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

Is artificial consciousness achievable? Lessons from the human brain

arxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 604 posts

Re: Is artificial consciousness achievable? Lessons from the human brain

#171

Post by QuadmasterXLII »

tsimionescu wrote: post #77
QuadmasterXLII wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a puzzle with a known solution, although we have obviously not found an algorithm that passes. Casually isolate the being/algorithm from known conscious beings, put it with a bunch of its friends instead, and see if it starts arguing with them about qualia. This will of course require creating an AI self-training algorithm strong enough to invent language independently (otherwise you get LLMs which are likely…

This might be sufficient, but it wouldn't be necessary. A lot of humans (though not all) believe that at least some mammals, like dogs or chimps, are conscious, though we know for a fact that they don't discuss their qualia.

Definitely not necessary. I have no idea how to define a measurable result that is necessary for consciousness, but a thought experiment with a physically measurable outcome that is sufficient proves that consciousness can inpact the material world

Re: Is artificial consciousness achievable? Lessons from the human brain

#172

Post by [deleted] »

kbrkbr wrote: post #128

I want to open a side thread about your definitions or descriptions of what "consciousness" is. I think that could be pretty interesting after reading all the comments, and I think there's a lot of knowledge hidden here that we could throw together. Some things that I understood, in my words: - consciousness is probably not reducible to smaller, non-conscious parts of which it is composed. You could maybe say it is i…

[deleted]

Re: Is artificial consciousness achievable? Lessons from the human brain

#173

Post by thriftwy »

hypertele-Xii wrote: post #147
thriftwy wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> creating an artificial entity that is conscious and self-aware in a human-like manner is as straightforward as modeling the human brain is monistic materialism. Why then, not modelling such ebtity isn't creating a self-aware entity? After all, the outcome of a computation does not depend on whether it is actually done.

There are computations, the outcomes of which are unknown unknown until actually done.

What changes when they are known? I believr it affects yout consciousness, not the one being simulated. The latter does not have "I'm being actually simulated" input

Re: Is artificial consciousness achievable? Lessons from the human brain

#174

Post by jpt4 »

tomhoward wrote: post #11

I’m writing this comment so that people who want to know more about alternative theories of consciousness (to materialism/physicalism [1]) can know where to go to find well-argued positions on the topic. (To be clear, I’m not here to argue about the topic or try to persuade anyone of any position – that’s a waste of everyone’s time). I recommend seeking out discussions involving: - Federico Faggin: inventor of silico…

Any body of academic thought whose paradigmatic communication medium is video rather than text is prima facie suspect. Might you please link a written statement of the salient position(s) of any one of these gentlemen?

Re: Is artificial consciousness achievable? Lessons from the human brain

#175

Post by zeroonetwothree »

jugg1es wrote: post #167
monstertank wrote: post #159

I never understood this. Evolution basically says humans are conscious matter...why would that not be replicatable via an intelligent designer (humans)? Randomness created consciousness from a single cell...why would that be the most efficient solution?

We can't replicate something we don't understand. The mechanism for consciousness is not understood at all right now and could actually be based on quantum effects that we haven't detected yet. It's also possible that it is only achievable in an organic machine. Until we understand how consciousness actually arises, the best we can do is a simulacrum of it.

We can’t replicate it now but it doesn’t means it’s impossible.

Like no one thinks that humans visiting Pluto is impossible, it’s just not something we can feasibly do right now.

Re: Is artificial consciousness achievable? Lessons from the human brain

#176

Post by NikolaNovak »

tomhoward wrote: post #11

I’m writing this comment so that people who want to know more about alternative theories of consciousness (to materialism/physicalism [1]) can know where to go to find well-argued positions on the topic. (To be clear, I’m not here to argue about the topic or try to persuade anyone of any position – that’s a waste of everyone’s time). I recommend seeking out discussions involving: - Federico Faggin: inventor of silico…

Thanks! Any links to written word? I just don't do much youtubing, especially for scientific or philosophical areas where information density can be high and videos are infuriatingly inefficient :-(

Re: Is artificial consciousness achievable? Lessons from the human brain

#177

Post by zeroonetwothree »

jacobsimon wrote: post #169
monstertank wrote: post #159

I never understood this. Evolution basically says humans are conscious matter...why would that not be replicatable via an intelligent designer (humans)? Randomness created consciousness from a single cell...why would that be the most efficient solution?

I agree but even if you take materialism for granted, we’ve yet to uncover the exact biological mechanism. It’s entirely possible that it is unique to carbon-based and/or analog brains.

That wouldn’t really be consistent with the laws of physics as we know them. So it would require a significant change in our scientific theories (which is possible, but I wouldn’t bet on it)

Re: Is artificial consciousness achievable? Lessons from the human brain

#178

Post by moi2388 »

jugg1es wrote: post #167
monstertank wrote: post #159

I never understood this. Evolution basically says humans are conscious matter...why would that not be replicatable via an intelligent designer (humans)? Randomness created consciousness from a single cell...why would that be the most efficient solution?

We can't replicate something we don't understand. The mechanism for consciousness is not understood at all right now and could actually be based on quantum effects that we haven't detected yet. It's also possible that it is only achievable in an organic machine. Until we understand how consciousness actually arises, the best we can do is a simulacrum of it.

Why not? I can replicate a book in a foreign without understanding the language?

Re: Is artificial consciousness achievable? Lessons from the human brain

#179

Post by zer00eyz »

hiAndrewQuinn wrote: post #3

We don't even know whether other human beings are conscious, man. The only thing which we might say with much certainty is that things which are more "like us" along some metric are more likely to be actually conscious, and things which are less "like us" are less likely to be so. Maybe everything is conscious. Maybe nothing except one's own self. But you'll never truly know one way or another, even if humanity inven…

> We don't even know whether other human beings are conscious, man.

This isnt an interesting path outside the paradox of proof. We are fine disregarding that there are truths that are unprovable in math... I think we need to make that leap in this realm as well.

Concisousness is also probably a bad term, concepts like sentience and sapience need to be the ones we are talking about. We might get to one, long before the other...

Re: Is artificial consciousness achievable? Lessons from the human brain

#180

Post by mistermann »

CooCooCaCha wrote: post #141
anon291 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the sense that science is ultimately a religious enterprise expressing our belief in a constant, unseen, unchanging reality (which is not a universal belief by any means, and is utterly religious in nature), then yes, this is true. On the other hand, if we take an irreligious look at things and try to keep focus on just what we observe, one is forced to make the opposite conclusion, as the very basic building bloc…

That’s not what science is at all. If reality changes science will adapt.

You are declaring it to be a fact that science is flawless. Defining something to be true by definition can certainly cause it to be appear to be true (read some forum discussions among even smart people on the internet if you do not believe this), but it doesn't guarantee that it will be.
Post reply on HN