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

Decades-long bet on consciousness ends

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 305 posts

Re: Decades-long bet on consciousness ends

#31

Post by jfengel »

olddustytrail wrote: post #15
TheAceOfHearts wrote: post #10

How droll, isn't this the equivalent of trying to figure out how an operating system works by trying to look at activity on an encrypted SSD? And how exactly is this a win for philosophers? I'm not aware of any philosopher having made meaningful strides within the subject either. I'm sure once someone figures out how consciousness works it'll be irrefutable while seeming incredibly obvious in hindsight. Which, honest…

Nobody said it was a win for philosophers. It says it's a win for a philosopher (singular), and it is because he won the bet and therefore won a case of wine.

It is a sort of win for the kind of philosophy this philosopher practices. He thinks that there is more going on in consciousness than just neurons firing.

It doesn't really prove anything, of course. I actually don't think much of Chalmers' work. But it's very remarkable that the bet expired just as machines are coming tantalizingly close to being consciousness without qualia.

Re: Decades-long bet on consciousness ends

#32

Post by FartyMcFarter »

4ad wrote: post #20

It seems so obvious to me that consciousness (whatever it is) is essentially software so poking at the brain is looking at the wrong layer of abstraction.

But the "software" runs on the brain, and is stored on the brain. How can you possibly understand it without touching the brain at all? You could make hypotheses about how our consciousness works, but testing and validating them in a white-box manner seems impossible.

Re: Decades-long bet on consciousness ends

#33

Post by [deleted] »

TheAceOfHearts wrote: post #10

How droll, isn't this the equivalent of trying to figure out how an operating system works by trying to look at activity on an encrypted SSD? And how exactly is this a win for philosophers? I'm not aware of any philosopher having made meaningful strides within the subject either. I'm sure once someone figures out how consciousness works it'll be irrefutable while seeming incredibly obvious in hindsight. Which, honest…

[deleted]

Re: Decades-long bet on consciousness ends

#34

Post by hcks »

pa7x1 wrote: post #7

I wouldn't be surprised if consciousness ~conscience~ is just an emergent phenomenon resulting from any sufficiently powerful cognitive system (either biological or artificial) with sufficient inputs of its environment and, crucially, of itself. So as to be able to develop a rich model of itself and its relationship with its environment, and that thing will resemble a whole lot what we call consciousness ~conscience~…

> an emergent phenomenon resulting from any sufficiently powerful cognitive system

This is a meme that gets thrown around a lot but if you think about it you’ll realise it’s meaningless.

Also it’s not possible to measure consciousness (in the ”hard“ sense, as in ”why do I have qualia”, obviously you can assert something respond to external stimuli easily), therefore the question won’t ever be answered.

Re: Decades-long bet on consciousness ends

#35

Post by tunnuz »

pa7x1 wrote: post #7

I wouldn't be surprised if consciousness ~conscience~ is just an emergent phenomenon resulting from any sufficiently powerful cognitive system (either biological or artificial) with sufficient inputs of its environment and, crucially, of itself. So as to be able to develop a rich model of itself and its relationship with its environment, and that thing will resemble a whole lot what we call consciousness ~conscience~…

Do we even have a sound definition of what consciousness is / looks like from the outside? How do we recognise it?

Re: Decades-long bet on consciousness ends

#36

Post by jfengel »

civilized wrote: post #14

Consciousness is not a well-scoped object of scientific investigation. It doesn't have a definition or characterization based on observable things or behavior. If I were a natural scientist, I wouldn't take a bet that I can scientifically explain a phenomenon which I can't even describe in terms of observable things.

That's correct, but it's still clear that the bet is lost. We do not understand in 2023 how neurons give rise to consciousness.

Maybe there will come a point where it's in the gray area but not today. We know that people act in ways that we cannot explain even a little bit.

Also, the bet is friendly. It's just a way to express their different underlying opinions. Neither one is put out by it. They will likely enjoy some of the wine together.

Re: Decades-long bet on consciousness ends

#37

Post by sirk390 »

olddustytrail wrote: post #15
TheAceOfHearts wrote: post #10

How droll, isn't this the equivalent of trying to figure out how an operating system works by trying to look at activity on an encrypted SSD? And how exactly is this a win for philosophers? I'm not aware of any philosopher having made meaningful strides within the subject either. I'm sure once someone figures out how consciousness works it'll be irrefutable while seeming incredibly obvious in hindsight. Which, honest…

Nobody said it was a win for philosophers. It says it's a win for a philosopher (singular), and it is because he won the bet and therefore won a case of wine.

It could be double speak, but the obvious thing you understand from this formulation it that he won because he is a philosopher. Not that he won, and by the way he is a philosopher.

Re: Decades-long bet on consciousness ends

#38

Post by agumonkey »

pa7x1 wrote: post #7

I wouldn't be surprised if consciousness ~conscience~ is just an emergent phenomenon resulting from any sufficiently powerful cognitive system (either biological or artificial) with sufficient inputs of its environment and, crucially, of itself. So as to be able to develop a rich model of itself and its relationship with its environment, and that thing will resemble a whole lot what we call consciousness ~conscience~…

I still can't fathom that I feel that I feel what I feel.

Re: Decades-long bet on consciousness ends

#40

Post by heart4e »

detourdog wrote: post #25
pa7x1 wrote: post #7

I wouldn't be surprised if consciousness ~conscience~ is just an emergent phenomenon resulting from any sufficiently powerful cognitive system (either biological or artificial) with sufficient inputs of its environment and, crucially, of itself. So as to be able to develop a rich model of itself and its relationship with its environment, and that thing will resemble a whole lot what we call consciousness ~conscience~…

I wonder if anybody has graphed how long and how many genetic mutations have taken place between the miasma of life and 500,000 years ago. It seems that tracking the genetic mutations would provide an approximation of the computing complexity needed. One could also look at the death rate as error rate for the success of computations.

[dead]
Post reply on HN