Everything is consciousness. Even the stone has it. Meditate deep enough and the truth will unfold for you.
Consciousness is not computation
391–400 of 767 posts
Re: Consciousness is not computation
#392Earlier quoted context omitted.
This text is in the physical world. This statement exists on your screen independent of my will. It may exist in the first place because of my will, but its continued existence before you right now is independent of me. We have a shared reality in the form of this very text based medium.
Sure, the physical world exists independent of our will and communication, so this text (and all the electric fields that traveled between our machines over vast distances) exist regardless of our will or communication. But I am only convinced of this fact because I have experienced it independently from any other agent. I know for sure I exist in some sense, I believe very strongly that the physical world exists, an…
>But I am only convinced of this fact because I have experienced it independently
>In other words, I am more certain of the fact that your comment exists
>So, the physical world is a much more believable explanation than
Phrasing all of these in terms of what you believe and what you are convinced/certain of, instead of in terms of what absolutely is, makes my point for me. You didn't even realize you were talking in terms of you getting me to agree over what to believe rather than some objective nature of things indifferent to my opinion. That's how deep seated this is in the way brains and consciousness work.
>I would be much less shocked than if I found out my own senses or memory deceived me.
You even phrased the discussion of your own sensory perception in terms of messages. In this case messages from your own senses. And you personified them too, treating them as conscious enough to lie to you.
>I know for sure I exist in some sense... and I believe to a lesser degree that other agents have similar experiences to mine.
You're already agreeing with my axioms. I know I exist. No matter what argument I am making, it must exist in words and there must be a "you" I am trying to convince (even when I'm trying to convince myself). It is impossible to form an argument which rejects these axiomatic truths, for the moment you try you've already used words and already addressed "me" thus affirming the existence of these three things. Since the existence of "you", "me" and "this" are intrinsic to anything you might try to argue, we should take their existence as axioms. What can be argued from axioms which are irrefutable by the nature of argumentation itself? Starting with just the existence of the arguers and their arguments, can they argue for the existence of anything more? If not, what else do they need to assume?
Re: Consciousness is not computation
#393Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok then, what is the computer running that computation, and what are the symbols it is manipulating to produce the movement of the electron and photon? (I am assuming you are not referring to human knowledge of the electron or photon, which - if we accept that consciousness is computational - is obviously the result of a computation in our brains).
Well. FYI, unitary transformation, creation and annihilation operator, etc.
Are these physical objects? Do they have mass, energy, volume, a position or speed, charge, color charge, weak hyper charge, spin etc?
Re: Consciousness is not computation
#394I find this argument completely unconvincing. The mapping in a case like the iron bar is entirely ephemeral, pertaining only for an instant. For this argument to be valid you’d have to be able to persistently map the iron bar, or waterfall, to all ongoing transformations of states in the running program, using one single consistent mapping. Otherwise all you have is a snapshot of state, not an ongoing process. To ach…
I agree, this seems analogous to the argument that simulation of the weather can't produce rain. In some sense, that argument is true by prior definition. It's like saying that the Universe can't simulate itself. But consciousness is not rain. We don't really know what consciousness is, so I don't see a compelling reason to exclude computation as being sufficient to produce it. We need philosophers to tell us that co…
Also, we can definitely simulate rain? Not sure where that weird claim comes from
Re: Consciousness is not computation
#395Earlier quoted context omitted.
To my mind, I think that if you want to say that the universe is a computer, then you can't say it's doing linear algebra, even though the behavior of particles is described by linear algebra. If you want to model the universe as a computer, than its basic operations are the interactions described in the Standard Model, and the symbols it works on are particles&fields that exist. But the universe computer is not reso…
Bascially your assumption is that something that looks and works like an Intel CPU carry out an operation, that can be called a computation, everything else is not. But sorry this is not the only method to "compute". You are limiting the definition of computiation and try too hard to justify all false assumption that you have been made.
My assumption is that something like a Turing machine, or like a reduction in Lambda calculus, or like a demonstration with the basic laws of predicate logic (all known equivalent models of computation) is a computer.
Re: Consciousness is not computation
#396If it even exists, consciousness is literally unfathomably complex compution by the insane biocomputer we call our brain.
And it is by definition, assuming one rejects super natural phenomena like the soul.
Re: Consciousness is not computation
#397I 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.
This is called functionalism. There was a joke about it on existential comics some time ago: https://existentialcomics.com/comic/357
Re: Consciousness is not computation
#398Earlier quoted context omitted.
He’s making the point that he-ness and himself-ness is too bold a conclusion to draw from the mere existence of thoughts.
Thinking these thoughts however (from a pov of some subject) is not a "mere existence of thoughts". This imo is a classic analytic/positivistic language game.
Prove it!
(I jest, you're preaching to the choir, i.e. a first year philosophy degree drop-out who switched to do computer science to avoid having these arguments)
Re: Consciousness is not computation
#399I 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…
> Seems like a journalist is conscious if they do it, but it can’t possible be consciousness if LaMDA does it.
Can you convincingly threaten a journalist that you are going to erase its existence from earth? How is this person going to react? Would LaMDA do the same, or even simulate reactions indiscernible from those made by the journalist?
Re: Consciousness is not computation
#400I find this argument completely unconvincing. The mapping in a case like the iron bar is entirely ephemeral, pertaining only for an instant. For this argument to be valid you’d have to be able to persistently map the iron bar, or waterfall, to all ongoing transformations of states in the running program, using one single consistent mapping. Otherwise all you have is a snapshot of state, not an ongoing process. To ach…
If consciousness is computation, then the question may be asked: what is computation? In a sense computation, like measurement, is not just something that humans do and call it as such. All physical processes are computations.
Then, if consciousness is computation, it follows that all matter is conscious. But this notion seems suspect. If all matter is conscious, then really life is not special. One might advance the idea that there are different levels of consciousness, but then what determines this level of consciousness? Is it the complexity of the computation? There are many physical processes that involve stupendous amounts of computation (e.g., fluid dynamics), and yet it is hard to think of them as having a high level of consciousness. Is a fluid conscious?
There are other issues with the consciousness as computation notion. For example, that of identity: If the exact same computation is performed at a different time and place, is the same consciousness? If a computation equates to consciousness, what is the boundary of that consciousness, analogous to the human body.
Finally, consider this thought experiment, which I've posted before: Assume before a loved one died in a futuristic world, proponents of the consciousness as computation were able to an exact model of their brain, down to to all the cells and their interconnections. If they are able to instantiate this model onto a new body, would that be the same person brought back to life? Can't there exist two consciousnesses with the same memories, personality, etc.?