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

A Neuroscientist’s Theory of How Networks Become Conscious (2013)

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 89 posts

Re: A Neuroscientist’s Theory of How Networks Become Conscious (2013)

#11

Post by hedning »

Xcelerate wrote: post #5

> Why we should live in such a universe is a good question, but I don’t see how that can be answered now. His last point here is salient. Much like the various interpretations of quantum mechanics, any theories of consciousness are untestable. But my problem with "consciousness" is that it's not even a well-defined concept. Suppose I replace all occurrences of "consciousness" in that article with the word "qualgma".…

I think what a lot of people mean when they say consciousness is "what is being directly experienced" (ie. the experience of ones own existence). Now there's seems to be more restricted definitions around, but this one is to me the most self evident, and useful (and I'm not aware of any other word that does the job, which is kind of mad).

Re: A Neuroscientist’s Theory of How Networks Become Conscious (2013)

#12

Post by pje »

moondistance wrote: post #7
Xcelerate wrote: post #5

> Why we should live in such a universe is a good question, but I don’t see how that can be answered now. His last point here is salient. Much like the various interpretations of quantum mechanics, any theories of consciousness are untestable. But my problem with "consciousness" is that it's not even a well-defined concept. Suppose I replace all occurrences of "consciousness" in that article with the word "qualgma".…

Here's my perspective, fwiw: Intelligence is the capacity to acquire and apply knowledge. Knowledge is acquired when it is represented in a system. Action is the application of knowledge. Thus, all systems in which actions occur are intelligent. The potential for intelligent behavior is determined by the existence of a goal, the opportunities to acquire and apply knowledge that are relevant to the goal, the resources…

You haven't defined "knowledge".

Re: A Neuroscientist’s Theory of How Networks Become Conscious (2013)

#14

Post by pedrosorio »

"WIRED: Getting back to the theory, is your version of panpsychism truly scientific rather than metaphysical? How can it be tested?

Koch: In principle, in all sorts of ways. One implication is that you can build two systems, each with the same input and output — but one, because of its internal structure, has integrated information. One system would be conscious, and the other not. It’s not the input-output behavior that makes a system conscious, but rather the internal wiring."

Isn't this the definition of a non-testable assertion? The observable input-output behavior is the same, yet he claims the property of consciousness is different. So where is the test?

Re: A Neuroscientist’s Theory of How Networks Become Conscious (2013)

#15

Post by jonmrodriguez »

moondistance wrote: post #7
Xcelerate wrote: post #5

> Why we should live in such a universe is a good question, but I don’t see how that can be answered now. His last point here is salient. Much like the various interpretations of quantum mechanics, any theories of consciousness are untestable. But my problem with "consciousness" is that it's not even a well-defined concept. Suppose I replace all occurrences of "consciousness" in that article with the word "qualgma".…

Here's my perspective, fwiw: Intelligence is the capacity to acquire and apply knowledge. Knowledge is acquired when it is represented in a system. Action is the application of knowledge. Thus, all systems in which actions occur are intelligent. The potential for intelligent behavior is determined by the existence of a goal, the opportunities to acquire and apply knowledge that are relevant to the goal, the resources…

Are you sure that action is always the application of knowledge? When a star gets old and goes supernova, I don't think it's really fair to say that it's because of knowledge or intelligence on the part of the star. Or when a rope gets old and frayed and eventually snaps. Or when an asteroid randomly collides with a planet. Or when lightning strikes.

Re: A Neuroscientist’s Theory of How Networks Become Conscious (2013)

#16

Post by ekianjo »

spenuke wrote: post #6
Xcelerate wrote: post #5

> Why we should live in such a universe is a good question, but I don’t see how that can be answered now. His last point here is salient. Much like the various interpretations of quantum mechanics, any theories of consciousness are untestable. But my problem with "consciousness" is that it's not even a well-defined concept. Suppose I replace all occurrences of "consciousness" in that article with the word "qualgma".…

Two thoughts: 1. Your nearest definition of consciousness "emergent properties of lower level functions" or something along those lines doesn't really cut it, either. To say that something is an emergent property of another thing, without showing the steps of that emergence is kind of like defining red as "an emergent property of the sun and a sheet of cellophane". It's HOW it emerges that's the hard question. 2. If…

In the same Discourse on Method, Descartes makes assumptions about how the human body works and these assumptions are completely wrong. Interesting read just to see how someone perfectly logical can be completely wrong at the same time.

Re: A Neuroscientist’s Theory of How Networks Become Conscious (2013)

#17

Post by millstone »

Many drugs induce unconsciousness, but these don't work by decreasing the complexity or organization of our brains. Doesn't this neatly refute the idea that consciousness is an "immanent property of highly organized pieces of matter, such as brains?"

Re: A Neuroscientist’s Theory of How Networks Become Conscious (2013)

#18

Post by jostmey »

I failed to find anything concrete in Koch's argument. Its funny because at some level he is right - there is this thing called consciousness, but even when the most rational people try to describe it they inevitably sound unscientific. I imagine that before Darwin everyone must have sounded crazy when they talked about biology. I guess the field of Neuroscience is still waiting for a revelation.

Re: A Neuroscientist’s Theory of How Networks Become Conscious (2013)

#20

Post by kazinator »

millstone wrote: post #17

Many drugs induce unconsciousness, but these don't work by decreasing the complexity or organization of our brains. Doesn't this neatly refute the idea that consciousness is an "immanent property of highly organized pieces of matter, such as brains?"

Not really, because complexity can have an on-off switch: a global one, or at least a partial.

If you implement a software system that is conscious, but then suspend it to a storage device, and resume it one week later (so that it is surprised: where did the time go?) its complexity hasn't gone away. It just wasn't conscious for one week because it wasn't running.

Another thing to consider is this: there may be more than one consciousness in your brain! The one which is you, the one typing on Hackernews, is just the one which has access to the "console" so to speak: the fingers, the eyes, ... There could be other consciousnesses hidden in your brain that are suppressed. Like "background daemons". Maybe that part of the brain that regulates your body while you sleep (or don't sleep) is also conscious!

The consciousness-process which is "you" is deactivated during sleep, but the other background "daemons" remain conscious. (Clearly, sleep is not a complete, global shutdown of brain activity, in other words.)

(Also, I'm here reminded of dolphins which put half their brain to sleep at a time.)

Post reply on HN