Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What is a mathematical structure of conscious experience?

arxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 179 posts

Re: What is a mathematical structure of conscious experience?

#41

Post by logicchains »

kilgnad wrote: post #27
logicchains wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Nothing is answered in this article. We simply don't know. No, we haven't clearly defined consciousness. For a given exact definition of consciousness, we can determine whether something fits that definition or not. If we don't clearly define it, then we're just talking about a feeling, a qualia, and it's not possible for people to reach a consensus because they're not even discussing the exact same thing when they…

The consistency arises from the fact that even though we don't know the definition, we are in agreement in what is classified as conscious. We agree that humans are conscious, we agree that rocks are not conscious. This classification is clear and points to a underlying definition we cannot fully articulate. It is more than a qualia or whatever you call it. We know it has exact parameters simply because we are able t…

> The consistency arises from the fact that even though we don't know the definition, we are in agreement in what is classified as conscious.

Clearly there's not agreement in what is classified as conscious, given this thread/article.

>We agree that humans are conscious, we agree that rocks are not conscious. This classification is clear and points to a underlying definition we cannot fully articulate. It is more than a qualia or whatever you call it.

This is a fallacy. People agree that yellow is not violet and green is not violet, but they don't agree that indigo is not violet. Just because there are some classifications on which people agree about the label this doesn't imply they agree upon all classifications. A more direct example is whether plants are conscious or not.

Re: What is a mathematical structure of conscious experience?

#42

Post by kilgnad »

dvt wrote: post #34
kilgnad wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Unless we reduce models of consciousness to purely stochastic processes, this is trivially false. And no one seriously reduces consciousness to probabilistic pattern recognition. Most things in this universe have mathematical models that can describe it. We have models for virtually everything. Thus it is reasonable to say such a model also exists for consciousness. To say what you said definitively without even kno…

> Again you don't know what you're talking about. I think that's a bit uncharitable. You're acting like people haven't been grappling with these problems for thousands of years. Searle, for example, makes a pretty good argument why symbol-processing systems will never produce consciousness (you'd have to prove that the Chinese room is conscious, etc.). It's clear, for example, that a toaster doesn't have any consciou…

Philosophers grapple with the problem the same way Greeks used mythology to grapple with the problem of reality. Thunder is not thrown by some god named Zeus. and the impossibility of a mathematical model describing consciousness cannot be explained away by a Chinese room argument that has tons and tons of qualitative holes in it.

If an atom can be described by a mathematical equation that means so can groups of atoms. If groups of atoms can be described math and if a neuron is simply a complex group of atoms then a neuron can be described by an equation. If neurons can be described by an equation then so can groups of neurons. If the brain is a group of neurons then the brain can be described by a mathematical equation. If consciousness is a physical phenomena produced by a mathematical brain then consciousness is a mathematical model.

The only way you can believe that consciousness cannot ever by described by math is if you see some break in the previous chain of logic. Most likely it's in the linking of consciousness entirely with the physical brain. Likely you believe in a soul or something if you don't agree with the logic. Which just means you're using mythology and concepts outside of science to derive your conclusions. Again, lighting is not thrown down from the sky by a god named Zeus.

It's clear a toaster is not conscious. But what chatGPT is, is not clear. Placing it in a category where we aren't sure is reasonable and also it's a category agreed upon by many people. It would be a bit uncharitable to demand that your categorization of chatGPT is more correct then other peoples. Even you must be be aware of the ambiguity associated with chatGPT despite your stubborn stance to the contrary.

Re: What is a mathematical structure of conscious experience?

#43

Post by kilgnad »

logicchains wrote: post #41
kilgnad wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The consistency arises from the fact that even though we don't know the definition, we are in agreement in what is classified as conscious. We agree that humans are conscious, we agree that rocks are not conscious. This classification is clear and points to a underlying definition we cannot fully articulate. It is more than a qualia or whatever you call it. We know it has exact parameters simply because we are able t…

> The consistency arises from the fact that even though we don't know the definition, we are in agreement in what is classified as conscious. Clearly there's not agreement in what is classified as conscious, given this thread/article. >We agree that humans are conscious, we agree that rocks are not conscious. This classification is clear and points to a underlying definition we cannot fully articulate. It is more tha…

>Clearly there's not agreement in what is classified as conscious, given this thread/article.

There is general agreement. We agree for most things like rocks and humans..there are a few things where we aren't sure, like chatGPT.

But in general humans are in agreement for most things.

>Just because there are some classifications on which people agree about the label this doesn't imply they agree upon all classifications.

Well just because ambiguities for certain things exist doesn't preclude the existence of things that are utterly clear to be conscious or unconscious.

We know humans are conscious and we know humans have all the required parameters to make them classified as conscious. We just can't deduce the exact thresholds and features that cause a phase shift when changed. But we know these parameters exist.

Re: What is a mathematical structure of conscious experience?

#44

Post by epgui »

jsuth wrote: post #36
conrod_ wrote: post #13

Is there a book or resource that describes the state of the art in our knowledge and understanding about the nature of consciousness (Not cognition) and provides a survey of the popular and promising theories? Readable by someone who isn't in the field(s). Maybe even a good popsci book on the topic that is the neuroscience's equivalent of "Universe in a nutshell"

Consciousness: An Introduction by Susan Blackmore is exactly what you're looking for. Make sure you get the latest edition. https://www.amazon.com/Consciousness-Emily-Troscianko-Susan-... She has another book called Conversations on Consciousness that's basically transcribed interviews with prominent figures that's also worth checking out. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/254499.Conversations_on_...

I can't say how good this book is, but the author has a PhD in parapsychology. This makes me question how prone they are to magical thinking, and also whether I'd want to read what they have to say about this topic.

Yes this comment is an ad hominem, and no I have not read the book... All I have is a skeptical hunch that this might not represent "the state of the art" on the topic.

Re: What is a mathematical structure of conscious experience?

#45

Post by ethanwillis »

naasking wrote: post #25
ethanwillis wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A big lookup table.

A lookup table with compression. Intelligence is a form of compression.

The vast majority of information cannot be compressed and the proof of this is trivial by a simple counting argument.

In any case, it is still just a lookup table. Compression, unless lossy, doesn't change the meaning of the information in this lookup table. It just makes access more indirect.

Hutter might think that intelligence is a form of compression, but I think that's just wishful thinking. It might be my ego speaking to say I think I'm the one that's right. But it's not my ego speaking to say that there's no hard proof to say unequivocally that intelligence is equivalent to compression.

Re: What is a mathematical structure of conscious experience?

#46

Post by didericis »

l33t233372 wrote: post #38
didericis wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depending on what exactly you mean by “the nature of consciousness”, it’s fundamentally impossible to answer. The fact that we think we can observe and comprehend a mechanism doing the observation does not preclude things we cannot see. You might be able to pan a cctv camera and get some insight about the camera itself if you find a reflection, but you can’t pan it over to the linux driver. It is not a given that all…

This school of thought strikes me as fundamentally opposed to the whole idea of the scientific method. We try to find out about these black boxes through repeated observation, theorizing, and testing. It seems short sighted to suggest we can’t find out things about consciousness in a similar way.

The scientific method is about paying strict and close attention to what we can observe. The black boxes we can make sense of must have enough datapoints within the observable universe to be understood.

We can almost definitely learn a lot more about consciousness related phenomenon than we already know through science, and I don’t know the answer to OP’s question about the current cutting edge of that, but I think it’s always going to be about related phenomenon rather than consciousness itself. Unlike other phenomenon, which are only revealed to us because aspects of their existence appear in our observable universe, we don’t really “observe” the core experience of consciousness. The goalposts can be moved indefinitely whenever consciousness related phenomenon are made sense of. The fundamental experience is not observable, which means we can’t really see that black box at all. To me the mystery of that is much more satisfying than thinking we can ever get a definitive answer.

Re: What is a mathematical structure of conscious experience?

#47

Post by vba616 »

Lyapunov_Lover wrote: post #26
dvt wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is chatGPT a mathematical model of consciousness? Unless we reduce models of consciousness to purely stochastic processes, this is trivially false. And no one seriously reduces consciousness to probabilistic pattern recognition. > We know it doesn't represent the whole experience... It doesn't represent any experience. ChatGPT doesn't "experience" things as conscious things do. It's not even comparable to the exper…

That's the (hard) problem of qualia. You can't say for sure that ChatGPT doesn't experience anything. And I can't say for sure that you do, either. It's trivial to dismiss it on the basis of "well obviously it's like that"—far more difficult is to say something about why it's not like that. I think consciousness has to be the product of an algorithmic process. I think this process can be summed up as "prediction". I…

>You can't say for sure that ChatGPT doesn't experience anything. And I can't say for sure that you do, either.

The question rattling around in my brain tonight is - if some, many, people don't develop a theory of mind as young children, how many of the people around me are like this? Is it just the philosophers?

It seems of much more moment than the essence of ChatGPT.

Re: What is a mathematical structure of conscious experience?

#48

Post by conrod_ »

didericis wrote: post #32
conrod_ wrote: post #13

Is there a book or resource that describes the state of the art in our knowledge and understanding about the nature of consciousness (Not cognition) and provides a survey of the popular and promising theories? Readable by someone who isn't in the field(s). Maybe even a good popsci book on the topic that is the neuroscience's equivalent of "Universe in a nutshell"

Depending on what exactly you mean by “the nature of consciousness”, it’s fundamentally impossible to answer. The fact that we think we can observe and comprehend a mechanism doing the observation does not preclude things we cannot see. You might be able to pan a cctv camera and get some insight about the camera itself if you find a reflection, but you can’t pan it over to the linux driver. It is not a given that all…

Perhaps. But we don't know. Maybe a plausible theory exists waiting to be discovered. New findings in neuroscience and computer science give us tantalizing clues and hints about what may lie behind the curtain. This is a question that has haunted humanity for millenia and we are fortunate to be alive in the best time in history to ask it. Its not time to throw in the towel yet!

Re: What is a mathematical structure of conscious experience?

#49

Post by Helmut10001 »

conrod_ wrote: post #13

Is there a book or resource that describes the state of the art in our knowledge and understanding about the nature of consciousness (Not cognition) and provides a survey of the popular and promising theories? Readable by someone who isn't in the field(s). Maybe even a good popsci book on the topic that is the neuroscience's equivalent of "Universe in a nutshell"

Cognition and consciousness are not easily separable. Some psychology and neuroscience publications that I found particularly good: Gibson (1950), Ittelson (1973), Kosslyn (2005), Northoff (2004) ("Mind–body problem"), Dewey, & Bentley (1949). Particularly the first and last should get you started.

    [1]: Gibson, J. J. (1950). The perception of the visual world. Boston: Houghton Mifflin
    [2]: Ittelson, W.H. (1973). Environment and Cognition. Seminar Press, New York, NY, 187 pp
    [3]: Kosslyn, S. (2005). Mental images and the brain. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 22, 333–347
    [4]: Northoff, G. (2004). Philosophy of the brain: The brain problem. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins Pub.
    [5]: Dewey, J., & Bentley, A. F. (1949). Knowing and the known. Boston: Beacon Press

Re: What is a mathematical structure of conscious experience?

#50

Post by rslice »

I can recommend this presentation by Joscha Bach on the subject:

Virtualism as a Perspective on Consciousness, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6oekXIQ-LM

It honors the richness and complexity of conscious experience and provides a refreshing computational perspective on it.

Post reply on HN