Live data from Hacker News

Is artificial consciousness achievable? Lessons from the human brain

arxiv.org

281–290 of 604 posts

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

#281

What is this obsession with making computers human-like? We can put those machine to better uses than forgetting, having biases, making subtle or gross mistakes (hello, ChatGPT) like we do. The AI that some apparently consider top-notch today is only good at powering NPCs in video games. The more serious the use-case, the more harmful it becomes. Moreover, achieving artificial consciousness is only good at fueling en…

I think humanity is afraid of being alone.

Damn straight. If space travel is so bloody hard, I'll just make the damn aliens myself.

Related, but LLMs are the ultimate example of humans following the tradition of the Timaeus and imitating the demiurgos - the divine crafter, as the gods did when they crafted the demigods, as the demigods did when they crafted us, and as we do when we craft machine intelligence. Neo-platonism engaged with this idea a long time ago.

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

#282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The framework of materialism posits that there’s a physical universe and consciousness is an emergent property of physical processes. This view is so prevalent in the western world it’s hard to imagine how it could be anything else. As an alternative, imagine that consciousness is primary. After all, any evidence that you have about the material world happens as an appearance within consciousness. (See “brain in a va…

>I’m suggesting that the model you choose is axiomatic - taken as given as opposed to inferred from evidence

The brain is the seat of consciousness and the brain is material, therefore consciousness is emergent from material. My evidence that the brain is the seat of consciousness is that when my head hurts it impairs my thoughts, and that my eyes are connected to by brain.

Stated a bit differently:

All events must have a cause, therefore consciousness must have a cause. The brain is the most likely candidate for the cause of consciousness. The brain is material, therefore consciousness is emergent from material.

What role do you think the brain plays in consciousness? Do you believe that events must have causes?

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

#283
post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

There are tons of written books and journals on this topic. My favorite: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/shadows-of-the-mind-...

Thank you, this is a good resource.

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

#284
post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how we can learn to experience qualia. If the author means self awareness instead of consciousness that would make more sense.

I think language acquisition provides a pretty compelling example of learning affecting the experience of qualia. When someone is learning to speak a foreign language, there is often an period where certain sounds are difficult for the learner to produce, because those sounds are not present or are not distinguished in the learner's native tongue. For example, the R and L sounds of English are tricky for a native Jap…

That's an example of learning changing which qualia you experience, not teaching you to experience qualia at all. Almost unrelated question.

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

#285

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…

> I’d suggest it’s particularly important to explore these discussions as dispassionately as possible if you regard materialism as the only theory of mind that has any scientific credibility or validity. I agree, and similarly for those who feel that materialism cannot possibly explain consciousness. Kastrup, for one, seems to sometimes behave as though ridicule makes his philosophy more correct.

> and similarly for those who feel that materialism cannot possibly explain consciousness.

Perhaps for some it's indeed a matter of "feelings". But for others it's a conviction built from reasoning that leads to self-validating and irreducible truths. If you seriously go into this, the only possibilities left once you've dug and eliminated all mistaken assumptions are not material. It can be counter-intuitive and does take a bit of work to reason your way to those conclusions, which is why it's admittedly not a popular outlook. But once you grok it, you don't go back. The fact that materialism is slowly going out of style is telling.

Whenever I exchange with someone who makes concessions about consciousness possibly being the product of matter, it's due to one of two things: either some holes haven't yet been covered in their own explorations, or they're still oblivious to some of the implications of their current position.

Materialism is fast being eliminated as a possible antecedent to consciousness with reasoning and logic, not simply with beliefs. Currently, it's being salvaged in popular forms of dualism, where it would be a co-primitive of reality with consciousness (e.g. panpsychism). But even this position is just a short stop-over on the way to idealism, as it creates new problems and is just less parsimonious than simply saying consciousness first.

An example of a relatively elusive and subtle realization to get, but that also becomes rather difficult to renounce once you grok it, are qualia and how they lead to the hard problem of consciousness. Qualia are so enmeshed in our experience that people have a hard time first seeing how divorced from brain activity they actually are. If you don't get qualia, you can't get the hard problem and how it's really an impossible problem (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WX0xWJpr0FY).

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

#286
post #224
post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

?

"Any kind of big idea which is spread primarily through video instead of text is immediately suspicious. Could you please send a link to a written version of the main points from any one of those video?"

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

#287
post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My reply is an attempt to address the original comment with precision. To diagram its intended meaning: > alternative theories of consciousness "Any body of academic thought" [I accede the scientific legitimacy of the domain of discourse, rather than dismissing it.] > know where to go to find well-argued positions on the topic. "whose paradigmatic communication medium" [This is the beginning of my challenge to the Or…

OK, let me rewrite it: > 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? > Academic content is usually in text, not video. Do you have links to written work from them? Shorter and the exact same meaning. Also doesn't sound like you've been perusing…

No, the second approach's meaning is more obtuse. What does "usually" mean? Are there acceptable alternatives? If content is in an alternative mode of communication, is it acceptable?

These vagaries permitted in your revision are clear and inherent in the original commenter's motion. Therefore, I submit your adjudication of "shorter and the exact same meaning" is woefully superficial in it's drive for simplicity, to the point there is no thought left that is clear in the original garden. Further, exact and technical communication is what separates Hacker News commenting from the hordes of subreddits that thrive on imprecise babble.

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

#288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can copy an existing book, word for word (maybe not even that if it uses a different character set, unless you're doing photocopies). Write a new book without understanding the language? No way - not one that makes any sense. Not unless you're going with the "million monkeys" approach (and if you did try that approach, you wouldn't live long enough to succeed in writing one actual coherent book in the foreign lan…

As a tangent on this, it'd be such an interesting experiment to see how far one could go in deciphering/understanding a new language and attempting to write a new book in that language based on the content of a single, probably fairly long, book. It feels like it should be theoretically possible, but I doubt it's ever been tried. Maybe something like understanding aincent languages from limited, fragmented sources is…

Congratulations, you have just invented large language models.

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

#289
post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At minimum, this does not capture that I _am_ challenging the Original Commenter ("prima facie suspect") to more rigorously defend his position, but doing so respectfully. "One salient" written source is a carefully chosen framing: the OC cannot meet it by replying with support peripheral or meta to the main argument, but neither can he dismiss my request as burdensome, demanding multiple links. The proposed revision…

Communication is about being understood. Not about crafting the perfect sentence. Even if you craft the perfect sentence, that will be the perfect sentence _for you_, and it might be completely lost on many people, some perhaps even more intelligent than you. The subtext of "Academic content is usually in text, not video" is "I don't trust this because it's in video, not text". Now if you say that is not clear, sure,…

> Communication is about being understood.

This assertion is in error. Communication is about transmitting information. What happens to that information after the transmissions is beyond scope of communication.

Don't get me wrong -- we have communication companies and classes named "business communication" and fields of inquiry titled "communication." Yet, the common trend to each of these is wrapping the transmission of information up in additional services. Analogous to how OpenAI and Mistral wrap up LLMs that you and I and anyone can run on our own into well-defined managed services. We use the term for these companies "Generative AI" or "LLMs" when in reality they too are wrappers around a much simpler concept.

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

#290
post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that different than saying the function of the lungs, kidneys and heart can't be reduced to matter interactions? How is the brain special?

well the brain is special because it gives rise to consciousness. lungs, kidneys and heart don't

There's a lot of nerves and bacteria in the digestive system that might contribute some of it. That and various hormonal glands and reproductive systems.
Post reply on HN