7 ms·

>Isn't there quite a bit of wasted energy and skull space that could be better used for more survival oriented if-statements. All of our behavior seems possible

>Isn't there quite a bit of wasted energy and skull space that could be better used for more survival oriented if-statements. All of our behavior seems possible without the associated feelings. Intelligence isn't about a giant list of arbitrary if then statements though. Think of artificial neural networks. They learn behaviors from experience and reinforcement. They take actions they predict will lead to reward. How is that fundamentally different than what humans do? I mean our brains algorithms are probably much more complex, but the principles should be the same. Shocking a neural net with negative reward, and it will strongly desire to avoid that again. How is that different than pain? Add on a bunch of hard wired goals and behaviors more complicated than "pain" and "reward", and you have yourself a conscious being. Not fundamentally different than a human.

RivieraKid 10y ago
> How is that fundamentally different than what humans do? I mean our brains algorithms are probably much more complex, but the principles should be the same. Shocking a neural net with negative reward, and it will strongly desire to avoid that again. How is that different than pain? Because we feel the pain, why? Does neural net feel anything?
- sokoloff 10y ago
  Is the fact that we feel pain a bug, a feature, or no different from a neural net that learns to avoid that negative reward via electrical impulses rather than electrochemical impulses as we do?
  - RivieraKid 10y ago
    It's not a bug or a feature, the fact we feel or experience anything at all is the most fundamental aspect of our existence. If you think about it, subjective experience is the only thing that exists. All of physics stems from subjective experience. Physics is basically a systematic describtion of the patterns and regularities that we experience and perceive. Example - we see that objects always fall down when dropped - we use gravity to describe this pattern.
    - aninhumer 10y ago
      Certainly experience is the only window we have into existence, and in that sense it is fundamental, but many people believe that matter itself exists regardless of whether we're around to see it.
      - RivieraKid 10y ago
        Depends on what you mean by "matter exists". The way I look at it, only consciousness exists, physical world is just a mental model consistent with what we perceive (see, hear) through consciousness / mind / subjective experience.
        aninhumer 10y ago
        Well epistemology is hard, which is why I said "believe". However, the evidence for materialism is that many different consciousnesses exist, and seemingly come into being and cease during the temporal process of the physical world. That would seem to suggest that the consciousnesses are functions of the physical world, rather than vice versa. (Unless you're a solipsist?)
        RivieraKid 10y ago
        Perhaps I'm a solipsist, I generally agree with most of what's on the wiki description. I define consciousness as my feelings, perceptions, thoughts. We imagine other people have consciousness because they act like us. We could define consciousness in a non-solipsistic, objective way, but it would be a fundamentally different thing. Maybe one reason why the hard problem of consciousness is hard is because people hate that solipsism is part of the answer. By the way, one important argument I forgot to mention that leads to a possible way to define the "third-party" / objective consciousness (in the last point): - Consciousness is not physical. - Physical brain can obviously affect the state of consciousness. - Can consciousness affect the physical brain though? I believe yes, because otherwise we would not be talking about this, I would not write here about consciousness not being physical. However, I'm less convinced about this than the above. - The consequence is that we should be able to observe something fishy going on in the brain, for example supposedly random quantum processes not being random, which would "break" current physical laws. - Brains with this fishy behavior are conscious. A fun theory - most likely wrong though - is that you can "tune" / connect physical systems to a consciosness by arranging them in specific way or whatever. And during evolution, the brain has learned to do that, because it was evolutionary advantageous.
- rdslw 10y ago
  There is nothing magical in 'feel the pain' (also love,hate etc). What about hunger and others? Your body and brain evolved to a current state which releases chemical substances to signal to other parts of body what's going on. Here cut arm is signaling with pain it's hurt and this will/may (after many layers of reduction) hamper your survival chances, thats why you have such signaling in place. In essence, your pain feeling (and others 'high feelings like love/child etc') is no different than automatic closing your eyes because your eyelashes touched something or you moving out of warm environment because it's not comfort anymore to you or you drinking some water because you're thirsty (BTW try to trink about how that 'I'm thirsty' thought just appeared in your brain - who did it? ;) ).
  - RivieraKid 10y ago
    > What about hunger and others? The same as pain in principle, it's just a type of feeling. Physics can't not only explain them, it can't even define them, because they're subjective experiences. > Your body and brain evolved to a current state which releases chemical substances to signal to other parts of body what's going on. Here cut arm is signaling with pain it's hurt and this will/may (after many layers of reduction) hamper your survival chances, thats why you have such signaling in place. I'm sorry, but this is completely irrelevant. When I discuss this people always describe what happens in the human body when we feel pain and how it's evolutionary advantageous - I don't get what's the point of that. What's happenning in the body when we feel pain is not the question. The problem is why do we feel pain when those physical processes happen. Or more specifically, why do we feel pain when the physical particles in the brain are in certain configurations.
    - mnkmnk 10y ago
      Isn't feeling pain the equivalent of negative reward? Negative reward must be avoided, similarly, pain must be avoided. Isn't this a good enough reason to feel pain?
      - RivieraKid 10y ago
        Feeling of pain is a type of feeling, a state of mind. Negative reward (that's an oxymoron lol, let's call it punishment) is an action that leads to an unpleasant feeling such as pain, fear, hunger, etc.
- chillacy 10y ago
  Do dogs experience pain? Probably most would say yes, since dogs have been bred to convey their emotions better to humans (though you still have to look at their tail as much as their face). How about pigs? Pigs are smarter than dogs on many levels, but we're largely okay with slaughtering them for food and not dogs. They haven't been bred to look cute. Do bugs? Bugs are much simpler than mammals, but they also exhibit aversion to pain. Have you squashed a bug before? What I'm getting at is this: we have more empathy for those who look like us. This applies even among humans if you look at results from IATs.
- Houshalter 10y ago
  Yes I think a artificial neural net feels pain, perhaps even the same way we do (if it has the right algorithm, any way.) If you shock it, it will experience a strong desire to avoid being shocked again. If you give it other instincts like "cry when experiencing a negative reward" and "focus all your attention on the source of pain to avoid distraction", etc, it starts to look much more human like too.
  - RivieraKid 10y ago
    > Yes I think a artificial neural net feels pain, perhaps even the same way we do (if it has the right algorithm, any way.) We can't even define the feeling of pain, let alone decide whether a neural net feels it. > If you shock it, it will experience a strong desire to avoid being shocked again. If you give it other instincts like "cry when experiencing a negative reward" and "focus all your attention on the source of pain to avoid distraction", etc, it starts to look much more human like too. Why would it experience anything? Why would a computer with specific values in its registers feel pain? Would I cause real pain by setting the CPU registers and memory into a specific state?
    - Houshalter 10y ago
      >We can't even define the feeling of pain, let alone decide whether a neural net feels it. I never claimed there was an agreed on definition. But I think this is closer to one. >Why would a computer with specific values in its registers feel pain? Would I cause real pain by setting the CPU registers and memory into a specific state? Yes, obviously. The neural net would register your actions as an extremely negative experience, and do everything in it's power to get you to stop. How is that different than torturing a person?
      - aninhumer 10y ago
        The experience of pain is not the same thing as reaction to pain. Humans and neural nets both display the latter, but the only instance of the former we can observe is in oneself. It's possible neural nets do experience pain, but we have no way of knowing that (any more than we do of knowing that other humans do).
adwn 10y ago
You do have subjective experience, don't you? I mean, you don't just process external stimuli, combine them with an internal state, and generate output signals, like a program would – you can actually "feel" things and see them with "your inner eye"? I'm not being sarcastic here. Maybe there are people that don't have subjective experience, just like there are people that can hear colors.
- naasking 10y ago
  > I mean, you don't just process external stimuli, combine them with an internal state, and generate output signals, like a program would – you can actually "feel" things and see them with "your inner eye"? You're assuming the conclusion that consciousness isn't just processing external stimuli with internal state to generate output signals, just a particular form of it.
  - adwn 10y ago
    > You're assuming the conclusion that consciousness isn't just processing external stimuli with internal state to generate output signals, just a particular form of it. Yes, that is my assumption, because that is what I observe (only in my own mind, of course – I don't know how to observe it in others). I'm not alone, many (most? all?) people are claiming to observe that.
    - naasking 10y ago
      Except: 1. It isn't a valid observation, because you don't actually observe that consciousness is not part of the process of processing external stimuli. At best, you can observe that consciousness exists. 2. It isn't a valid conclusion even if it were a valid observation. Or do you also conclude that water magically breaks pencils and reconstitutes them when they are removed [1]? [1] http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000KUS4vG.ZoqQ/s/860/860/Fphoto-24918908C-2RM.jpg http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000KUS4vG.ZoqQ/s/860...
      - aninhumer 10y ago

RivieraKid 10y ago

> How is that fundamentally different than what humans do? I mean our brains algorithms are probably much more complex, but the principles should be the same. Shocking a neural net with negative reward, and it will strongly desire to avoid that again. How is that different than pain? Because we feel the pain, why? Does neural net feel anything?

sokoloff 10y ago
Is the fact that we feel pain a bug, a feature, or no different from a neural net that learns to avoid that negative reward via electrical impulses rather than electrochemical impulses as we do?
- RivieraKid 10y ago
  It's not a bug or a feature, the fact we feel or experience anything at all is the most fundamental aspect of our existence. If you think about it, subjective experience is the only thing that exists. All of physics stems from subjective experience. Physics is basically a systematic describtion of the patterns and regularities that we experience and perceive. Example - we see that objects always fall down when dropped - we use gravity to describe this pattern.
  - aninhumer 10y ago
    Certainly experience is the only window we have into existence, and in that sense it is fundamental, but many people believe that matter itself exists regardless of whether we're around to see it.
    - RivieraKid 10y ago
      Depends on what you mean by "matter exists". The way I look at it, only consciousness exists, physical world is just a mental model consistent with what we perceive (see, hear) through consciousness / mind / subjective experience.
      - aninhumer 10y ago
        Well epistemology is hard, which is why I said "believe". However, the evidence for materialism is that many different consciousnesses exist, and seemingly come into being and cease during the temporal process of the physical world. That would seem to suggest that the consciousnesses are functions of the physical world, rather than vice versa. (Unless you're a solipsist?)
        RivieraKid 10y ago
        Perhaps I'm a solipsist, I generally agree with most of what's on the wiki description. I define consciousness as my feelings, perceptions, thoughts. We imagine other people have consciousness because they act like us. We could define consciousness in a non-solipsistic, objective way, but it would be a fundamentally different thing. Maybe one reason why the hard problem of consciousness is hard is because people hate that solipsism is part of the answer. By the way, one important argument I forgot to mention that leads to a possible way to define the "third-party" / objective consciousness (in the last point): - Consciousness is not physical. - Physical brain can obviously affect the state of consciousness. - Can consciousness affect the physical brain though? I believe yes, because otherwise we would not be talking about this, I would not write here about consciousness not being physical. However, I'm less convinced about this than the above. - The consequence is that we should be able to observe something fishy going on in the brain, for example supposedly random quantum processes not being random, which would "break" current physical laws. - Brains with this fishy behavior are conscious. A fun theory - most likely wrong though - is that you can "tune" / connect physical systems to a consciosness by arranging them in specific way or whatever. And during evolution, the brain has learned to do that, because it was evolutionary advantageous.
rdslw 10y ago
There is nothing magical in 'feel the pain' (also love,hate etc). What about hunger and others? Your body and brain evolved to a current state which releases chemical substances to signal to other parts of body what's going on. Here cut arm is signaling with pain it's hurt and this will/may (after many layers of reduction) hamper your survival chances, thats why you have such signaling in place. In essence, your pain feeling (and others 'high feelings like love/child etc') is no different than automatic closing your eyes because your eyelashes touched something or you moving out of warm environment because it's not comfort anymore to you or you drinking some water because you're thirsty (BTW try to trink about how that 'I'm thirsty' thought just appeared in your brain - who did it? ;) ).
- RivieraKid 10y ago
  > What about hunger and others? The same as pain in principle, it's just a type of feeling. Physics can't not only explain them, it can't even define them, because they're subjective experiences. > Your body and brain evolved to a current state which releases chemical substances to signal to other parts of body what's going on. Here cut arm is signaling with pain it's hurt and this will/may (after many layers of reduction) hamper your survival chances, thats why you have such signaling in place. I'm sorry, but this is completely irrelevant. When I discuss this people always describe what happens in the human body when we feel pain and how it's evolutionary advantageous - I don't get what's the point of that. What's happenning in the body when we feel pain is not the question. The problem is why do we feel pain when those physical processes happen. Or more specifically, why do we feel pain when the physical particles in the brain are in certain configurations.
  - mnkmnk 10y ago
    Isn't feeling pain the equivalent of negative reward? Negative reward must be avoided, similarly, pain must be avoided. Isn't this a good enough reason to feel pain?
    - RivieraKid 10y ago
      Feeling of pain is a type of feeling, a state of mind. Negative reward (that's an oxymoron lol, let's call it punishment) is an action that leads to an unpleasant feeling such as pain, fear, hunger, etc.
chillacy 10y ago
Do dogs experience pain? Probably most would say yes, since dogs have been bred to convey their emotions better to humans (though you still have to look at their tail as much as their face). How about pigs? Pigs are smarter than dogs on many levels, but we're largely okay with slaughtering them for food and not dogs. They haven't been bred to look cute. Do bugs? Bugs are much simpler than mammals, but they also exhibit aversion to pain. Have you squashed a bug before? What I'm getting at is this: we have more empathy for those who look like us. This applies even among humans if you look at results from IATs.
Houshalter 10y ago
Yes I think a artificial neural net feels pain, perhaps even the same way we do (if it has the right algorithm, any way.) If you shock it, it will experience a strong desire to avoid being shocked again. If you give it other instincts like "cry when experiencing a negative reward" and "focus all your attention on the source of pain to avoid distraction", etc, it starts to look much more human like too.
- RivieraKid 10y ago
  > Yes I think a artificial neural net feels pain, perhaps even the same way we do (if it has the right algorithm, any way.) We can't even define the feeling of pain, let alone decide whether a neural net feels it. > If you shock it, it will experience a strong desire to avoid being shocked again. If you give it other instincts like "cry when experiencing a negative reward" and "focus all your attention on the source of pain to avoid distraction", etc, it starts to look much more human like too. Why would it experience anything? Why would a computer with specific values in its registers feel pain? Would I cause real pain by setting the CPU registers and memory into a specific state?
  - Houshalter 10y ago
    >We can't even define the feeling of pain, let alone decide whether a neural net feels it. I never claimed there was an agreed on definition. But I think this is closer to one. >Why would a computer with specific values in its registers feel pain? Would I cause real pain by setting the CPU registers and memory into a specific state? Yes, obviously. The neural net would register your actions as an extremely negative experience, and do everything in it's power to get you to stop. How is that different than torturing a person?
    - aninhumer 10y ago
      The experience of pain is not the same thing as reaction to pain. Humans and neural nets both display the latter, but the only instance of the former we can observe is in oneself. It's possible neural nets do experience pain, but we have no way of knowing that (any more than we do of knowing that other humans do).

adwn 10y ago

You do have subjective experience, don't you? I mean, you don't just process external stimuli, combine them with an internal state, and generate output signals, like a program would – you can actually "feel" things and see them with "your inner eye"? I'm not being sarcastic here. Maybe there are people that don't have subjective experience, just like there are people that can hear colors.

naasking 10y ago
> I mean, you don't just process external stimuli, combine them with an internal state, and generate output signals, like a program would – you can actually "feel" things and see them with "your inner eye"? You're assuming the conclusion that consciousness isn't just processing external stimuli with internal state to generate output signals, just a particular form of it.
- adwn 10y ago
  > You're assuming the conclusion that consciousness isn't just processing external stimuli with internal state to generate output signals, just a particular form of it. Yes, that is my assumption, because that is what I observe (only in my own mind, of course – I don't know how to observe it in others). I'm not alone, many (most? all?) people are claiming to observe that.
  - naasking 10y ago
    Except: 1. It isn't a valid observation, because you don't actually observe that consciousness is not part of the process of processing external stimuli. At best, you can observe that consciousness exists. 2. It isn't a valid conclusion even if it were a valid observation. Or do you also conclude that water magically breaks pencils and reconstitutes them when they are removed [1]? [1] http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000KUS4vG.ZoqQ/s/860/860/Fphoto-24918908C-2RM.jpg http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000KUS4vG.ZoqQ/s/860...
    - aninhumer 10y ago