Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Consciousness is not computation
501–510 of 767 posts
Re: Consciousness is not computation
#502Earlier quoted context omitted.
Consciousness is an emergent property that comes from a complex system, if we can simulate all of the mechanisms then the emergent property will follow. I don't know if its "data" but rather consciousness is the experience of processing data from the perspective of the entity doing the processing. We have the ability to communicate our internal experience which is why humans only attribute conscious awareness to othe…
Your first sentence is not, in my opinion, a demonstrable fact. The lack of an adequate definition of consciousness tends to preclude such a demonstration.
Re: Consciousness is not computation
#503Earlier 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…
Quantum is the go to pearl for everyone who doesn't like the idea that consciousness is not simply a result of a deterministic but very complex system of physics. Unfortunately there has never been any evidence that anything in the brain exhibits any sort of quantum computing or logic or otherwise. Thus, the burned of proof is in fact on the the claim that you cannot get their through computation, because determinist…
Maybe I'm missing something.
Re: Consciousness is not computation
#504I am of the mind that consciousness is an emergent property of the various interconnected information processing systems of the brain. There's just too much evidence: for instance, changing the physiology of the brain through drugs or trauma has predictable changes on consciousness. From that perspective, I think it's pretty clear that consciousness is some kind of computation rooted in the physical world. However to…
> There's just too much evidence: for instance, changing the physiology of the brain through drugs or trauma has predictable changes on consciousness You can demonstrate that humans react (and quite predictably) to weather - when it rains, they take their umbrellas out, when there's a hurricane, they seek for shelter, and so on. It's not evidence that human behaviour is an emergent property of weather and nothing els…
> You can demonstrate that humans react (and quite predictably) to weather - when it rains, they take their umbrellas out, when there's a hurricane, they seek for shelter, and so on. It's not evidence that human behaviour is an emergent property of weather and nothing else.
In the literature, there's a term "necessary and sufficient" which is used quite often. For instance, destroying a certain percentage of a certain type of dopamine receptors is necessary and sufficient to produce parkinsons-like symptoms in rats.
Rain can be demonstrated to make people take umbrellas out, but it's not sufficient. Sometimes it rains and people don't take umbrellas out. It's also not necessary, sometimes people take out umbrellas when it's too sunny. So it's hard to establish that strong causal relationship between rain and umbrellas.
With consciousness, we can't point to a single example of human consciousness which is not at the same place at the same time as a reasonably well-functioning human brain. We can't prove 100% that it's sufficient, but it certainly seems to be necessary, and there's zero evidence so far it's not sufficient.
> The big question persists: how does it happen that a computational system, no matter how complex, FEELS something?
This is actually fairly well understood. So if you are talking about "feeling" in the sense of emotion, we actually have a very detailed understanding of how that system works.
So some of our lower brain regions are responsible for preparing our body for action. For instance, if you've been bitten by a dog before, your brain might learn to get your body ready to run when there is a large dog around. Your sympathetic nervous system will kick in when your visual cortex detects the right patterns, and elevate your heart rate, quicken your breathing, and cause your hairs to stand on end.
So your emotions are essentially a sense which observes that type of sympathetic arousal in your body. Your emotional systems will notice that your body has entered flight-or-fight mode, and will interpret that based on your context and memories to signal to your higher brain function that you are experiencing fear or anxiety.
So that's just one example, but it's extremely plausible to me that consciousness/subjective experience is either just the sum total of all these functions the brain is performing, or is some emergent property on top of them, or else is even some highly specialized function of some subsystem of the brain we don't fully understand yet.
For instance there are credible arguments that the thalamus is the seat of consciousness in the brain.
Re: Consciousness is not computation
#505The 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.
I think it was Sean Carroll that said something like "don't trust any way of thinking that allows you to discover truths about the universe from the comfort of your armchair".
Re: Consciousness is not computation
#506The 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.
"The idea that you cannot make tea from water alone requires accepting on faith that brewing tea is magic." No, not necessarily. It just means that water/computation is not the only ingredient you need.
Re: Consciousness is not computation
#507I 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 free will is axiomatic. It comes before everything else. What am I? What ever is making these decisions. If weren't, then I wouldn't be the person asking, I'd just be a puppet, therefore my identity would be that of whatever is the hand, and so on until you find whatever is making the decision. Because if the meat puppet didn't make the decision to write this, then you're not conversing…
How does that even make sense? "Axiomatic" doesn't mean "true"; it simply means that the axiomatic proposition is a given for the system of reasoning you are using. So if you take X to be axiomatic, that isn't an experience; it's a decision you made.
I'm assuming that you can make decisions, because if you are using axioms you are engaged in reasoning, which is a deliberative process.
So an axiom isn't a thing you can experience; it's a thing you create. The very existence of an axiom implies reasoning, so deliberation, so free will.
Re: Consciousness is not computation
#508Earlier quoted context omitted.
Scott Aaronson (if memory serves right) had an interesting take on this. He framed his thought in terms of the Turing test, but the argument would apply equally well to the mapped iron bar: In theory, we could pass any Turing test of finite duration (eg an hour or less) and run in a chat room with finite bandwidth with a giant lookup table. Just look up the entire past of the conversation to see what answer should be…
Today you don't even need to do any look-up table, most short GPT-3-generated dialogues seem perfectly fine from a Turing-test perspective. That form of the Turing test stopped being useful long ago.. Still, the Turing test was never meant as a measure of "consciousness", right?
GPT-3 can generate natural looking text and even dialogues, if you don't press it too hard. But a motivated adversary can tell GPT-3 from a real human pretty quickly still.
The Turing test still stands undefeated.
Re: Consciousness is not computation
#509Could we rely prove that anything is conscious, beyond ourselves? I mean, if in the future humans manage to run a full human brain simulation and put a person in a computer, how could we ever be confident that this simulated person experiences consciousness in the same way we do and is not just a blob of computations that mimic it? Imagine a sci-fi doomsday scenario where virtual words are created and they are awesom…
Re: Consciousness is not computation
#510Earlier quoted context omitted.
Scott Aaronson (if memory serves right) had an interesting take on this. He framed his thought in terms of the Turing test, but the argument would apply equally well to the mapped iron bar: In theory, we could pass any Turing test of finite duration (eg an hour or less) and run in a chat room with finite bandwidth with a giant lookup table. Just look up the entire past of the conversation to see what answer should be…
I've never been able to see why one would give the lookup table any credence. It's just kicking the can down the road one step in terms of abstraction. The second you assert that the lookup table can pass a turing test with, eg. a gigabyte of exchange, then the table of every single one gigabyte number in it becomes your state space and program, the page number becomes the state, and you've got just as much complexit…
Yes, from an complexity theory or engineering point of view the lookup table is pointless, of course.