5 ms·

Go is a very well defined system that can provably be modeled using computable functions. So yes, for Go it doesn't matter whether it's a human brain or a compu

by GuiA 10y ago

Go is a very well defined system that can provably be modeled using computable functions. So yes, for Go it doesn't matter whether it's a human brain or a computer interacting with the system - it's playing go. For pain or consciousness, things are not quite so clear cut. Your post again consists of very drawn out speculations around thought experiments, and does not build or rely on any formalism to support what you are saying. As a result, the reasoning around computation sounds a lot like the 18th century theorists who said the human body, including the brain, could conceivably be recreated with a very complicated steam engine. In fact, the arguments can be mirrored very exactly: "a server farm full of servers can do more computation than a single human brain, today." -> "a room full of steam engines can generate more energy than a single human body, today" "it's not completely out of the question that some neural net machine learning project happens to already actually feel pain but just doesn't report it." -> "it's not completely out of the question that some experimental locomotive project happens to already actually feel pain but just doesn't report it" etc. Again, these ideas become supported with more than just handwavy speculation, they remain not much more than hot air. As a side note, I'd encourage you to work on your writing style. Very verbose, drawn out, scattered posts like the 2 you posted in this thread rarely convey the point across. Prefer concise, plainly stated, direct arguments if your goal is to get communicate something clearly to a wider audience.

logicallee 10y ago
>For pain or consciousness, things are not quite so clear cut. yes they are. it's completely clear-cut and the physical substrate doesn't matter - qualia will arise in a modelled substrate. End of discussion. you would have to go through insane contortions of the kind that I suggested, to have a different state of affairs: - For example, God could make random quantum perturbations that etch out behavior that reports qualia, but the qualia are in fact experienced in an ethereal plane. In other words, I report to you that I experience pain because my soul experiences it in another dimension, and then God perturbs quantum effects that result in my brain firing a sequence of neurons that have me report I am feeling pain. He's kind of conveying things, acting like a messenger. - God does not choose to (or can't) make these perturbations in computer models, and, therefore, the computer models fail to report that they feel pain. Instead, a computer model of a person simply "doesn't work", since it does not have access to God randomly flicking bits back and forth. - To further describe this state of affairs: it would be like physical dice spelling out "We're human" if you throw them a bunch of times, but electronic dice spelling out "4++O_TxN%[n4LV3K" since God isn't perturbing them to spell out "We're human". Quantum mechanics is a way for God to make choices (that appear random to us but in fact communicate with an ethereal plane we can't access.) That is a state of affairs that you can model formally. It's insane and doesn't describe the world. It's not worth a second of my time or anyone else's, even though we couldn't refute it. I don't need to have a writing style that convinces anyone. I'm not noam fucking chomsky arguing wtih skinner. everyone else is simply wrong, there is nothing to be discussed, it's a waste of time to even discuss the topic. Steam engines are exceedingly slow. The fact that they can model humans doesn't help us because the time scale involved (e.g. a million billion years to model 1 year, assuming you have a million billion tons of steam engine metal, etc -- that's not helpful.) the state of computing isn't like computing on steam engines. I don't need to introduce formalism and the like, use the numbers and your head. this discussion is a waste of everyone's time.
- GuiA 10y ago
  > qualia will arise in a modelled substrate. End of discussion. > I don't need to introduce formalism and the like, use the numbers and your head. > everyone else is simply wrong, there is nothing to be discussed Got to hand it to you, hadn't seen a troll of this magnitude on HN in a while :)
  - logicallee 10y ago
    This is very unfair and I would prefer for you to edit it to be more substantive, in line with HN policies. The way it reads now is an ad hominem attack and derails the conversation: I'm a user with a long posting history here and the comment is made in earnest. You quote me without including any context at all, and don't add anything substantive other than literal name-calling. In particular please note that I give a complete model under which my suggestion fails. If God perturbed quantum effects to cause people to report being conscious (like perturbing dice rolls to report "I'm human!"), it could formally be a method to communicate between an ethereal soul plane and our reality, which would not translate to being modelled: the minute you modelled it, God would stop perturbing the physical substrate (stop perturbing the model) and the model would "break" or fail to have the emergent properties that the physical substrate has; the dice would stop saying "I'm human". Since there is no obvious way to refute this scenario, by giving it I have given a very strong argument against my claim. Obviously I feel strongly about the issue, but only because the conclusion is certain for me. I have shown fairly rigorously (I didn't exactly spell it out) how a model is possible under which I am wrong (i.e. God) so I don't see what else you could expect of me: I've given the strongest possible case against my model. My model is still right, I simply don't want to be distracted by noise. I think you see this is the case, or you would not have responded in this way. There is not really anything to argue about here. I guess we could agree to disagree if you don't see things this way.
    - GuiA 10y ago
      Questions about the model are addressed with handwaving such as "use numbers and your head" or "this is obvious and everyone else is wrong"; no existing literature or prior work is cited; rather, thought experiments that completely evade the points raised by others are built out of thin air. The core point is that qualia emerges out of perception, and therefore that any system that can perceive in a broad sense, even if that perception is merely simulation of perception, will effectively experience consciousness. But there isn't any reference to proven scientific models for any of the parts at play here; posts treat the core premises as ultimate truths and then spin around that. Regarding your mention of your posting history and complaining of ad hominem, this is completely disingenuous given the way you have responded to other posters. If you wish a better response to your future posts, I suggest making your posts shorter, supporting your core points with references to existing work, and not use at all the "everyone but me is wrong" style of discourse.

by GuiA 10y ago

logicallee 10y ago

>For pain or consciousness, things are not quite so clear cut. yes they are. it's completely clear-cut and the physical substrate doesn't matter - qualia will arise in a modelled substrate. End of discussion. you would have to go through insane contortions of the kind that I suggested, to have a different state of affairs: - For example, God could make random quantum perturbations that etch out behavior that reports qualia, but the qualia are in fact experienced in an ethereal plane. In other words, I report to you that I experience pain because my soul experiences it in another dimension, and then God perturbs quantum effects that result in my brain firing a sequence of neurons that have me report I am feeling pain. He's kind of conveying things, acting like a messenger. - God does not choose to (or can't) make these perturbations in computer models, and, therefore, the computer models fail to report that they feel pain. Instead, a computer model of a person simply "doesn't work", since it does not have access to God randomly flicking bits back and forth. - To further describe this state of affairs: it would be like physical dice spelling out "We're human" if you throw them a bunch of times, but electronic dice spelling out "4++O_TxN%[n4LV3K" since God isn't perturbing them to spell out "We're human". Quantum mechanics is a way for God to make choices (that appear random to us but in fact communicate with an ethereal plane we can't access.) That is a state of affairs that you can model formally. It's insane and doesn't describe the world. It's not worth a second of my time or anyone else's, even though we couldn't refute it. I don't need to have a writing style that convinces anyone. I'm not noam fucking chomsky arguing wtih skinner. everyone else is simply wrong, there is nothing to be discussed, it's a waste of time to even discuss the topic. Steam engines are exceedingly slow. The fact that they can model humans doesn't help us because the time scale involved (e.g. a million billion years to model 1 year, assuming you have a million billion tons of steam engine metal, etc -- that's not helpful.) the state of computing isn't like computing on steam engines. I don't need to introduce formalism and the like, use the numbers and your head. this discussion is a waste of everyone's time.

GuiA 10y ago
> qualia will arise in a modelled substrate. End of discussion. > I don't need to introduce formalism and the like, use the numbers and your head. > everyone else is simply wrong, there is nothing to be discussed Got to hand it to you, hadn't seen a troll of this magnitude on HN in a while :)
- logicallee 10y ago
  This is very unfair and I would prefer for you to edit it to be more substantive, in line with HN policies. The way it reads now is an ad hominem attack and derails the conversation: I'm a user with a long posting history here and the comment is made in earnest. You quote me without including any context at all, and don't add anything substantive other than literal name-calling. In particular please note that I give a complete model under which my suggestion fails. If God perturbed quantum effects to cause people to report being conscious (like perturbing dice rolls to report "I'm human!"), it could formally be a method to communicate between an ethereal soul plane and our reality, which would not translate to being modelled: the minute you modelled it, God would stop perturbing the physical substrate (stop perturbing the model) and the model would "break" or fail to have the emergent properties that the physical substrate has; the dice would stop saying "I'm human". Since there is no obvious way to refute this scenario, by giving it I have given a very strong argument against my claim. Obviously I feel strongly about the issue, but only because the conclusion is certain for me. I have shown fairly rigorously (I didn't exactly spell it out) how a model is possible under which I am wrong (i.e. God) so I don't see what else you could expect of me: I've given the strongest possible case against my model. My model is still right, I simply don't want to be distracted by noise. I think you see this is the case, or you would not have responded in this way. There is not really anything to argue about here. I guess we could agree to disagree if you don't see things this way.
  - GuiA 10y ago
    Questions about the model are addressed with handwaving such as "use numbers and your head" or "this is obvious and everyone else is wrong"; no existing literature or prior work is cited; rather, thought experiments that completely evade the points raised by others are built out of thin air. The core point is that qualia emerges out of perception, and therefore that any system that can perceive in a broad sense, even if that perception is merely simulation of perception, will effectively experience consciousness. But there isn't any reference to proven scientific models for any of the parts at play here; posts treat the core premises as ultimate truths and then spin around that. Regarding your mention of your posting history and complaining of ad hominem, this is completely disingenuous given the way you have responded to other posters. If you wish a better response to your future posts, I suggest making your posts shorter, supporting your core points with references to existing work, and not use at all the "everyone but me is wrong" style of discourse.