21–30 of 82 posts
I have no evidence or proof, but personally, I believe that the whole consciousness thing is an illusion. There's certain level of abstraction required for a bran as advanced as human's, but in the end, it's just matter following the laws of physics, same as everything else.
I have no evidence or proof, but personally, I believe that the whole consciousness thing is an illusion. There's certain level of abstraction required for a bran as advanced as human's, but in the end, it's just matter following the laws of physics, same as everything else.
To whom is it an illusion? And, what are the properties of this illusion? Can we make artificial minds that are also suffering from the same illusion?
The very fact that there is (let's suppose) such an illusion requires an explanation. Suppose the brain has somewhere encoded the idea of consciousness, but no "actual" consciousness. Why do we require the extra step of "actual" consciousness rather than mere "illusory" consciousness?
Of course the real explanation of consciousness will be both profound (beautiful, unexpected) and mundane (non supernatural).
I have no evidence or proof, but personally, I believe that the whole consciousness thing is an illusion. There's certain level of abstraction required for a bran as advanced as human's, but in the end, it's just matter following the laws of physics, same as everything else.
For example, you could find out that consciousness is a real phenomenon but that it's experienced by more matter than we think, but without as much depth or ability to express itself as the human neocortex. Or perhaps each of us has multiple consciousnesses within, but we can't sense it because they all share the same memories and have essentially the same desires and feelings. Who knows! But it could be substantially different than how we frame a singular, soul-like consciousness
I have no evidence or proof, but personally, I believe that the whole consciousness thing is an illusion. There's certain level of abstraction required for a bran as advanced as human's, but in the end, it's just matter following the laws of physics, same as everything else.
I'm still stuck at why blue is blue.
See, if a neuroscientist went and had an opinion on sub-atomic physics, people would say "that's nice" and pat them on the head in a patronizing way. But the problem is general. A scientist outside their field is a layman .
Personally I'd leave it to the philosophy guys since we're that far from any understanding of it.
Rather than physics, I think computational neurology and machine learning / deep learning / AI have a much better chance at elucidating what consciousness is.
I can't tell whether you are being sarcastic or not. Machine learning has absolutely nothing to do with consciousness. From where people get that connection?
I mean, the way neural nets behave in computer vision implies some form of attention. On some benchmarks neurons and deep learning have almost the same biological output (poorly phrased, was from a talk that NG gave). Perceiving, or parts of perception have something to do with consciousness. Attention has something to do with consciousness.
And you don't have to agree on everything I say, I'm typing/thinking quickly. My point is: machine learning has at least something to do with consciousness.
Neural nets are loosely inspired from the brain (and a ton of math). So it could perhaps nuance certain neuroscientific findigs in some cases or the other way around (e.g., neural net designs for the visual system or other brain systems). Anyways, that's how I get the connection.
A stone brick and consciousness, that has nothing to do with each other, nothing practical/inspirational anyway.
Rather than physics, I think computational neurology and machine learning / deep learning / AI have a much better chance at elucidating what consciousness is.
I can't tell whether you are being sarcastic or not. Machine learning has absolutely nothing to do with consciousness. From where people get that connection?
Rather than physics, I think computational neurology and machine learning / deep learning / AI have a much better chance at elucidating what consciousness is.
I can't tell whether you are being sarcastic or not. Machine learning has absolutely nothing to do with consciousness. From where people get that connection?
If you wade your way through it, you'll find the tl;dr is 'consciousness must be a quantum thing because quantum things are mysterious and so is consciousness- oh and look at those microtubules in those neurons - you might get quantum effects in there.'
Rather disappointing for such a brilliant man.
See, if a neuroscientist went and had an opinion on sub-atomic physics, people would say "that's nice" and pat them on the head in a patronizing way. But the problem is general. A scientist outside their field is a layman .
When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.