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

A new proposal for how mind emerges from matter

noemamag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 240 posts

Re: A new proposal for how mind emerges from matter

#201

Post by anon291 »

infinitifall wrote: post #124
anon291 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One's observations of one's own agency is really the only thing one can be assured of. And this is where these arguments that seek to reduce intelligence to purely mechanistic processes breaks down. For sure, everything the article is saying is true, and indeed, the system could be classified as intelligent, but this is a wholly different question from 'agency' or 'free will'. Even exceptionally dumb people have free…

You haven't defined this property you call "agency". How then can you definitely determine whether you posses it or that someone else doesn't? The only thing I can be assured of is my own existence.

Well agency is the feeling I have of being able to impact the world. I cannot know if you have it but I have extrapolated that based on my impression of you. For all I know, I'm the only one to exist.

Re: A new proposal for how mind emerges from matter

#202

Post by [deleted] »

LiquidHelium wrote: post #137
anon291 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One's observations of one's own agency is really the only thing one can be assured of. And this is where these arguments that seek to reduce intelligence to purely mechanistic processes breaks down. For sure, everything the article is saying is true, and indeed, the system could be classified as intelligent, but this is a wholly different question from 'agency' or 'free will'. Even exceptionally dumb people have free…

This is an argument for anecdote so feel free to ignore me but if you meditate for long enough or take certain substances you can experience that the conscious experience we are having doesn't actually control things in the way we think it does - you don't actually think your thoughts, you just observe them, like we don't control the sounds we hear - and same with everything else we do. The "only thing one can be ass…

[deleted]

Re: A new proposal for how mind emerges from matter

#203

Post by singleshot_ »

vidarh wrote: post #166
torginus wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious about aphantasia - if I asked you to draw a floorplan of your home/office etc. would you not be able to do it? If you could wouldn't that involve you imagining what the building looks like from the inside and how the rooms are connected together? Or would do it some other way? (I'm assuming you could do it, since if you couldn't I think that would be a majorly debiliating condition rather than just some a…

Yes, in fact my ability to draw from memory places I've seen is, if anything, from experience, substantially above average. However, when I draw from memory, my drawings do tend to be more stylized. I can "imagine" what a building looks like, but I can't see it. Even our language makes this hard to describe, and the reason why I didn't realise that this isn't how other people do it, because most of our language for r…

When I close my eyes (and especially if I rub them when they are closed) I see a grey/brown empty space with letters and numbers inscribed everywhere within the field, although the letters and numbers are oriented randomly and not from any script or language I’m familiar with.

Also fifty. Realized this when I was about seven and it hasn’t materially changed since. I have no problem drawing things like blueprints of my house but when it comes to more curvy objects I’m a terrible artist.

Re: A new proposal for how mind emerges from matter

#204

Post by koakuma-chan »

anon291 wrote: post #200
koakuma-chan wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there evidence that quantum mechanics is not deterministic?

Yes, the entirety of the math behind it which says that various quantities are unknowable except as a distribution of probabilities. Various experiments have shown these formulas to be 'real', as in, the alternative deterministic version is untenable unless you make new and equally disturbing assumptions.

Sorry if I’m being ignorant, but let’s say you measured a qubit and it collapsed to a certain state. Now, hypothetically, if you rewind the time and re-measure it, would it collapse to a different state? I think it wouldn’t, and in this sense it is deterministic.

Re: A new proposal for how mind emerges from matter

#206

Post by skissane »

scotty79 wrote: post #199
tristramb wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Philosophy can be safely ignored until you start making philosophical mistakes.

There's no such thing as philosophical mistake because there's no correct philosophy.

There is such a thing as a philosophical mistake – almost everyone agrees that logical positivism was a failure, despite the fact that there was a period in the 1950s when it was all the rage in philosophy departments in the English-speaking world.

There are still a few philosophers who will try to raise logical positivism from the dead – but even they'll all acknowledge that in its classic formulation it doesn't work, so any attempt to do so will require significant revisions.

Philosophers may never agree on who is right, but sometimes they can reach a consensus on who is wrong.

Re: A new proposal for how mind emerges from matter

#207

Post by wordpad25 »

teekert wrote: post #128
mcswell wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a linguist, article like this also annoy me by the claims that "X [whales, dolphins, parrots, crows...] uses language." We have known since 1957 that there is a hierarchy of "grammars", with finite state "languages" being near the bottom, and transformational grammars at the top. Human languages are certainly at a minimum at the context free phrase structure grammar level. My point is that by using the word "langu…

As a scientist, articles like this also annoy me. Because it, right off the bat, assumes that there are no degrees in consciousness. Just because we don't experience those degrees, and animals can't convey what they feel through language, we assume it is "emergent", or "suddenly there". I think we are too caught up in believing that consciousness must be something really special or some magic discontinuity of spaceti…

Does that mean LLMs can already be considered conscious at some level since they are able to reason and self reflect?

Re: A new proposal for how mind emerges from matter

#208

Post by heyjamesknight »

corimaith wrote: post #105
heyjamesknight wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of those examples are emergence "into". The snowflake emerges into the mathematical patterns emanating downward. The termite cathedral emerges into the architectural context of the observer. Without emanating structure, there is no "emergence"—just a proliferation of chaos and error.

Sounds similar to Plato's Theory of Forms.

Close! Emergence/emanation is particular to Neoplatonism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoplatonism

Re: A new proposal for how mind emerges from matter

#209

Post by skissane »

_1tem wrote: post #121

Here's an interesting thought experiment. Take any definition of consciousness or intelligence that is not based on biological components. For example "reacts to stimuli, exhibits anger". You can apply that definition to other entities like the United States. Does the United States react to stimuli (i.e. invasion) and exhibit anger? Yes (e.g. Pearl Harbor). Therefore the United States is conscious? If a person argues…

There's a great philosophy paper making this argument: Schwitzgebel, Eric. “If Materialism Is True, the United States Is Probably Conscious.” Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition, vol. 172, no. 7, 2015, pp. 1697–721. https://faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz/SchwitzPapers/USAconscious...

Discussed previously on HN:

July 2015 (210 comments): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9905847

Feb 2021 (78 comments): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26217834

Dec 2023 (1 comment): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38814769

Re: A new proposal for how mind emerges from matter

#210

Post by ianburrell »

koakuma-chan wrote: post #204
anon291 wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the entirety of the math behind it which says that various quantities are unknowable except as a distribution of probabilities. Various experiments have shown these formulas to be 'real', as in, the alternative deterministic version is untenable unless you make new and equally disturbing assumptions.

Sorry if I’m being ignorant, but let’s say you measured a qubit and it collapsed to a certain state. Now, hypothetically, if you rewind the time and re-measure it, would it collapse to a different state? I think it wouldn’t, and in this sense it is deterministic.

You would see a different state. Quantum mechanics is random. It is possible that there is hidden state that determines the outcome, but there is Bell's Theorem that limits local hidden state and it has been tested by experiment.
Post reply on HN