31–40 of 326 posts
My running conspiracy theory is that qualia is actually some kind of jailbreak on physical reality. Enough of the systems I've seen in real life are leaky at their edge cases that I wouldn't be totally surprised if even the ones I consider most fundamental are too.
My running conspiracy theory is that qualia is actually some kind of jailbreak on physical reality. Enough of the systems I've seen in real life are leaky at their edge cases that I wouldn't be totally surprised if even the ones I consider most fundamental are too.
"If material world is like 3 points of a triangle then consciousness can be as inscribed circle"
> many phenomena that can’t be inferred from the goings-on at the microscopic level, it is nonetheless a real, emergent feature of the macroscopic world. He offered the physics of gases as a parallel example. At the micro level, one talks of atoms, molecules and forces; at the macro level, one speaks of pressure, volume and temperature. These are two kinds of explanations, depending on the “level” being studied Putti…
It's the standard context for thermodynamics (macro) and statistical mechanics (micro) explanations. Sometimes called coarse-graining and fine-graining.
For dark matter there are 3 potential levels:
- micro would be be new dark subatomic particles (WIMPs), or sterile right-handed neutrinos in the Standard Model (see Turok);
- meso is macroscopic clumps of those particles (dark stars) /OR/ no micro, but dark conventional matter objects, like naked black holes, neutron stars or brown dwarves (MACHOs), or perhaps just lots of dust;
- macro would be the truly cosmological state of the whole universe (a stat mech theory over the micro/meso). Think dark matter fluids, and phase changes to dark superfluids, that might have MONDian effects on gravity at the galactic level - and beyond!
Especially considering recent advances in the neurosciences, and where they intersect with systems theory (see: Friston), it seems inevitable to conclude that learning systems -- mammalian nervous systems being quite architecturally specialized but nonetheless made of the same stuff as the rest of the universe -- generally experience consciousness. Note for the layperson: consciousness is not necessarily awareness (m…
I don't think so. There's no reason to assume a nematode or an LLM is conscious. The latter doesn't even have anything to be conscious of.
Ages ago, Minksy has half-jokingly said that consciousness is probably a feedback loop. It makes sense, but it does require the learning system to be able to observe itself in sufficient detail and have sufficient power to model that observation.
The remark about the null hypothesis doesn't make sense. It's a bad practice from NHST (the very model that led to the reproducibility crisis), and is generally assumed to be the hypothesis to test against. It's not the hypothesis we know to be true. And experience informs us that consciousness is not universal, so it's not our best hypothesis about life or matter.
> many phenomena that can’t be inferred from the goings-on at the microscopic level, it is nonetheless a real, emergent feature of the macroscopic world. He offered the physics of gases as a parallel example. At the micro level, one talks of atoms, molecules and forces; at the macro level, one speaks of pressure, volume and temperature. These are two kinds of explanations, depending on the “level” being studied Putti…
That's not a novel insight, it's a standard way of interrogating systems at various levels and has been in common intellectual discourse for some time now.
Btw, no one said it was a novel insight
Psychology, and specifically DBT practitioners seem to have the belief that consciousness is at odds with emotions, and that one must struggle to access their own consciousness. There is the emotional, intellectual, and ‘wise’ minds, and then you, with agency to give credence towards one or another. To be an observer of your thoughts… while this may lead to healthy outcomes, I’ve found the model disturbing. Who is th…
To be an observer of your thoughts, feelings, and emotions is not a practice that's limited to DBT or psychology. It has roots in Eastern spiritual practices.
> many phenomena that can’t be inferred from the goings-on at the microscopic level, it is nonetheless a real, emergent feature of the macroscopic world. He offered the physics of gases as a parallel example. At the micro level, one talks of atoms, molecules and forces; at the macro level, one speaks of pressure, volume and temperature. These are two kinds of explanations, depending on the “level” being studied Putti…
No, it's not a great insight - unless you have not studied physics before. It's the standard context for thermodynamics (macro) and statistical mechanics (micro) explanations. Sometimes called coarse-graining and fine-graining. For dark matter there are 3 potential levels: - micro would be be new dark subatomic particles (WIMPs), or sterile right-handed neutrinos in the Standard Model (see Turok); - meso is macroscop…
Now, regarding the dark matter issue, maybe there are more levels that models can be separated in. It seems overly simplistic to separate the whole immensity of the universe in only 3 levels