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

71–80 of 89 posts

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

#71

Post by SapphireSun »

xnull wrote: post #4

Integrated Information Theory I think is a fad, and a bad one at that. One could think of integration of information as a necessary but not sufficient condition for consciousness a la Scott Aaronson [1] who applies more rigorous mathematical examples of integrated systems - in fact ones close to maximal possible integrated information - that very clearly are unlikely have any measure of consciousness (like expander g…

Not quite. I attended a talk by Dr. Koch at MIT. I didn't get all of it, but it seemed to me that his definition tries to figure out what's included or excluded in conscious systems and how conscious they are. It may or may not be right, but it at least it's working towards something with predictive value.

The examples you gave are mostly abstract and not physical. If consciousness is a physical phenomenon, these algorithms must be manifest before they can qualify. As for the game of life, the pieces on a physical board aren't actually interacting with each other with feedback loops. In a computer, the circuits are mostly feed forward and the algorithm is simulated rather than physically realized.

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

#72

Post by wuliwong »

officialjunk wrote: post #3

The initial basis that electrons just instrinsically have charge isn't proven. Infact there is a proof of why electrons have quantized charge (by Dirac), but it requires that magnetic monopoles exist, which haven't been observed.

I also thought it was really interesting that they chose that to start with. I personally find the electron to be one of the more confounding and least talked about pieces of the current state of physics understanding.

That being said, it is hard for me to imagine what a proof that charge is intrinsic to an electron would even look like. Proving that something is the result of something else seems much more straightforward than proving something not being the result of anything.

Also, only talking about an electron's charge being intrinsic is ignoring a lot of the mystery of it. The fact that it is a point particle is a pesky issue as well. An electron is just an electron with no underlying "pieces" or mechanisms. Obviously that could be wrong, but no one has been able to prove it yet.

I think using the electron as an example for our understanding of how the universe works is pretty ignorant. It's one of the weirdest parts of physics I've encountered during my career. It is a topic that few people actively work on but feels like their is clearly something amiss with our current understanding.

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

#73

Post by Synaesthesia »

Having read and listened to Alan Watts I have become convinced that the self or ego or "I" as we commonly call it is a delusion, and a dangerous one at that. It leads to all kinds of confusions and contradictions.

It is this delusion that is the source of our pain and jealousy. We should realize that we are part of a greater whole, that our own existence is inseparable from the rest of the universe. We are all one. Cheesey.

Rather than say "I think therefore I exist", I prefer the simpler, "thought exists"

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

#74

Post by jcfrei »

Animats wrote: post #21

According to Koch, consciousness arises within any sufficiently complex, information-processing system. All animals, from humans on down to earthworms, are conscious; even the internet could be. That’s just the way the universe works. Clearly one can build a hugely complex system that performs some special-purpose function and isn't anywhere near "conscious". Consider a big supercomputer doing finite-element analysis…

> Consider a big supercomputer doing finite-element analysis. Or a big network of packet routers.

There's another perspective here. We always argue from a very anthropocentric point of view and measure experience based on actions and reactions that a human would perform. Ie. asking questions, seeing something and saying something based on what we see, etc. The supercomputer you described can hardly be considered conscious with regards to such actions. However it might be very conscious with regards to a different set of actions, ie. turning off some switches which allow for intercommunication between the different CPUs (the computer might react by rerouting some packets), it might react to raising the room temperature (by spinning up the fans), it might react to removing some RAM (by allocating more data on the hard disk), etc.

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

#75

Post by dcre »

pedrosorio wrote: post #14

"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…

Well, he's stipulating that we build it, so we know what the internal wiring is. That doesn't necessarily mean that what's he's describing is possible or even coherent.

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

#76

Post by mjgoins »

sebastianconcpt wrote: post #42

That theory is not even close to point in the right direction on research. Consciousness is not computation. An do not just emerge from complexity. If it would, then the ammount of quantum information and complexity in any tropical thunderstorm would make it a supergenius entity. And is not (or prove me wrong). Consciousness is also not mind. Mind is more like the sum of intelligence. Consciousness something else, mo…

Nice argument from italics.

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

#77

Post by Vraxx »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #51
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 believe Koch is conflating two distinct concepts. I believe Koch is conflating many distinct concepts - as most of the consciousness research field seems to. How can you say anything useful until you define your terms? It seems to me humans have many different layers of experience: Visceral pain/pleasure Instinctive drives Emotional/limbic experiences Locational (physical mapping) Memory-based/learned Abstract/int…

I really like this idea that you fleshed out in this post, it seems to relate more to the more common concepts of "consciousness" that are usually referenced. I do think that your description and Koch's don't necessarily have to be disjoint, it is possible that the "simple connection count" is highly correlated with this pattern of self that you have identified. The specific subsystems that you listed may just be very effective (and thus common) ways that this theme of consciousness usually emerge, though not necessarily the only ways. Disclaimer: I tend to think of this subject as more speculation than science anyways, at least currently, thus the opinions I have voiced are just that.

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

#78

Post by cicero »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #51
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 believe Koch is conflating two distinct concepts. I believe Koch is conflating many distinct concepts - as most of the consciousness research field seems to. How can you say anything useful until you define your terms? It seems to me humans have many different layers of experience: Visceral pain/pleasure Instinctive drives Emotional/limbic experiences Locational (physical mapping) Memory-based/learned Abstract/int…

Indeed, without resorting to metaphysics, I don't know whether any other beings besides myself are self-aware or just pretending. I have good reasons to believe other humans are self-aware, but I can't prove it scientifically. It's too bad that scientists tend to be so dismissive of philosophy; I think some rigorous metaphysics would really help in this field.

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

#79

Post by ganzuul »

Taek wrote: post #25

When we think of consciousness, we normally associate with the brain. But according to the complexity theory, shouldn't there also be consciousness in most of our organs? The liver is a massive network of cells that are in at least a moderate amount of communication, and yet I am not aware of its consciousness. But perhaps it is conscious, just at a level that's inaccessible to my brain, which is a nearly distinct st…

I find it useful to not think of the brain as what's in my cranium, but rather my brain is my entire neural network.

I feel not entirely convinced that I'm a Harvard architecture. A von Neumann architecture seems more plausible... long story short because humans have huge problems learning to walk on two legs.

Evolutionary neuroscience might provide the answer we seek, through the normal technique of belief propagation.

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

#80

Post by ganzuul »

john2x wrote: post #28
Taek wrote: post #25

When we think of consciousness, we normally associate with the brain. But according to the complexity theory, shouldn't there also be consciousness in most of our organs? The liver is a massive network of cells that are in at least a moderate amount of communication, and yet I am not aware of its consciousness. But perhaps it is conscious, just at a level that's inaccessible to my brain, which is a nearly distinct st…

The internet, as a neural network, "dreams" of cat videos when they go viral. Huh. In fact, it "decides" for itself which ones should go viral. Interesting thought.

I blame my deep integration with the internet for my belief that I'm actually a cat.
Post reply on HN