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

Consciousness is not computation

joe-antognini.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 767 posts

Re: Consciousness is not computation

#331

Post by tsimionescu »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #262
tsimionescu wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Computation does not have anything essential to it that makes it different from other "atoms jumping around" other than it produces outputs that we find interesting. This is not true. Computing is a system where the physical hardware (the computer) is following rules that are explicitly encoded in itself - you can analyze the system and discover where and how the program it is following is encoded (as we did with D…

How do you know the rules of physics aren't encoded anywhere? Clearly they have to be defined somewhere - or at least somehow - or they wouldn't be rules. They may not defined anywhere we can access, never mind change. But that's a different problem.

Sure, we can't discount that possibility. But, as far as we know, the laws of physics are not encoded anywhere, they just exist in an abstract sense. This is similar to the axioms of, say, Euclidean geometry: they exist, but are not part of the system that they "govern", circles and squares don't contain the laws that define them.

Re: Consciousness is not computation

#332

Post by simonh »

aneil wrote: post #310
simonh wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>beyond a certain level of complexity you'll somehow automatically get consciousness Right, that's the argument, but I don't believe this at all. Consciousness is a computation therefore all computations are conscious. That doesn't follow. In any other philosophical or scientific discourse that sort of naive conceptual inversion would be laughed out of the room. Horses are animals therefore animals are all horses. It…

You could execute a loop that reflects on an internal model using pen and paper. Is that system conscious? Imagine only one computational step of that loop happening everyday. Does qualia arise from that? What is detecting that that one step is part of a larger series of steps that can be considered a computation? What provides the continuity? This is why the strange loop idea implemented using traditional computatio…

That's just a restating of the Chinese room argument. Like Searle you're bamboozling yourself with scale. If I was put in a magnetic field of some kind that slowed down my physical and neurological processes by 1000x would I be any less conscious? Would I be any less a human being? It would seem so to people observing me for sure, but would it change my essential nature?

Re: Consciousness is not computation

#333

Post by V-2 »

aneil wrote: post #318
V-2 wrote: post #311

The consciousness problem is a tricky one, because unlike with most dilemmas, it's not that obvious on which side the burden of proof lies here. Is the "consciousness is just computation" side obliged to prove HOW consciousness is generated out of computation alone? (Which they never do?) Or are the opponents obliged to find the unique aspect that couldn't possibly be reduced to computation? (Which they never do eith…

I think the burden is on the proponents. Otherwise anyone could make any assertion - for example, that action potentials cause consciousness, or that influx of ions cause consciousness, or that vibrations cause consciousness, or that only humans are conscious. Like "computation is consciousness" those are just all just, perhaps, correlates of consciousness, not mechanisms for producing it.

The Occam's razor favors the simpler explanation though.

Re: Consciousness is not computation

#334

Post by tsimionescu »

thom wrote: post #272
tsimionescu wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I am not denying anything. My point is this: say an electron emits a photon and changes speed, in perfect accordance to the standard model and QFT. I don't think it makes sense to say that the electron "computed" the energy of the photon, or its own change of speed. It just happened, there was no computation going on here. Even in a CPU, it doesn't make sense to say that the transistors, or even logical gates, ar…

I think the argument is more that the electron and photon are subjective interpretations of the observable consequence of some computation, not that they are computing things in and of themselves.

Ok then, what is the computer running that computation, and what are the symbols it is manipulating to produce the movement of the electron and photon?

(I am assuming you are not referring to human knowledge of the electron or photon, which - if we accept that consciousness is computational - is obviously the result of a computation in our brains).

Re: Consciousness is not computation

#335

Post by cjg »

Perhaps consciousness not computation directly, but something that computation is good at - thus leading us to get confused between the two. I'm thinking of information processing.

This then shows the weakness in the hot iron argument. The information is now encoded in the choice of observer not the iron bar - which is essentially random. Lean on information theory for deeper insights.

Re: Consciousness is not computation

#336

Post by YetAnotherNick »

V-2 wrote: post #327
n8cpdx wrote: post #3

I think people start with the premise that consciousness is a specific “thing”, that it is unique and special to humans (and maybe dogs because we like them but definitely not spiders and flies because we don’t) and then try to work backwards to define it in some ways that keeps it special. I don’t think consciousness is so specific, and I think people aren’t clear about how they think about it as something separate…

> and maybe dogs because we like them but definitely not spiders and flies because we don’t This is not an intellectualy honest way to put it. Dogs are obviously and objectively more psychologically complex creatures than flies. "Liking" them has nothing to do with it. People generally like butterflies more than rats, yet hardly anyone would deny that rats are more conscious than butterflies nevertheless. Just becaus…

> consciousness is not a binary thing (either on or off) doesn't mean it can't exist at all. It can be a spectrum.

I would categorize consciousness as binary. What you are talking is intelligence in general that rat are more intelligent than butterflies.

Re: Consciousness is not computation

#337

Post by 3g4o53g4o5 »

thom wrote: post #272
tsimionescu wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I am not denying anything. My point is this: say an electron emits a photon and changes speed, in perfect accordance to the standard model and QFT. I don't think it makes sense to say that the electron "computed" the energy of the photon, or its own change of speed. It just happened, there was no computation going on here. Even in a CPU, it doesn't make sense to say that the transistors, or even logical gates, ar…

I think the argument is more that the electron and photon are subjective interpretations of the observable consequence of some computation, not that they are computing things in and of themselves.

Thanks this is exactly what I am trying to say.

We dont know exactly how the universe is doing or how the photons do to themselves, but by doing experiments, scientists figured out the law of computiation of this vague "universe computer" a.k.a laws of physics.

And since scientist's discovery do not violate the actually behavior of the physical world, there established a isomorphism. And the very same law is used in quantum computing, mainly, in chemistry. And everything success and predictable. It is a successful scientific theory. Under this notion, it is nothing wrong to say that the quantum world is doing some kind of computation underneath because it is the current understanding of how the universe works.

Re: Consciousness is not computation

#338

Post by IIAOPSW »

tsimionescu wrote: post #144
IIAOPSW wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, from a system of things that only exists with respect to participants will, we can hack it into a system of things with objective physical existence by presupposing a fictitious all-knowing never-lying arbitrator who will is physical law. In other words, we can invent god as a useful linguistic fiction to rig into being the aspects of my system you've criticized as impossible to construct.

Well, that's a sixth axiom to your system - now you've added a consciousness that has vastly more power than all the others. My point was that we can't find out anything about the phsycial world by just discussing it. We each have to experience it ourselves using our own senses. We can of course later discuss to devise new ways of understanding what the world is and how it works, but even then, we need to put any the…

>now you've added a consciousness that has vastly more power than all the others.

Superficially yes but actually no. This fictitious admin character doesn't have any actual powers, I'm simply choosing a particular "consciousness" to be a fixed and agreed upon meter stick of objectivity. All measurement systems are arbitrary. We could choose anyones POV to fix as the "objective" truth. If we both agree on the same "definer entity" then we can be in agreement about other things objectively defined relative to them. But crucially this is all still nothing more than us reaching agreement. All that really exists is still just you me and the words.

So how about it. Do you believe in Bob?

Re: Consciousness is not computation

#339

Post by FartyMcFarter »

If this argument were correct, it would also be a proof that we're not living inside a computation (i.e. it would be a disproof of the simulation argument). If computation cannot produce consciousness, by extension it also can't produce us or our universe (as both of them contain consciousness).

I don't think disproving the simulation argument is that simple. You'd have to prove that our universe's physical laws cannot be computed, which, even if true, this proof certainly hasn't shown.

Re: Consciousness is not computation

#340

Post by Tenoke »

avnigo wrote: post #328

For those interested in this but haven't heard of the show DEVS [0] yet, it explores and asks questions about consciousness and determinism, being the central themes of the story. [0]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8134186/

I just watched and it was beautiful but disappointingly written. They clearly had advisors who added reasonable explanations for e.g. the different QM interpretations, simulations, determinism etc. but then ignored the implications of what they were writing a lot of the time.

SPOILER:

Like when their algorithm only worked under MWI, proving it in-world but then still having only a single branch they knew in advance they are in*, still having the determinism even with knowing the prediction of what they'll do etc.

*Except for a single decision, apparently the only decision which could result in a different outcome out of all simulated days. That single decision even broke the Algo but not even at the point where it was made and not even by just predicting a different branch from then on but predicting noise. It was just total nonsense in a show that clearly knew better at times.

Post reply on HN