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

41–50 of 767 posts

Re: Consciousness is not computation

#41

Post by IIAOPSW »

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…

I've started to go in the opposite direction of the usual physical approach. At some point, any experiment or argument or fact is for the digestion of some conscious entity. So what happens when we assume consciousness as the baseline ontological object. There's you, me, and however many bystanders that can also participate in the conversation. Starting with a domain of discussion of just the person(s) making the text, the person(s) reading the text, and the text itself, can a self consistent "reality" be bootstrapped from first principles? What happens when we stop trying to define consciousness from within our shared reality and instead treat conscious entities as axiomatic and try to define reality in relation to them?

1. If you are having this conversation with me then you are a consciousness and I am a consciousness and that's as good a definition of consciousness as we are ever going to get.

2. Consciousness thus defined exists entirely within this conversational medium.

3. The basic objects of the domain of discussion are the people having this discussion ("you", "me" et al), and the conversational text / speech acts themselves ("this").

4. The only relations between objects in the domain which exists a priori are "like"/"agrees with" and "dislike"/"disagrees with". Either I like you or I dislike you. Until further constructs are defined there's not much more we can say.

5. At least one of us would like for something to be. For if you are perfectly content with how things are and so am I, then why are we talking?

6. Reality is shared consensus. Whatever we agree is real and if anyone disagrees we'll argue/fight them until either they agree with us or us with them.

Starting from these as axioms, what can we construct?

Re: Consciousness is not computation

#42

Post by 3g4o53g4o5 »

epgui wrote: post #31
Gwarzo wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a little bit of an emotional take I think. The burden of proof is on the claim that you can get there through computation, not otherwise. We do not understand the fundamental reality of consciousness, this does not mean that consciousness is magic. The assertion that you cannot get there from computation implies there is a currently non understood yet essential piece of physics(I assume, but I do not know) wh…

Considering that everything in the universe is the product of some computation, I would consider it a reasonable default assumption that whatever we mean by “consciousness” emerges from computation. That this idea “intuitively feels weird” or “intuitively feels wrong”, and that we love to think we are special and have a unique place in the universe, is probably a more serious bias.

Not probably, it is a bias. Dolphin can speak, dog can speak, bird can speak too. There is nothing special about homo species except the only fact that we have more neurons in our head. Those "philosophers" love to claim that human consciousness is different than animal and this is the biggest bullshit.

Re: Consciousness is not computation

#43

Post by 3g4o53g4o5 »

i_like_apis wrote: post #16

The author's "triviality argument" doesn't hold up: > 1. To say that a physical system is a computer requires an external observer to map the physical states of that system onto the abstract states of a Turing machine. > 2. Consciousness does not require an external observer to exist. > 3. Therefore, consciousness cannot be reduced to computation. A physical system may be a computer regardless of whether it is verifi…

True. Quantum behavior is computing linear algebra ever since the Big Bang, and we came accross to discover this fact 15e9 years later.

Re: Consciousness is not computation

#44

Post by woojoo666 »

tshaddox wrote: post #9
JoshTriplett wrote: post #2

This seems...very confused. This seems to be attempting to "prove" that if you regard consciousness as "containing the bits of a specific program", you could also see that program in random data by interpreting that random data by effectively applying a one-time pad to it (from which you can indeed produce any possible interpretation of data), which it treats as a proof by contradiction. And leaving that aside, while…

I don’t really get the argument either. The author only seems to demonstrate that different observers can make different conclusions from different observations of the same phenomena. The author requires consciousness to be observer-independent, but surely that doesn’t also require that all observers are able to correctly conclude whether they’re observing a conscious entity at any given time.

Yeah, the author claims that consciousness is observer independent, but then creates systems that depend on an "observer" (or rather, an interpreter) to make the system turing complete. The bar of iron isn't conscious or turing-complete just because one person can interpret it so. The bar of iron + the interpreter form a complete system. And in fact the bar of iron is really not doing anything in this case, it's the interpreter doing all the work, so it's more like saying "this human interpreter is conscious". Not a very insightful conclusion.

Re: Consciousness is not computation

#46

Post by mrshadowgoose »

Gwarzo wrote: post #25
epgui wrote: post #18

The idea that you cannot get to consciousness from computation requires accepting on faith alone that consciousness is magic. It’s fundamentally a religious-like bias. It’s not magic, I’m afraid.

This is a little bit of an emotional take I think. The burden of proof is on the claim that you can get there through computation, not otherwise. We do not understand the fundamental reality of consciousness, this does not mean that consciousness is magic. The assertion that you cannot get there from computation implies there is a currently non understood yet essential piece of physics(I assume, but I do not know) wh…

I get into a vehicle every day that I don't fully understand, yet it still seems to perform its function.

I use vast swathes of computational resources every day for various tasks, the operation of which I understand even less. They still seem to accomplish those tasks without issue.

Sometimes those computational resources run ML workloads. Very very few people on this planet can honestly claim to understand how neural networks work, and in many cases, the minutiae are inscrutable to all of us. They still seem to work fine.

I most certainly do not understand how my own brain works, yet here it is, shitposting on hackernews.

We have yet to find a single shred of evidence that the human brain makes use of quantum principles in aggregate to do its thing, and have even specifically excluded a few such explanations. And even if consciousness strictly requires quantum hardware...we'll get there eventually.

Although you're certainly right about one thing, most laypeople would have a real tough time accepting a world where consciousness is synthetically reproducible, and instead tend to reach for comforting thoughts of "maybe quantum is required", "maybe consciousness is magic" or "maybe consciousness can only be created by a deity".

Non-laypeople know that at normal temperatures and pressures, quantum effects don't really extend into the macroscopic realm.

Re: Consciousness is not computation

#47

Post by dibujante »

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…

> My personal experience is that consciousness, like free will, is a useful illusion.

This is easily contradicted. Let's say consciousness is an epiphenomenon of computation but causality only flows one way: you "choose" to do something because your brain chose to do it and your consciousness tricked itself into thinking it was doing the choosing.

If that were the case, then the brain wouldn't be aware of consciousness. The illusion falls apart due to the fact that we are discussing consciousness right now. Consciousness must have at least some ability to communicate back to the brain.

And since evolution hates inefficiency, that means it must have a purpose.

Re: Consciousness is not computation

#48

Post by dvt »

jamesrom wrote: post #20
dvt wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a confused post. > The "Chinese Room" argument isn't an argument against consciousness being computation. This is exactly what it is. Particularly with regard to "thinking," albeit not "consciousness" proper. Though the corollary is that only conscious things can think. > The man in the room can be said to pass the Turing test, and so can you. The Turing test is much weaker than the Chinese room experiment. A si…

> This is exactly what it is... I'm literally taking the narrow conclusion from the second paragraph: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/ > This is exactly what it is ... albeit not "consciousness" proper Which is it? You conceded the first point in the second. > The Turing test is much weaker than the Chinese room experiment. Yes agreed, this comment on the Turing test was a reference to the linked arti…

> I'm literally taking the narrow conclusion from the second paragraph: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/

You should really the entire article, but at least finish the paragraph you're citing: "The broader conclusion of the argument is that the theory that human minds are computer-like computational or information processing systems is refuted."

Re: Consciousness is not computation

#49

Post by stormbrew »

> It’s worth pausing here and noting one property of consciousness that will be of use to us later: consciousness is independent of external observers. By this I mean that the existence of my consciousness does not depend on other observers perceiving me to be conscious. Even if everyone else in the universe should deny that I am conscious — or if those other observers did not exist at all — this would have no bearing on my own consciousness. If, in a terrible catastrophe all life on Earth should perish, except by some strange fortune my own, my consciousness would not suddenly dissolve into the ether.

Seems like exactly the sort of thing something trying to convince me of its consciousness would say to justify it. How am I supposed to know this was written by a human?

Anyways, I have a relative who was sterilized because people believed she not only had no capacity for higher reasoning, but also that her continuing to have reproductive autonomy would be a danger to others because she might pass her lack of "consciousness" along.

So you'll have to forgive me if I'm not very impressed by anyone who decides they have the key to an objective measure of consciousness. This edges far too close to eugenics in my mind.

Post reply on HN