Live data from Hacker News

Consciousness is not computation

joe-antognini.github.io

621–630 of 767 posts

Re: Consciousness is not computation

#621
post #619

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I said "non-abstract" to prevent a claim along the lines of: computation is sufficient to produce consciousness but it needs to actually run to do it and that invariably requires implementing the computation on some physical system. The point is that computation is abstract, it requires you to pick some physical system but it doesn't care which one, the result is the same regardless. If a non-abstract physical system…

Ok, so a computer with a water sprinkler attachment. Sorry, I'm not trying to be flippant, the point is any such system would be more than just a CPU, it would need interfaces with the outside world. It could have whatever peripheral systems you like. It could have quantum computational elements, even ones correlating to ones in the brain. I've just no idea what non-computational elements it might have that couldn't…

> I've just no idea what non-computational elements it might have that couldn't be substituted by computational ones or just peripheral components.

Neither does anyone else but the point is that once you accept that such "non-computational elements" might be or must be required you are no longer talking about computation alone being sufficient to produce consciousness.

Re: Consciousness is not computation

#622
post #332
post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could execute a loop that reflects on an internal model using pen and paper. Is that system conscious? Imagine only one computational step of that loop happening everyday. Does qualia arise from that? What is detecting that that one step is part of a larger series of steps that can be considered a computation? What provides the continuity? This is why the strange loop idea implemented using traditional computatio…

That's just a restating of the Chinese room argument. Like Searle you're bamboozling yourself with scale. If I was put in a magnetic field of some kind that slowed down my physical and neurological processes by 1000x would I be any less conscious? Would I be any less a human being? It would seem so to people observing me for sure, but would it change my essential nature?

And as Searle responded to that argument you are bamboozling yourself with speed. There is nothing that prove that accelerating the computation to a given speed that will make the consciousness emerge.

Re: Consciousness is not computation

#623
Consciousness is a computation. It's pattern matching self. Can you identify what represents your self? And can you serialize it to memory? And can you find your representation in memory? Then I would argue that's all there is as requirements for it.

Re: Consciousness is not computation

#624
post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The idea that there's something going on in a wet, warm, mushy brain that has a macroscopic effect, What kind of complex computation simulates the subjective experiences of wet, warm, and mushy? EDIT: my account appears to be rate limited, so i am unable to post a reply until idk when.... By "subjective" I am referring to my conscious inner life, that there is something it is like to be me. I am an experiencer becau…

You've spelled out quite well that there are things about our internal subjective experience we don't understand to a discomforting degree. But we understand really well the substrate from which those experiences arise. Imagine it this way. Imagine that mathematicians are trying to solve some problem, they don't even know if the problem is computable or not. Some genius comes around with a computer that given the nec…

To be clear, I am talking about phenomenal consciousness — which is simply the ability to subjectively experience the world and ourselves. This is distinct from metaconsciousness.

Bernardo Kastrup on phenomenal consciousness:

>Our phenomenal consciousness is eminently qualitative, not quantitative. There is something it feels like to see the colour red, which is not captured by merely noting the frequency of red light. If we were to tell Helen Keller that red is an oscillation of approximately 4.3^1014 cycles per second, she would still not know what it feels like to see red. Analogously, what it feels like to listen to a Vivaldi sonata cannot be conveyed to a person born deaf, even if we show to the person the sonata’s complete power spectrum. Experiences are felt qualities — which philosophers and neuroscientists call ‘qualia’ — not fully describable by abstract quantities.

>Some genius comes around with a computer that given the necessary input, provides the solution...but now they do know that it's computable.

Can you give me a concrete example of input/output and how we would validate any output? You are suggesting the that the brain is the program, the physical world is the necessary input, and consciousness is the output (correct me if I'm wrong). But if I wrote a program to make a perfectly accurate simulation of a kidney, would you expect it to pee on my desk? Of course you wouldn't, so I'm not sure why we would expect that of the brain and consciousness.

Going back to your example, which I like, even if we had access to the code, the code is not the actual reality. It is an abstraction. We can dig through the code all we want, but we will never reach electricity and transistors, the true reality of the program. I think this is analogous to our own reality, where we can dig into spacetime at smaller and smaller distances, but never find "true reality". A hint that this is the case is the lack of operational meaning to distances https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uz-Ve_1LX8w); the amount of energy required to probe those sizes creates a black hole. So something must* be underlying spacetime. I think that something is phenomenal consciousness, mind-at-large, pure subjectivity, call it what you like. Spacetime is the source code, and phenomenal consciousness is the electricity and transistors.

(Also just to reiterate, my HN account is rate limited, so I may not be able to reply in a timely manner to any subsequent comments).

Re: Consciousness is not computation

#625
post #620

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what is this other ingredient if it's not something physical?

It could well be something physical, but going beyond mere computationality. If I knew what it was, I'd be waiting for my Nobel prize now :) It's kind of as Newton's physics was missing the secret ingredient of special relativity. It was still physical, not magical, but not discovered yet.

You seem to be arguing for conscience as the fifth force of nature, or something quite close to it. That's basically magic.

Re: Consciousness is not computation

#626
post #624

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've spelled out quite well that there are things about our internal subjective experience we don't understand to a discomforting degree. But we understand really well the substrate from which those experiences arise. Imagine it this way. Imagine that mathematicians are trying to solve some problem, they don't even know if the problem is computable or not. Some genius comes around with a computer that given the nec…

To be clear, I am talking about phenomenal consciousness — which is simply the ability to subjectively experience the world and ourselves. This is distinct from metaconsciousness. Bernardo Kastrup on phenomenal consciousness: >Our phenomenal consciousness is eminently qualitative, not quantitative. There is something it feels like to see the colour red, which is not captured by merely noting the frequency of red ligh…

Consciousness isn't really the output, it's the category of all possible not-too-pathological running states of the program. The output is whatever the organism does to or in its environment (production of speech, movement, decisions, etc).

Re: Consciousness is not computation

#627
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…

Anti-materialism? Care to shed some light on that?

Re: Consciousness is not computation

#628
post #626
post #624

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be clear, I am talking about phenomenal consciousness — which is simply the ability to subjectively experience the world and ourselves. This is distinct from metaconsciousness. Bernardo Kastrup on phenomenal consciousness: >Our phenomenal consciousness is eminently qualitative, not quantitative. There is something it feels like to see the colour red, which is not captured by merely noting the frequency of red ligh…

Consciousness isn't really the output, it's the category of all possible not-too-pathological running states of the program. The output is whatever the organism does to or in its environment (production of speech, movement, decisions, etc).

Okay, but how do we get to the subjective experience of the experiencer? I don't see how what you've said accounts for conscious inner life.

Re: Consciousness is not computation

#629
post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I suspect we agree more than we disagree. I suspect the same, but I think there is tremendous value in taking a cosmic step back and seeing everything through the lens of information. It's the most reductionist neutral approach to the universe I can conceive us at this point in my life. > By contrast, if I construct a collection of chemicals that matches the positions of those of a real bacterium, I have created a…

> I suspect the same, but I think there is tremendous value in taking a cosmic step back and seeing everything through the lens of information. It's the most reductionist neutral approach to the universe I can conceive us at this point in my life. What is your definition of "information"? I view the concept of computation so deeply entwined with consciousness that I fail to see how it can be meaningfully applied to p…

I'm not going to attempt to define information (because I think it's beyond my ability), but what I mean by it is what I think "information" means as it relates to physical phenomena, for example the black hole information paradox [1], or Shannon's entropy [2], or constructor theory [3], or calculating-space [4], or digital physics [5].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(information_theory)

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructor_theory

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculating_Space

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics

Re: Consciousness is not computation

#630
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…

> Talking about computation and consciousness is a sideshow, this is anti-materialism by the back door. Nothing more. I get the impression that philosophers of mind are slowly coming around to the conclusion that the existence of qualia alone refutes materialism (by which I mean the view that consciousness is produced by physical processes) . This post does assume that qualia exist so if you are taking the former pos…

Nothing besides evidence that shows that the mind is somehow not connected to the body would be the only thing that could convince me that materialism isn't real

I don't care about what the philosopher thinks because I never see them use evidence to back up their claims

As a neuroscientist, we can actively see that we can manipulate the mind in real time by manipulating neurons. There is no reason to believe, whatsoever, that the mind is somehow disconnected from the brain

Post reply on HN