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

Philosopher Philip Goff answers questions about panpsychism

scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 356 posts

Re: Philosopher Philip Goff answers questions about panpsychism

#81

Post by CuriouslyC »

ajuc wrote: post #9

Mu. The definition provided ("consciousness is experience") explains nothing, you cannot experimentally decide if atoms experience anything, the fact that they do or don't doesn't change any prediction for how they behave over time. It's meaningless, like wondering if magic exists but is actively hiding from us. Paranoia is that way. > Despite great progress in our scientific understanding of the brain, we still don’…

We already know atoms in aggregate experience something. That's settled. If you want to argue that individual atoms are incapable of feeling, then you need to explain how the interaction of atoms brings something distinctly non-physical into being. The ironic thing is your position is actually the one that requires additional evidence, while the position you're arguing against is well supported.

Re: Philosopher Philip Goff answers questions about panpsychism

#82

Post by [deleted] »

ajuc wrote: post #72
AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So it is conscious but we know where it comes from - it comes from the computational power and interactions with the world it can do. How little computational ability is required to define something as conscious? Even a brick reacts to stimuli, albeit in the same completely predictable (to our high-powered brains) way that a simple robot does.

My point exactly. Why is Mercury a planet and Pluto isn't? Because we arbitrarily decided on the threshold. Universe doesn't care, there's nothing in the laws of physics about Pluto or planets it's just a special case we focus on. Let me try another definition: Consciousness is a feedback loop we can empathize with.

[deleted]

Re: Philosopher Philip Goff answers questions about panpsychism

#83

Post by ryeights »

Stierlitz wrote: post #75

> Does Consciousness Pervade the Universe? NO! > Where does consciousness come from? Emergent properties of a functional brain.

Why such a quick dismissal? We have virtually zero evidence one way or the other. Calling consciousness an “emergent property” is a cop-out answer. What, materially, is that property, what physical laws explain it, and by what mechanism does it emerge from mere electrical impulses?

Re: Philosopher Philip Goff answers questions about panpsychism

#84

Post by kypro »

Am I the only one who thinks the consciousness question is really quite easy to understand and answer?

The illusion of consciousness is obviously beneficial. For example, I could tell a computer, through the use of sensors, to report that it's in pain when it's hit. But you wouldn't take it seriously, or care for its suffering, because it hasn't also declared that it is under the illusion that its suffering has a kind of physical manifestation in its mind.

The reason we care more about animals today than in the past is because we finally began to question whether or not they had a similar sense of self as us - perhaps when we are cruel to animals they don't just know they're in pain and understand like a computer might that pain is bad, but their brains actually tell them they are physically feeling a sensation of pain. Similarly, I presume if an AI ever said it had a similar physical experience of pain to us then we would considering treating that AI with similar regard to that of a human.

If I'm correct, then an illusion of consciousness makes complete evolutionary sense. It's not really consciousness, but a sense of self, and more importantly, a sense that there are others with a similar sense of self to our own.

Our consciousness is just our brains saying you're a real thing that thinks and feels. It's a lie our brain tells us that our pain and the pain of others is important and worth caring about.

Re: Philosopher Philip Goff answers questions about panpsychism

#85

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #68
asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can generally agree that something like consciousness exists, because I seem to be experiencing it. The test of that fact is ongoing, as I type these words, and it continues to be true. I suspect, based on the fact that other people act like me and all also claim to be conscious, that they are having internal experiences similar to mine, although I can't know for sure. So I don't agree that consciousness in general…

But you can't measure it objectively. You can't tell me that other people have consciousness, you just assume it is true because they seem to be like you. You have no mechanism for determining the limits of your assumption and indeed past societies have drawn the line in even narrower constraints than "human".

> you just assume it is true because they seem to be like you

A minor, but important point. I don't assume it's true. I just think it is more likely than not.

I suppose that the philosopher I'm talking about could say the same of their theory. And I guess that's OK, if all they're claiming is that this is something that seems likely. My only response to that would be that his induction is prima facie questionable to me.

Re: Philosopher Philip Goff answers questions about panpsychism

#86

Post by platz »

ajuc wrote: post #56
platz wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are simplifying the concept of consciousness a bit too much and are too hard in the paint for a very un-nuanced interpretation of behavioralism. Your position would be better described as consciousness is an illusion or consciousness does not exist. It has compelling elements but I find it a hard sell.

Thanks I've learned a new idiom. Yes I am pretty confident that there isn't "conscious force" and "consciousness equations". Because we would have encountered them already if they were there. So we're not arguing new physics, just adding stuff to our model of universe that changes nothing. > Your position would be better described as consciousness is an illusion or consciousness does not exist. I don't think turbulen…

Because it doesn't explain my experience.

You can still be a materialist and allow for consciousness via emergence, but that is not quite the argument you are making.

Re: Philosopher Philip Goff answers questions about panpsychism

#87

Post by jjmorrison »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #46
jjmorrison wrote: post #21

Why so much dislike for this? It's a theory that pushes on some of the foundational assumptions we make. Maybe it resonates and maybe not. But just being open to a new set of ideas means we can maybe learn something new and interesting. Or not and that's fine too. People seem angry that someone else would talk about an idea they don't currently agree with.

When we talk about consciousness, as in the subjective experience of being, that's ultimately a proxy for "which things can we do really awful stuff to". We reason that for things that are not conscious there is no suffering (since it can't be experienced) and therefore we are free to exploit those things in any way we wish. Lately the trend has been to argue that AI is not, that even though we can create algorithms…

> There is no way to measure the consciousness (again, the experience of being) of something

Right - that's the whole game this author is playing. One question that is so easily answered if you spend time observing is whether or not YOU are conscious. That is the only thing you can ever be sure of. Because you feel conscious. You feel like something is happening. You might be a brain in a vat and everyone else is an automaton. But you definitely know that you are experiencing something.

Re: Philosopher Philip Goff answers questions about panpsychism

#88

Post by bitL »

hosh wrote: post #74
bitL wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because there are a lot of scientific wackos that are trying to push it to mainstream without any proof, see e.g. PhDs in congnitive neuroscience with focus on art and whole conferences organized around such ideas. It looks like some New Age cult inside science. Whether it's true or not, there is no methodology how to measure it, putting it outside scientific domain. It's on the level of simulation hypothesis. The ra…

There's an assumption that consciousness must be a result of emergent properties. I am not sure something like that has been definitively proven. I think there will never be a proof of consciousness that will satisfy the standards set by scientific experimentation.

OK, my use of "emergent" is not appropriate either, it's just difficult to say anything as I have no clue what is behind it, if it is emergent, if it is an inherent property of universe, if it is outside universe in some "machine" or superbeing or whatever. Those are great sci-fi and philosophical topics, not sure about science itself as we know it right now though.

Re: Philosopher Philip Goff answers questions about panpsychism

#89

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

Stierlitz wrote: post #75

> Does Consciousness Pervade the Universe? NO! > Where does consciousness come from? Emergent properties of a functional brain.

How functional must a brain be? We know that we can remove at least half of a human brain and still have a somewhat functional person. Where is the line drawn?

Re: Philosopher Philip Goff answers questions about panpsychism

#90

Post by adwn »

dilap wrote: post #27

An interesting thought experiment is to imagine an incredibly-detailed computer simulation of a brain, down to the level of individual cells and neurotransmitters. (While this is beyond our current capabilities, it is in principle possible.) Hook the brain up to some decent IO devices, and you’d have an extremely human-like “AI”. (I’m glossing over some tricky details like, do you start with a fetus/baby brain and le…

To build on your thought experiment:

> So the question is, this simulated brain, which is behaving very similarly indeed to a biological brain: does it have consciousness? Does it feel?

If you answer "yes" to this question, what happens if you split the computations of that simulated brain over a million people equipped with pen and paper? Where is its consciousness happening now?

I have yet to hear a satisfying answer from anyone who believes that an AGI will automatically be conscious. But then again, I have yet to hear a satisfying explanation of consciousness from anyone...

Post reply on HN