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

81–90 of 767 posts

Re: Consciousness is not computation

#81

Post by haskellandchill »

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…

Philosophers in general have no special insight, but certain philosophers do and I'd argue more than certain others in other professions. They seem to have the best grasp of the consciousness question when compared to physicists, biologists, computer scientists, and psychologists, who all seem to get wrapped up in applying their expertise. A philosopher's expertise lies in crafting and analyzing questions and concepts. Which is the stage our understanding of consciousness remains at and seems to be stuck at for the near future.

I thought the article was very good, you claim it to not be. You say

> 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

Well I personally have done all the drugs, and I find those experiences have only strengthened my confidence in what I think of as consciousness. This article outlines my views more or less, which is closely related to the philosophical field of phenomenology. We can take our experience of consciousness in and of itself as a way to define consciousness and this shows how that clashes with the computational (and I think mainstream) view.

Interesting that our personal experiences are opposite. However I don't particularly care about yours or others experiences of consciousness; I'm more interested in my own.

Re: Consciousness is not computation

#82

Post by Aeolun »

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 think I adhere to the duck-typing theory of conciousness. If I walks, talks and acts like concious being, then it doesn’t particularly matter to me how that comes about (e.g. the opposite of the chinese room argument).

If someone is following a ‘program’ for responding to Chinese characters, that’s as good as speaking Chinese since there is no distinguishable difference.

Re: Consciousness is not computation

#83

Post by stevenhuang »

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 wrongly assume the output of such "computation" cannot itself be an input to the computation. Which, if you know anything about the brain, we know certainly happens by virtue of watching synapses fire.

See also simplified models like recurrent neural networks for example.

Re: Consciousness is not computation

#84

Post by tsimionescu »

3g4o53g4o5 wrote: post #42
epgui wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering that everything in the universe is the product of some computation, I would consider it a reasonable default assumption that whatever we mean by “consciousness” emerges from computation. That this idea “intuitively feels weird” or “intuitively feels wrong”, and that we love to think we are special and have a unique place in the universe, is probably a more serious bias.

Not probably, it is a bias. Dolphin can speak, dog can speak, bird can speak too. There is nothing special about homo species except the only fact that we have more neurons in our head. Those "philosophers" love to claim that human consciousness is different than animal and this is the biggest bullshit.

No, dogs and birds can't "speak", not in the same sense you do (with dolphins it's a little more debatable).

Animal calls have no syntax - each call has some meaning, but they do not compose in any way. The order in which an animal performs its calls is arbitrary, and an animal hearing said calls doesn't pay attention to it. Even basic modifiers like "no" don't exist in animal communication - if a call means "food", and another call means "no", then an animal hearing the call for "no" and the call for "food" will behave as if they heard there is food somewhere.

The exception to this seem to be dolphins (orcas, in particular), where it seems they have been quite successfully trained to follow a series a short commands in order, in a sign language (so you can sign "jump, swim, splash" and they will follow this; and then sign "swim, splash, jump" and they will do it in the new order). This can't be done with dogs, and it's even questionable if it has been successfully done with chimps.

Re: Consciousness is not computation

#85

Post by epgui »

zarmin wrote: post #60
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.

I can’t explain to you how a whole brain works, but if the question was genuine, I would actually recommend starting with Blumenfeld’s “Neuroanatomy through Clinical Cases” textbook. It’ll demystify a lot of the larger scale questions around structure and organization. It’s fairly easy to study how neurons, axons and synapses work using any number of freely available resources. You’ll never find out exactly how every cell is wired, but after a while (especially if you have a comp-sci, ML or statistics background) you’ll realize that that’s besides the point.

Re: Consciousness is not computation

#86

Post by 3g4o53g4o5 »

colordrops wrote: post #40
trts wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My personal experience is that consciousness, like free will, is a useful illusion It is probably just a difference in semantics but for me, it seems like consciousness is the only thing that is assuredly not an illusion. That I am having a subjective experience is undeniable. The objects of my consciousness all might be (and probably are) something else than they appear to be (as is often the experience with diffe…

It seems to go even deeper. Not even that "I" am having a subjective experience is undeniable, but only that there is a subjective experience at all. When deconstructing sensory and thought phenomena, it can be found that any particular trait that points to "I" is actually ephemeral, and not a permanent fixture of the experiencer. For instance, the sense that there is a face and eyes that is being looked out through…

Sorry but you always forgot that when you sleep your consciousness disappeared. Please take account for this fact. When all sensory shut down, really you feel nothing and of cos think nothing.

Re: Consciousness is not computation

#87

Post by madeofmeat »

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…

"Consciousness is an illusion"

I take the word "illusion" to mean, some type of experience which misleads one about reality. And "consciousness" to mean, the experience of having experiences.

So I parse this claim as something like, "People both do not have conscious experiences, and also do continuously have a particular type of conscious experience: a misleading experience which leads them to believe they have conscious experiences".

Yet I see this claim made seriously and often. What am I missing?

Re: Consciousness is not computation

#88

Post by stormbrew »

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…

> 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) which doesn't fall under "computation"

This conflates "computation" with "physics". I think even the OP doesn't do that, since it allows for the possibility that non-computational physical processes could lead to consciousness, even derived from computational efforts.

To me this is the crux of the problem with that argument, though. The definition of "computation" here seems to be designed to get to this answer. It includes all physical processes that are not like consciousness and excludes all physical processes that are like consciousness, and on top of that presumes that humans consciousness isn't "deterministic", which to me is a difficult proposition to prove since human brains are never not being bombarded with stimuli, so creating two "runs" of the same brain is essentially impossible.

Like trying to add 1+1 on a computer that's sitting in a big burst of cosmic rays twice.

Re: Consciousness is not computation

#89

Post by zarmin »

epgui wrote: post #85
zarmin wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I can’t explain to you how a whole brain works, but if the question was genuine, I would actually recommend starting with Blumenfeld’s “Neuroanatomy through Clinical Cases” textbook. It’ll demystify a lot of the larger scale questions around structure and organization. It’s fairly easy to study how neurons, axons and synapses work using any number of freely available resources. You’ll never find out exactly how every…

I'm just curious as to when exactly quality arises from quantity

Re: Consciousness is not computation

#90

Post by epgui »

tsimionescu wrote: post #84
3g4o53g4o5 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not probably, it is a bias. Dolphin can speak, dog can speak, bird can speak too. There is nothing special about homo species except the only fact that we have more neurons in our head. Those "philosophers" love to claim that human consciousness is different than animal and this is the biggest bullshit.

No, dogs and birds can't "speak", not in the same sense you do (with dolphins it's a little more debatable). Animal calls have no syntax - each call has some meaning, but they do not compose in any way. The order in which an animal performs its calls is arbitrary, and an animal hearing said calls doesn't pay attention to it. Even basic modifiers like "no" don't exist in animal communication - if a call means "food",…

To say that almost all animal communication is without order (syntax) is almost certainly incorrect, and would have a high burden of proof. It’s certainly been a historical assumption, but I think science has moved a little past it. Even bees can communicate relatively sophisticated messages between them.
Post reply on HN