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

521–530 of 767 posts

Re: Consciousness is not computation

#521

Post by stagas »

- "Consciousness is observer independent"

- "Consciousness does not require an external observer to exist."

Can you please elaborate on how you arrived at the knowledge of those "observers"?

- "Physical system"

Can you explain what a "physical system" is and how you came to have knowledge about it?

The above are huge leaps in logic that are thrown as axioms as there's no explanation on how you arrive at them -given what you have access to- which is your own qualia.

The whole argument is baseless without explaining these. Of course if you setup the world to match the argument, the argument will appear logical. But there are no grounds to support it.

Re: Consciousness is not computation

#522

Post by vehemenz »

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…

> 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.

I agree somewhat, but I am more bothered by laymen who attempt to engage philosophical methods or concepts without any formal training. For example, laymen almost always use conventional, non-critical language, bandying about "existence" and making claims in what Carnap called the "metaphysical mode." Laymen like to draw arguments, as if they're novel, that have been discussed extensively in the literature for over fifty years.

Re: Consciousness is not computation

#524

Post by dragonwriter »

voldacar wrote: post #237
jvanderbot wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To no one. "It is an illusion" is transcribed and recalled as an explanation for feelings that drive actions in the person who said it, because we evolved to be able to explain our actions with sophisticated language, and to judge the arguments of others so that we can act together to overcome challenges and to kill the out group. In this case, OP is, without knowing it, signaling which group is his, and which is not…

>"It is an illusion" is transcribed and recalled as an explanation for feelings that drive actions in the person who said it, because we evolved to be able to explain our actions with sophisticated language, and to judge the arguments of others so that we can act together to overcome challenges and to kill the out group. A p-zombie could do all of those things just fine. >we do not understand consciousness, because i…

> A p-zombie could do all of those things just fine.

Obviously, if a p-zombie can exist, it can do anything a conscious being can, because the definition of a p-zombie is that it is indistinguishable from a conscious being by behavior or other external observation but lacks a mystical, non-physical essence which is consciousness.

Of course, if consciousness is the kind of thing subject to empirical analysis, p-zombies cannot exist. P-zombies are a consequence of the assumption that the universe is not fully physical and subject to scientific inquiry and that consciousness specifically is immune to it. This assumption is cloaked in circumlocution, because the whole point of p-zombies is to serve as part of an argument against the mere physical nature of consciousness, and it gives up the game if it is clear from step one that the argument is rests on assuming it's own conclusion.

Re: Consciousness is not computation

#525

Post by Tycho »

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.

I always find this such a strange statement. Free will doesn’t exist but it’s a useful illusion… like… in that case… useful to who??

Re: Consciousness is not computation

#526

Post by denton-scratch »

skohan wrote: post #517
denton-scratch wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> for instance, changing the physiology of the brain through drugs or trauma has predictable changes on consciousness Assumes a definition of consciousness, which is not in evidence. What drugs or trauma alter is experience , which one might define as the content of consciousness, i.e. thoughts, beliefs etc.

How would you define consciousness?

I wouldn't! I could have a go, but I'm not inclined to.

OK, let's try this: consciousness is the canvas on which subjective experience is painted.

But I'm afraid that's not much help, because it begs a definition of subjective experience, and because it side-steps the nature of the blank canvas.

Re: Consciousness is not computation

#527

Post by swid »

Tycho wrote: post #525
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. I always find this such a strange statement. Free will doesn’t exist but it’s a useful illusion… like… in that case… useful to who??

Useful to animals who evolved it. I have no more control over my individual neurons than an adder circuit has over itself. And this extends, layer by layer, all the way to the external actions I take. I don’t really control my inner dialog. I don’t really control what I say or do. There is a biochemical process which makes it all happen and I exert no power over.

Re: Consciousness is not computation

#529

Post by ddingus »

dahfizz wrote: post #489
feet wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a digital representation, theoretically if we simulate all facets of weather and all facets of consciousness, the simulated consciousness could experience all facets of rain We are not digital, to simulate it for our conscious experience we can simulate weather in a closed biodome type of structure where we control the water cycles

This is exactly the point. Simulated rain isn't real rain, it's a digital representation. So, the argument goes, that a simulated consciousness is not a real consciousness, but a digital approximation. It's as real as the fake rain. In other words, there is something inherently biological about consciousness. Simulating rain doesn't produce water, and simulating a brain doesn't produce consciousness.

This discussion lead me to an idea:

When we simulate a brain, the brain is unreal, not running on the hardware at all. It's represented by something else running on the hardware.

If we made brain like hardware of sufficient complexity so that it could differentiate "itself" from everything else, that closed loop may invoke consciousness. It would be running on the hardware directly.

This, to me, is the one thing conscious organisms have in common. And yes, I know that idea of anything but us being conscious is highly debatable. Let's just say my cat is conscious, and I believe that it is conscious. You, of course, can disagree and that's fine. None of us knows anything, and we are all sharing thoughts and that concept below is mine:

To simplify, consciousness may require a feedback loop. The nervous system, brain and body all are integrated with sufficient complexity and fidelity so as to make it possible for the brain to arrive at a sense of "self", able to differentiate itself from everything else. Self-simulation is different from outside stimulation, and awareness of the body falls out of that for free.

This is why a simulation won't render consciousness. Whatever consciousness ends up being is not a part of the simulation. The very nature of simulation means it's all about things we know and at least understand exist. And since we do not yet understand consciousness, it's not going to rise as an emergent artifact of things we build.

Or... at the very least, we need to build something complex and robust enough for it to be able to differentiate itself from the greater environment it is in before we have a chance at consciousness happening for it.

This all does allow for consciousness to be computable. It's just that the computation needs to be done on a system capable of self-differentiation and awareness.

Re: Consciousness is not computation

#530

Post by solotronics »

simonh wrote: post #205

I 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…

As neural networks become increasingly advanced I wonder where people will draw the actual line between "conscious" and "unconscious". A model can dream and produce unique art, play a game, and hold a conversation. It seems inevitable to me that some persistent implementation will eventually be able to pass as a conscious entity.
Post reply on HN