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

331–340 of 604 posts

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

#331

Post by fwip »

xvector wrote: post #99
chasd00 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Be careful for what you wish for. There’s no guarantee immortality doesn’t result in eternal suffering.

Wait, where did I say that immortality would be mandated!? Of course you'd get to choose when you want to shuffle off the mortal coil. For me, personally, I don't see that being the case for many hundreds or even many thousands of years at least. I'm nearly 30 and I feel like I've barely lived a blink of an eye.

I feel like that would require society to get pretty chill about suicide. In a world where everyone is immortal-by-default, I can actually see the opposite happening - the fear of death increasing from its absence, and becoming an even greater taboo.

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

#332

Post by [deleted] »

tomrod wrote: post #287
dj_mc_merlin wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[deleted]

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

#333

Post by h_tbob »

I sat in a philosophy class in high school. I went to a prep school, so it was a Ph.D. teaching. I adamantly explained that neurons firing is the same as a feeling of pain. But he kept telling me that my feeling of pain is distinct from the firing in my brain. It took me weeks to realize what he was saying. That a conscious feeling is a distinct thing. That I could be in "the matrix", and no brain is actually firing. That the feeling is the only thing we know is real.

So I would suggest that simulating consciousness has nothing to do with it. I would suggest there must be technology in the brain to produce it that operates on a level we have no comprehension of. Maybe quantum or something.

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

#334

Post by tomrod »

mistermann wrote: post #180
CooCooCaCha wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Science is adaptable to reality -- therefore, it reflects reality as it is presented.

Esoteric arguments portraying an ineffable, unobservable stream of will that never interacts with reality is not observable by definition; since it doesn't interact with reality, it can be safely ignored. Roko's basilisk be damned!

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

#336

Post by tomrod »

danielbln wrote: post #15
grishka wrote: post #10

For all we know, it might be that consciousness is not fully contained in the physical structure of the brain. It might as well be something that partially exists on another layer of reality we have no idea about yet.

It might be a pink elefant that lives in the 7th dimension and contains every person's consciousness in the shape of a magic peanut. Or it may not.

I saw that pink elefant once after a lewd night of heavy drinking and potential hallucinogenics. His name is Frank, and he says hello!

/s

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

#337

Post by mewpmewp2 »

tomrod wrote: post #287
dj_mc_merlin wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Ah, indeed, for nothing epitomizes 'avant-garde scholarly dialogue' quite like a prolix disquisition elucidating the inherent inferiority of audiovisual mediums. Forthcoming: an erudite treatise on the unparalleled intellectual profundity of semaphore communication!

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

#338

Post by filipezf »

coldblues wrote: post #296

I think it's possible that machines could become conscious in the future. Do I think it matters? No. A lot of people mistakenly try to empathize and think ethically. I think it's the Effective Altruism brainrot. If you are a physicalist, consider this: consciousness is a phenomena that can be replicated and modified any which way. Right now, you are having a subjective conscious experience. This experience of yours i…

I've been working on computatioinal modelling consciousness and came to similar conclusions: there is a continuum between patterns of matter that have consciousness (humans and other animals, maybe a biological enough computer, etc) which leads to all sorts of crazy stuff being possible. Evolved human ethics and feelings of care are incompatible with these amorphous extended possibilities. It can lead to some ultimate copernican revlolution that ends human exceptionalism, to outlaw consciousness tinkering (for how long?), or to put our heads into sand.

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

#339

Post by barrysteve »

tomrod wrote: post #287
dj_mc_merlin wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[dead]

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

#340

Post by moffkalast »

avastmick wrote: post #321

I really cannot understand consciousness. And if I am honest nor do I see peoples fascination with it. Especially now that scientists are trying to measure, they seem to come up short and some posit that it must a quantum effect or something else. I am not sure what new learning all the research and thinking brings: I am lost it all the “arguments”; I really do not understand. A lot of way smarter people than me thin…

I think the core concept is pretty simple, it's meta cognition. A feedback loop of observing oneself for the purpose of understanding which part of your observations is yourself and which is the environment. Just like inteligence, its scales from rudimentary in animals to overdeveloped in humans.

The only way to know if it's genuinely occurring or not is to observe the internal state... which is a bit problematic for biological organisms since we tend to die in the process. But for AI it should be fairly straightforward to verify once DNN analysis progresses enough.

Post reply on HN