6 ms·

> Consciousness is the state of being awake, hence able to react normally to sensory stimulation. And how'd you go about verifying that? I know that I'm consci

by yarou 10y ago

> Consciousness is the state of being awake, hence able to react normally to sensory stimulation. And how'd you go about verifying that? I know that I'm conscious, but you could be a p-zombie. That means if I poke you with a toothpick, you will scream in agony (responding to stimulus), but that doesn't give me any information about whether or not you are conscious.

meric 10y ago
We're all p-zombies. When we get poked with toothpicks we will scream in agony, the thought of being poked with toothpicks will appear internally, and we will in turn react to that thought, the reaction based on our upbringing. We have our outer senses, sight, touch, and then our inner senses, that can sense the 'thoughts' that were triggered by outer sense stimulation. The thought is just another form of sensory stimulation, but it is internally generated, indirectly based on an external source. Our reaction to those thoughts depends on how we've seen other people react to similar situations, that have generated those thoughts in us.
- yarou 10y ago
  I'm not that comfortable with the hand wavy physicalist view that consciousness arises from the physical processes of the brain. If that were the case, why can't I simply design an artificial brain, a cyber brain, and upload myself in 1000 bodies? What really spoke to me in Aaronson's entire lecture is the whole quantum no-cloning restriction. Bell State can't help you either, because you can't violate causality. Suppose for a second that you could violate the laws of physics in U', a universe where anything goes. You can even have free energy too, i.e. no increasing entropy. I would still argue that creating uncountably infinite copies of yourself will still yield only the original conscious, while the rest are merely simulations. FWIW, I don't think "microtubules" is sufficient either, because that's equally hand-wavy and a restatement of ghost in the machine. At least that's how I parse it.
  - meric 10y ago
    Let's not violate the laws of physics and go back to the fundamental laws of nature. We know: 1. Entropy is always increasing. 2. Life is negative entropy gatherer. (It decreases it's own entropy by increasing the entropy of its surroundings, to live.) 3. If we plot all living organisms by their negative entropy, it corresponds roughly to their awareness. The more negative entropy, the more awareness, the more "conscious". Hypothesis: Grandparent commenter said Consciousness is the state of being awake, hence able to react normally to sensory stimulation. Entropy is information, the more entropy the more information there is to process. Awareness and consciousness is the ability to process information. The more negative entropy the bigger the ability to process information. Entropy and consciousness are two sides of the same coin. Consciousness, awareness, is negative entropy. As another commenter said[1]: "The universe splits itself into two parts - an observer and an observed." [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11827988 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11827988
  - naasking 10y ago
    > If that were the case, why can't I simply design an artificial brain, a cyber brain, and upload myself in 1000 bodies? What makes you think you can't, at least in principle?
    - yarou 10y ago
      Because it necessarily violates quantum no-cloning. I think the state of any human at time t is a quantum state, more specifically a linear superposition of n distinct states with probability amplitudes. I don't necessarily agree with the lookup table analogy - sure, consciousness is finite, but it is also a chaotic system. Else, it would be extremely easy to predict every possible set of actions I will make in my entire life. As Aaronson mentions, I don't think you could do that without killing me using something like Laplace's demon. It's relatively easy to create a simulation of me - that's merely a problem of data. A simulation wouldn't be conscious though, it would be like me, but not me proper. I think there is some intrinsic property that gives rise to consciousness, as of yet undiscovered. Hard to say though, after all, are we all not information?

by yarou 10y ago

meric 10y ago

We're all p-zombies. When we get poked with toothpicks we will scream in agony, the thought of being poked with toothpicks will appear internally, and we will in turn react to that thought, the reaction based on our upbringing. We have our outer senses, sight, touch, and then our inner senses, that can sense the 'thoughts' that were triggered by outer sense stimulation. The thought is just another form of sensory stimulation, but it is internally generated, indirectly based on an external source. Our reaction to those thoughts depends on how we've seen other people react to similar situations, that have generated those thoughts in us.

yarou 10y ago
I'm not that comfortable with the hand wavy physicalist view that consciousness arises from the physical processes of the brain. If that were the case, why can't I simply design an artificial brain, a cyber brain, and upload myself in 1000 bodies? What really spoke to me in Aaronson's entire lecture is the whole quantum no-cloning restriction. Bell State can't help you either, because you can't violate causality. Suppose for a second that you could violate the laws of physics in U', a universe where anything goes. You can even have free energy too, i.e. no increasing entropy. I would still argue that creating uncountably infinite copies of yourself will still yield only the original conscious, while the rest are merely simulations. FWIW, I don't think "microtubules" is sufficient either, because that's equally hand-wavy and a restatement of ghost in the machine. At least that's how I parse it.
- meric 10y ago
  Let's not violate the laws of physics and go back to the fundamental laws of nature. We know: 1. Entropy is always increasing. 2. Life is negative entropy gatherer. (It decreases it's own entropy by increasing the entropy of its surroundings, to live.) 3. If we plot all living organisms by their negative entropy, it corresponds roughly to their awareness. The more negative entropy, the more awareness, the more "conscious". Hypothesis: Grandparent commenter said Consciousness is the state of being awake, hence able to react normally to sensory stimulation. Entropy is information, the more entropy the more information there is to process. Awareness and consciousness is the ability to process information. The more negative entropy the bigger the ability to process information. Entropy and consciousness are two sides of the same coin. Consciousness, awareness, is negative entropy. As another commenter said[1]: "The universe splits itself into two parts - an observer and an observed." [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11827988 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11827988
- naasking 10y ago
  > If that were the case, why can't I simply design an artificial brain, a cyber brain, and upload myself in 1000 bodies? What makes you think you can't, at least in principle?
  - yarou 10y ago
    Because it necessarily violates quantum no-cloning. I think the state of any human at time t is a quantum state, more specifically a linear superposition of n distinct states with probability amplitudes. I don't necessarily agree with the lookup table analogy - sure, consciousness is finite, but it is also a chaotic system. Else, it would be extremely easy to predict every possible set of actions I will make in my entire life. As Aaronson mentions, I don't think you could do that without killing me using something like Laplace's demon. It's relatively easy to create a simulation of me - that's merely a problem of data. A simulation wouldn't be conscious though, it would be like me, but not me proper. I think there is some intrinsic property that gives rise to consciousness, as of yet undiscovered. Hard to say though, after all, are we all not information?