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

101–110 of 305 posts

Re: Decades-long bet on consciousness ends

#101

Post by PartiallyTyped »

shusaku wrote: post #18
PartiallyTyped wrote: post #2

> Christof Koch wagered David Chalmers 25 years ago that researchers would learn how the brain achieves consciousness by now. But the quest continues. Ehhhh the title is a click bait imho.

You don’t get to complain about click bait while quoting part of the actual title. It’s not their fault HackerNews artificially limits title lengths; the subtitle would’ve been visible when shared on sites whose clicks actually matter like Twitter or Facebook

The point should have been the update of the theories, not some bet. That could have very well been conveyed in the title, but it wouldn’t garnish as much attention, would it?

Re: Decades-long bet on consciousness ends

#103

Post by vehemenz »

4ad wrote: post #69
Ralfp wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But if its a software, then how and where is it stored and where is the execution logic for it?

> how and where is it stored I don't know, but it doesn't matter, just like it doesn't matter if the code on your computer is on a HDD or SSD. > and where is the execution logic for it? I don't know, but it doesn't matter either. It's a question about the workings of the computer, not of the software. Electronic computers make it really easy to separate the software from the hardware, and make it easy to dump the sof…

I don’t think there’s any guarantee that such a distinction should be evident, let alone obvious in human brains. Modern computers are for general purpose computing, whereas brains and analog computers are highly specialized.

Re: Decades-long bet on consciousness ends

#104

Post by jfengel »

sabellito wrote: post #48
jfengel wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

Didn't you just agree that "consciousness" is not defined? Then how can you follow that with "... it's still clear that the bet is lost. We do not understand in 2023 how neurons give rise to consciousness"?

They started with a hazy idea of what consciousness is. They bet that they'd have a better definition.

There was certainly the possibility that they could have disagreed on the outcome. But there is really no dispute.

The possibility of disagreement would have mattered if the bet itself were significant, but it wasn't. It was always a tiny stake.

Re: Decades-long bet on consciousness ends

#105

Post by Kim_Bruning »

pmarreck wrote: post #83
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~…

> just an emergent phenomenon The lack of tangibility or measurability ("rationality") of said "emergent phenomenon" is a problem with this line of reasoning IMHO. This is essentially no different in utility as an explanatory theory than the religious explanations.

I think a lot of people misunderstand what emergence is [*]. But that might actually be a red herring anyway.

The real problem is how does one measure consciousness in the first place?

[*] it's less of a super strange magical phenomenon, and more like a rather mundane philosophical version of mathematics' integration.

Re: Decades-long bet on consciousness ends

#106

Post by jfengel »

andrepd wrote: post #58
jfengel wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> consciousness without qualia Isn't that a contradiction in terms? And how do you know if they have/haven't qualia? :)

That was the question they were hoping to answer. We still don't know.

Re: Decades-long bet on consciousness ends

#107

Post by mannykannot »

imtringued wrote: post #61
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~…

The problem with this argument is that everything is conscious at that point. The consciousness may operate at geological or faster than human time scales but who is to say that we operate very quickly or slowly to begin with? Your computer is already conscious before you even loaded software into it, before you added your fancy machine learning AI. The software merely gives the conscious processor its ability to exp…

Insofar as this premise (it is not really an argument) says any sufficiently powerful cognitive system is conscious, it is not saying that everything (or even most things) are.

A more pertinent objection is that the phrase I quoted above is just a placeholder for anything resembling an explanation.

Re: Decades-long bet on consciousness ends

#108

Post by detourdog »

jfengel wrote: post #42
detourdog wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always thought the first sensation was the separation of darkness from light. From there subtleties and exceptions consciousness grew ever more complex. Every time a difference was found a new layer of consciousness was developed. Today we can perceive so many differences and weigh their outcomes without fully understanding their roots.

The first sensation was probably chemical rather than light. Organisms long predate photosynthesis. The early earth had plenty of energetic molecules floating in the water.

I thought light was chemical? I think photosynthesis is a highly evolved process. Much higher evolved to be considered the beginning.

Re: Decades-long bet on consciousness ends

#109

Post by literalis »

hnfong wrote: post #57
tunnuz wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Short answer is no. The working definition is "I am conscious, I know it. Anything that looks sufficiently like me is presumed to have consciousness."

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

LLMs should make us take seriously that the whole idea of consciousness is just superstition and unnecessary.

That definition is precisely how people define something that isn't real and doesn't exist.

If you can get there, it is quite amusing to think about a huge group of people who would think the idea of angels as complete foolish superstition but consciousness? Of course, we just haven't located this extra property of the brain, yet! It is there though, I know it is because I know is.

Re: Decades-long bet on consciousness ends

#110

Post by jfengel »

0xEF wrote: post #62
jfengel wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

Personally, I wish scientist made more of these public friendly bets. I feel they really help promote the discussion to a wider audience abd brings a bit of spirited competition to the matter rather than the capitalist motives we normally see with research. Something like The Long Now's Long Bets but with your average scientists where us regular folk can throw our two cents in (without the membership fee).

I'm a big fan of public engagement with science, but it's a double edged sword. A lot of people get the impression that they have a good handle on it and an opinion that demands attention.

I cannot tell you how tired I am of people arguing about the merits of string theory, where effectively none of the people involved know even the first thing about it. It's not that people shouldn't get involved, but involvement should be more than just cheerleading as if it were a sports game.

Maybe that's inevitable. Maybe the public engagement will always produce 99 dunces shouting and one young scientist who goes on to study it for real. But it can be disheartening when it looks as if 100% of the public discussion is both ignorant and mean.

Post reply on HN