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

Decades-long bet on consciousness ends

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 305 posts

Re: Decades-long bet on consciousness ends

#161

Post by aatd86 »

amelius wrote: post #152
civilized wrote: post #14

Consciousness is not a well-scoped object of scientific investigation. It doesn't have a definition or characterization based on observable things or behavior. If I were a natural scientist, I wouldn't take a bet that I can scientifically explain a phenomenon which I can't even describe in terms of observable things.

There are at least two observable things: 1. you have consciousness 2. people are speaking about consciousness The second point makes it likely that consciousness is not simply a consequence of physics, but e.g. that it loops back into it; or perhaps it is more likely (because simpler) that physics is a consequence of consciousness.

Unless consciousness is a property of matter at a certain point and then its physics that loops back into itself and consciousness is just a physical phenomenon.

Just the same way existence is self-referential.

Re: Decades-long bet on consciousness ends

#163

Post by amelius »

Aardwolf wrote: post #157
amelius wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are at least two observable things: 1. you have consciousness 2. people are speaking about consciousness The second point makes it likely that consciousness is not simply a consequence of physics, but e.g. that it loops back into it; or perhaps it is more likely (because simpler) that physics is a consequence of consciousness.

Can you please elaborate why point 2 does that? You can never prove others have consciousness, no matter what they say (I'm not saying they don't).

Note that I carefully used the word "likely". There is no proof. Simply Occam's razor.

Why would something that has no consciousness make up that it has consciousness?

Re: Decades-long bet on consciousness ends

#164

Post by fbdab103 »

Kim_Bruning wrote: post #70

See also: Could a neuroscientist understand a microprocessor? https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article/file?id=10.13...

I really dislike these types of papers. "Pfft look at these neanderthals studying complex system X by observing surface properties and trying to make deep inferences! Nothing like us mighty computer spacemen!"

A circuit is a highly systemic, regular design which can be precisely studied in isolation. It is not so easy to carve up a human brain, cell, or metabolic process so that one can study this thing hidden to the human eye. The only tools available require working within artificial constraints to have any hope of picking up trends. Biology is incredibly messy full of overlapping systems, sometimes operating at cross purposes.

Re: Decades-long bet on consciousness ends

#165

Post by wk_end »

amelius wrote: post #154
zvmaz wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If I were a natural scientist, I wouldn't take a bet that I can scientifically explain a phenomenon which I can't even describe in terms of observable things. Conscious experience is an observable thing, meaning that we can subjectively experience it and infer its existence in other sentient beings (including in cows and pigs), and it is part of nature. The problem is, we still have no good idea how it comes to be.

> The problem is, we still have no good idea how it comes to be. Does that matter? We also don't have a good idea how gravity comes to be.

But I'm sure every physicist on Earth would love a deeper explanation of how gravity comes to be. The motivational basis of science (and philosophy!) as an exercise is filling in the lacunae in our understanding of the world; everything we don't know about matters.

Re: Decades-long bet on consciousness ends

#166

Post by AlbertCory »

TheAceOfHearts wrote: post #10

How droll, isn't this the equivalent of trying to figure out how an operating system works by trying to look at activity on an encrypted SSD? And how exactly is this a win for philosophers? I'm not aware of any philosopher having made meaningful strides within the subject either. I'm sure once someone figures out how consciousness works it'll be irrefutable while seeming incredibly obvious in hindsight. Which, honest…

Right. My two cents: trying to find the neural basis of consciousness is like trying to find the Rules of Baseball basis of the cutoff man.

It's an emergent phenomenon.

Re: Decades-long bet on consciousness ends

#167

Post by FollowingTheDao »

civilized wrote: post #14

Consciousness is not a well-scoped object of scientific investigation. It doesn't have a definition or characterization based on observable things or behavior. If I were a natural scientist, I wouldn't take a bet that I can scientifically explain a phenomenon which I can't even describe in terms of observable things.

My theory:

Consciousness is a comparison of current sense input with memory.

No sense input, no consciousness. No memory, no consciousness.

A rock, can have a memory (its chips and wear), but no consciousness since it has no sense input.

Self Consciousness is therefore a comparison of the input of our senses with the memory of our Self.

Re: Decades-long bet on consciousness ends

#168

Post by FollowingTheDao »

pa7x1 wrote: post #7

I wouldn't be surprised if consciousness ~conscience~ is just an emergent phenomenon resulting from any sufficiently powerful cognitive system (either biological or artificial) with sufficient inputs of its environment and, crucially, of itself. So as to be able to develop a rich model of itself and its relationship with its environment, and that thing will resemble a whole lot what we call consciousness ~conscience~…

My theory:

Consciousness is a comparison of current sense input with memory.

No sense input, no consciousness. No memory, no consciousness.

A rock, can have a memory (its chips and wear), but no consciousness since it has no sense input.

Self Consciousness is therefore a comparison of the input of our senses with the memory of our Self.

Re: Decades-long bet on consciousness ends

#169

Post by WillAdams »

pa7x1 wrote: post #7

I wouldn't be surprised if consciousness ~conscience~ is just an emergent phenomenon resulting from any sufficiently powerful cognitive system (either biological or artificial) with sufficient inputs of its environment and, crucially, of itself. So as to be able to develop a rich model of itself and its relationship with its environment, and that thing will resemble a whole lot what we call consciousness ~conscience~…

There's a lot of science fiction which touches on this --- notable things:

- Heinlein's _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_ which has already been mentioned

- Harry Harrison's _The Turing Option_ (with forward by Marvin Minsky): https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/1807642

- Victor Milán's _The Cybernetic Samurai_ which is notable for a major character in it has the afore-mentioned Heinlein as a favorite book: https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/472944

Biology is _incredibly_ efficient in terms of energy usage --- it's rather striking to me that the a single query of early iterations of ChatGPT were so demanding that Microsoft was able to put a price on them and monetize them so as to get their stake in the company.

Re: Decades-long bet on consciousness ends

#170

Post by Aardwolf »

amelius wrote: post #163
Aardwolf wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you please elaborate why point 2 does that? You can never prove others have consciousness, no matter what they say (I'm not saying they don't).

Note that I carefully used the word "likely". There is no proof. Simply Occam's razor. Why would something that has no consciousness make up that it has consciousness?

> Why would something that has no consciousness make up that it has consciousness?

You can make a computer program `printf("I have consciousness\n");`

But I actually also didn't follow the rest of the argument. How does whether other people say they have consciousness or not, tell anything about whether it's physics based or not? If it's physics based, people could say they have consciousness. If it's not physics based, they could also say that?

Post reply on HN