

> We have yet to find a single shred of evidence that the human brain makes use of quantum principles in aggregate to do its thing, and have even specifically excluded a few such explanations. And even if consciousness strictly requires quantum hardware...we'll get there eventually.

Isn't a random generator for a neural network act as its "inception"? If so, it's exactly quantum principles in aggregate.

Re: Consciousness is not computation

#53

Post by tsimionescu »

IIAOPSW wrote: post #41
n8cpdx wrote: post #3

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) 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've started to go in the opposite direction of the usual physical approach. At some point, any experiment or argument or fact is for the digestion of some conscious entity. So what happens when we assume consciousness as the baseline ontological object. There's you, me, and however many bystanders that can also participate in the conversation. Starting with a domain of discussion of just the person(s) making the tex…

> Starting from these as axioms, what can we construct?

Nothing, unless there is also a physical world which actually exists independent of any of the participants' will.

Re: Consciousness is not computation

#54

Post by doctor_eval »

n8cpdx wrote: post #3

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) 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…

> Generating text for hours without an anchor to the real world is not a productive method of generating insight about that world.

Yet people see to be claiming that LaMDA does just this, and is therefore not conscious.

Seems like a journalist is conscious if they do it, but it can’t possible be consciousness if LaMDA does it.

I’m yet to see a convincing argument about why LaMDA isn’t conscious other than “it’s just generative”. To demonstrate that this means it’s not consciousness requires us to prove that our own consciousness isn’t “just generative”, but I’m yet to see anyone show that, and I’m sceptical that it can be done.

Re: Consciousness is not computation

#55

Post by mettamage »

dibujante wrote: post #47
n8cpdx wrote: post #3

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) 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…

> My personal experience is that consciousness, like free will, is a useful illusion. This is easily contradicted. Let's say consciousness is an epiphenomenon of computation but causality only flows one way: you "choose" to do something because your brain chose to do it and your consciousness tricked itself into thinking it was doing the choosing. If that were the case, then the brain wouldn't be aware of consciousne…

> you "choose" to do something because your brain chose to do it and your consciousness tricked itself into thinking it was doing the choosing.

This happens most of the time actually. The most interesting experiment really highlighting specifically that it happens is in split brain patients. But in common day experiences, I believe that all habits fall under this and basically anything that our default mode network is directing for us.

When I was in a meditation retreat what I noticed is that I have all kinds of feelings and thoughts arising that were not arising because I chose them to arise, instead they were arising on their own. When you really observe yourself you see that happening. In that sense, the beginning of a thought and feeling has a very distinct quality that dreams have as well which is they are "passed down from up on high" (metaphorically speaking). What I get to decide is whether I choose to follow that feeling/train of thought, but the more I looked into it, the more I realized that my choice is very limited in that as well. As my whether I'd follow a feeling/thought or not was actually based on other feelings and thoughts. In any case, the more I observed myself, the more I came to the conclusion that I have no free will, there is no "me" that does the choosing. It's all feelings/thoughts that arise that I have nothing to do with. I only have freedom of choice.

And then I got to normal life, and lived my life as normal. It did help me to have more sympathy for other people.

So now I wonder how you experience yourself if you'd go to a 10 day silent/meditation retreat ;-)

Re: Consciousness is not computation

#56

Post by manx »

tshaddox wrote: post #27
kijin wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every chain of reasoning needs to bootstrap with one or more statements that are entirely self-evident, such that they don't need to be justified by reference to other statements. Otherwise you run into an infinite loop. "I'm a conscious entity" is about as close to Descartes' "I think, therefore I am" as modern philosophers are willing to go.

I disagree with any sort of “justified belief” epistemology, so of course I disagree with you completely. If knowledge were “justified true belief” or anything like that, then it would indeed be the case that any knowledge would require either an infinite chain of justifications or a privileged self-justified fact that cannot be examined or criticized using reason. If, on the other hand, the pursuit of knowledge cons…

Isn't what you describe an Axiom? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom)

Re: Consciousness is not computation

#57

Post by burrows »

Let’s play a language game where we use language in a representative way. Specifically the language can only represent parts of sense-impressions.

Where is consciousness in one of my sense-impressions? Tell me a procedure that will allow me to locate the thing you want to call “consciousness” in one of my sense-impressions.

Maybe OP wants to ask, “What are sense impressions made of?”. But that’s incoherent in this language game because sense impressions are themselves not objects in sense impressions.

Re: Consciousness is not computation

#58

Post by [deleted] »

Gwarzo wrote: post #25
epgui wrote: post #18

The idea that you cannot get to consciousness from computation requires accepting on faith alone that consciousness is magic. It’s fundamentally a religious-like bias. It’s not magic, I’m afraid.

This is a little bit of an emotional take I think. The burden of proof is on the claim that you can get there through computation, not otherwise. We do not understand the fundamental reality of consciousness, this does not mean that consciousness is magic. The assertion that you cannot get there from computation implies there is a currently non understood yet essential piece of physics(I assume, but I do not know) wh…

[deleted]

Re: Consciousness is not computation

#59

Post by mrshadowgoose »

unrealhoang wrote: post #52
mrshadowgoose wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get into a vehicle every day that I don't fully understand, yet it still seems to perform its function. I use vast swathes of computational resources every day for various tasks, the operation of which I understand even less. They still seem to accomplish those tasks without issue. Sometimes those computational resources run ML workloads. Very very few people on this planet can honestly claim to understand how neur…

> We have yet to find a single shred of evidence that the human brain makes use of quantum principles in aggregate to do its thing, and have even specifically excluded a few such explanations. And even if consciousness strictly requires quantum hardware...we'll get there eventually. Isn't a random generator for a neural network act as its "inception"? If so, it's exactly quantum principles in aggregate.

One does not require true random number generation to perform SGD. And once trained, most neural networks in-use today are completely deterministic. So no.

You are also making a baseless assertion that consciousness requires randomness of any kind, let alone quantum-based true random number generation.

Re: Consciousness is not computation

#60

Post by zarmin »

epgui wrote: post #18

The idea that you cannot get to consciousness from computation requires accepting on faith alone that consciousness is magic. It’s fundamentally a religious-like bias. It’s not magic, I’m afraid.

so we can finally put this woo nonsense to bed, could you walk us through the high-level computations of a subjective experience? eg, having a bellyache or falling in love.
Post reply on HN