4 ms·

Nothing? How do you mean that? Sure, it's not in the vicinity, e.g. machine learning has more to do with statistics and AI but nothing? I'm surprised by that st

Nothing? How do you mean that? Sure, it's not in the vicinity, e.g. machine learning has more to do with statistics and AI but nothing? I'm surprised by that statement, maybe I'm taking it too literal perhaps. I mean, the way neural nets behave in computer vision implies some form of attention. On some benchmarks neurons and deep learning have almost the same biological output (poorly phrased, was from a talk that NG gave). Perceiving, or parts of perception have something to do with consciousness. Attention has something to do with consciousness. And you don't have to agree on everything I say, I'm typing/thinking quickly. My point is: machine learning has at least something to do with consciousness. Neural nets are loosely inspired from the brain (and a ton of math). So it could perhaps nuance certain neuroscientific findigs in some cases or the other way around (e.g., neural net designs for the visual system or other brain systems). Anyways, that's how I get the connection. A stone brick and consciousness, that has nothing to do with each other, nothing practical/inspirational anyway.

MawNicker 10y ago
Subjective experiences are neurologically evolved and psychologically optimized representations of sensory input. Using only the objective world we ought to be able to infer something about them. Your thought process here is interesting. Color is the optimal subjective encoding of light's frequency and amplitude. We use it to infer material (color) and structure (shading) when we're recognizing objects. The models inferred by machines almost necessarily have a similar shape; Provided they're being required to perform similar tasks. If we can make a neural network pass the Turing Test then it's model should tell us all sorts of things about humans.
- MawNicker 10y ago
  I regret saying color was the optimal encoding. It's an optimal encoding. Also only for our visual instruments, required operations AND cognitive capacity. Different organisms likely have different sensations. I suspect consciousness is some form of self awareness. Our internal model of space is likely an aspect of this. Many/most organisms lack the neurology for this sort of modeling. They may still have consciousness in some form but I'm afraid to speculate about what it looks like. I'd want to see the Turing Test neural net compared to an ant neural net. That's the most apples to apples analysis I can think of. We can't cheat with awareness of our own subjectivity if we want to understand ourselves. We're never going to be ants. We will never know anything about color. Only how many frequencies and amplitudes of it different humans can detect.

MawNicker 10y ago

Subjective experiences are neurologically evolved and psychologically optimized representations of sensory input. Using only the objective world we ought to be able to infer something about them. Your thought process here is interesting. Color is the optimal subjective encoding of light's frequency and amplitude. We use it to infer material (color) and structure (shading) when we're recognizing objects. The models inferred by machines almost necessarily have a similar shape; Provided they're being required to perform similar tasks. If we can make a neural network pass the Turing Test then it's model should tell us all sorts of things about humans.

MawNicker 10y ago
I regret saying color was the optimal encoding. It's an optimal encoding. Also only for our visual instruments, required operations AND cognitive capacity. Different organisms likely have different sensations. I suspect consciousness is some form of self awareness. Our internal model of space is likely an aspect of this. Many/most organisms lack the neurology for this sort of modeling. They may still have consciousness in some form but I'm afraid to speculate about what it looks like. I'd want to see the Turing Test neural net compared to an ant neural net. That's the most apples to apples analysis I can think of. We can't cheat with awareness of our own subjectivity if we want to understand ourselves. We're never going to be ants. We will never know anything about color. Only how many frequencies and amplitudes of it different humans can detect.