Neal Stephenson touches on this topic in several of his novels. Probably the most concrete of this is "Fall; or Dodge in Hell" which involves a simulation of people's scanned brains rediscovering qualia and constructing their own simulated world from scratch. In the book, two of the deceased digital "souls" eventually mate and produce digital offspring and the whole simulation starts consuming more and more resources…
> At some point, we'll have AGI that pass any test we can think of and we'll still have people arguing that these cannot be conscious. You've already drawn your line in the sand (i.e. they are conscious). In that case, you can't also claim that we should continue producing them by the millions at the flick of a switch. The AI-is-conscious crowd will have to choose - either they are conscious, in which case they shoul…
It is time to give up the dualism introduced by the debate on consciousness
361–370 of 822 posts
Re: It is time to give up the dualism introduced by the debate on consciousness
#362I think children's main "cost function" is the ability to predict the future. This might start out, for example, as being - how will this vertical line move as I move my head. Later, where is the ball going. And they are essentially building a "world model" in their brains, starting with the very simple like this and recursively building more complex predictors. When they predict correctly, happy feedback reinforces the connections that are firing, when they are wrong, they weaken. Just a really simple feedback algorithm that is super robust.
So the brain is building this world model, and it's essentially gradually compressing a description of the environment into a structure made of neurons. And this is the ultimate survival tactic: model the environment explicitly in your head, then adapt your behaviour to fit it. The better you are adapating to future states (dodging that tree as you run) the better survival chance you have.
At some point (complete speculation) we then begin to do something quite strange: we develop a world model _of ourselves_. We get to a level of sophistication where we begin to predict the future states of our own brains. This might emerge naturally as a way to compress existing learnt behaviour. For example, we re-learn to follow lines in a smarter way, particularly as other parts of the brain learn useful things that we can re-use in our line following. This treats our existing model as a cost function, and we learn a model of the model. But it eventually starts to model the higher-level models the brain has, higher up the abstraction stack.
And somehow, the modelling of our brain function creates a chaotic feedback loop that leads to the sensation of consciousness. It's super handwavey, I know, but somehow this recursion feeds awareness. It's like the abilty to see yourself thinking. Consider meditating and the way words appear in consciousness... you get to a point where you can observe what you're going to say before you say them, and I conjecture that is the modelling of the model that's going on.
And this is useful for survival, as you can optimise the way you think, compressing your circuits further, but also has this weird side-effect of creating awareness.
It also explains why consciousness takes time to develop - because you need to develop a model of yourself, but before that you need a model of the world.
Re: It is time to give up the dualism introduced by the debate on consciousness
#363Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's called solipsism. I went through it as a lad, I think it's not uncommon.
I assure you that I am not conscious (and a human, not an LLM). Therefore at least partial solipsism is true.
It's a reach, I guess.
Re: It is time to give up the dualism introduced by the debate on consciousness
#364Earlier quoted context omitted.
My pet theory is that I don't think all humans are conscious (in other words, some perfectly cognitively normal-seeming people are just automatons without an inner experience, like plants or LLMs). Mainly motivated by the fact that a lot of people report not having an inner monologue, and other little hints that I've picked up over the years. The "inner experience" might be totally optional to fitness, like green eye…
That's called solipsism. I went through it as a lad, I think it's not uncommon.
Re: It is time to give up the dualism introduced by the debate on consciousness
#365Here's a trippy idea I have about consciousness, which arose from thinking about recent AI advances and also watching kids develop. I think children's main "cost function" is the ability to predict the future. This might start out, for example, as being - how will this vertical line move as I move my head. Later, where is the ball going. And they are essentially building a "world model" in their brains, starting with…
Re: It is time to give up the dualism introduced by the debate on consciousness
#366Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is knowable isn’t it? We know our brains play a variety of tricks to get a cohesive view out of two wildly complicated but deeply flawed meat sensors. That fits the definition of a simulation.
What's unknowable is whether or not there are real stars that correspond with what you seem to observe; not whether or not your observations themselves are the real stars.
Re: It is time to give up the dualism introduced by the debate on consciousness
#367Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know anyone who supports both ideas at the same time. Are you saying that philosophers do? Every guy saying that free will doesn't exist is arguing exactly this. Physical causality considered an obstacle to freedom implies that the conscious entity is somehow outside the physical world.
In case you didn't get it: you were invited to provide concrete examples of philosophers holding the explicit opinion you have described.
Re: It is time to give up the dualism introduced by the debate on consciousness
#368https://berggruen.org/projects
The investment arm for this influencer fund is:
https://www.berggruenholdings.com/
The fund is invested in AI and Berggruen pushes the AI/UBI narrative:
https://www.ft.com/content/9b93e02a-c693-4070-9094-a2f532dfa...
https://www.linkedin.com/in/nicolasberggruen?trk=public_post...
You can already see from the glossy website that this is a well funded propaganda magazine, just like Quantaagazine is essentially funded by the Renaissance Fund, which is invested in AI.
Yes, these magazines do have interesting articles from time to time, but the overt materialistic (not monetary, but anti-idealistic) worldview that traditionally only appeared in communist countries suddenly infests all the rich people's outlets.
Re: It is time to give up the dualism introduced by the debate on consciousness
#369I felt like this paper nailed it years a go, and nobody has followed up properly.
The metric involved is basically impossible to compute fully, but easy to approximate. Any online approximation will model everything it can see have changes until it is satisfied.
Re: It is time to give up the dualism introduced by the debate on consciousness
#370Basically it flipped the problem on its head. We're arguing how you start at the physical substrate and get to consciousness. They argued that you could start with consciousness and argue how you get to the physical side (experimentation via your conscious experience, etc). It was from a religious individual who called the conscious experience God and went further into how we all share this sliver of godhood.
Does anyone who knows philosophical "camps" know the terms for what I'm trying to remember? I guess I've leaned "materialist" for most of my life, but what other common philosophies (as in the academic discipline) are there?