5 ms·

There's no reason to believe so. Advancements in CS, AI, biology, and general models of intelligence are slowly bringing us to the point where consciousness is

by lend000 10y ago

There's no reason to believe so. Advancements in CS, AI, biology, and general models of intelligence are slowly bringing us to the point where consciousness is no longer a mystery to the enlightened. One of my favorite researchers in general AI is Professor Schmidhuber, who has pioneered some of the (currently) more practical areas of machine learning, too: http://people.idsia.ch/~juergen/ http://people.idsia.ch/~juergen/ Even when we create self-aware machines that can demonstrate generalized intelligence, I think most people will struggle to come to terms with what consciousness is (or more so, what it isn't). My spin on it: consciousness isn't real; it's a necessary perceived byproduct of 'everything else.' I believe Schmidhuber said it more elegantly, describing consciousness as a result of data compression.

SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
Nothing about our understanding of intelligence or self-awareness explains why we're not philosophical zombies. Your explanation only addresses the form of perception, not why there's perception at all. It doesn't even address it, just implicitly assumes there must be such! Your comment isn't even wrong: it fails to address the topic at all.
- abiox 10y ago
  > Nothing about our understanding of intelligence or self-awareness explains why we're not philosophical zombies. perhaps we really are zombies. > why there's perception at all why do atoms interact at all? why do fields interact at all? perhaps "there's perception" because fields and matter can interact.
  - SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
    Well, that would agree with the article and disagree with the person I was replying to. So I think you're responding to the wrong person.
  - praxulus 10y ago
    >perhaps we really are zombies Maybe you are, but I'm definitely conscious. I find it hard to believe that I'm unique in that respect.
    - lend000 10y ago
      > Maybe you are, but I'm definitely conscious. I think the real takeaway is that a philosophical zombie cannot exist, because all of the intelligent, aware, normal things that a philosophical zombie is supposed to be able to do require some sort of consciousness to integrate the mechanical signals. That's all consciousness is -- data compression, signal processing. You wouldn't work if you weren't conscious.
      - visarga 10y ago
        Put it in another way, consciousness is selecting actions that lead are associated with maximal predicted rewards. So it's a system that has perception and ranks possible actions. Its role is to make us more adaptive to external states.
- lend000 10y ago
  > Your comment isn't even wrong: it fails to address the topic at all. It always surprises me when people make seemingly innocuous discussions political. The pros and cons of a pseudo-anonymous Internet. Regardless, I'm not sure what point you're talking about or how this article is not the perfect place to discuss consciousness. > Nothing about our understanding of intelligence or self-awareness explains why we're not philosophical zombies. As I posted on another comment, I think this could also be phrased conversely (that a philosophical zombie makes no sense), depending on your definition of a zombie. > Your explanation only addresses the form of perception, not why there's perception at all. Not sure what you mean here, but it sounds like you're still viewing consciousness as something 'greater' than what is necessary to process signals and generate outputs. And then calling it perception.
hacker_9 10y ago
It's not like this viewpoint isn't known, it's just not accepted because it makes no sense. Consciousness really is unexplainable by what we know of the physical world, it's constancy is just odd. When were talking about the most advanced organ in the history of the universe, is it really a leap to consider that new physics would be involved?
- abiox 10y ago
  "Consciousness really is unexplainable by what we know of the physical world" maybe. or perhaps it simply has a mystical privilege. there do seem to be a fair number of terms and concepts (like 'qualia') that hold sway over some people's discussion, but themselves seem questionable.
  - visarga 10y ago
    Qualia and the hard problem are just dualism disguised. Dualism is rife with contradictions and has been largely abandoned, but now it's trying to gain acceptance again under new names. The idea that there is something special about internal states of brains, that can't be explained away, puts mental states on a special place, apart from everything else - a dualism.
- visarga 10y ago
  > Consciousness really is unexplainable by what we know of the physical world, it's constancy is just odd. Consciousness is just you adapting to the world. You need consciousness in order to live in the world, with all its complexity and dangers. The brain has nothing magical about it, it is made of the same kind of atoms as anything else. What is happening is just perception, judgement and action in a loop, each supported by neural networks. Every moment, a full perception-judgement-action loop plays itself. It generates a stream of experience and emotion (which is just the value or reward intuited in certain situations and actions). This internal stream of perceptions and judgements is consciousness.
  - hacker_9 10y ago
    Amazing that every sentence you wrote is objectively wrong. I'm bored so lets go through them: 1. Consciousness is just you adapting to the world Since when did adaptation require consciousness? We're not even sure most animals are conscious, but they adapt to their conditions just fine. 2. You need consciousness in order to live in the world, with all its complexity and dangers. Where does this need come from? A self driving car could navigate the world without being conscious at all. 3. The brain has nothing magical about it, it is made of the same kind of atoms as anything else. Didn't say it was magical, but saying it's made of atoms moves this conversation along by zero percent. It's like saying computers are just a bunch of transistors, disregarding the millions of lines of code required for it to even just take my key inputs as I type out this pointless comment, and turn them into glyphs on the screen. 4. What is happening is just perception, judgement and action in a loop, each supported by neural networks. Where has this come from? We don't even know what goes on inside one neuron, let alone the billions of networks. 5. Every moment, a full perception-judgement-action loop plays itself. So what happens if I close my eyes and cover my ears? Now I am unable to perceive the world around me, and break the 'loop'. It's not like I shut down. I don't think you've thought this through. 6. It generates a stream of experience and emotion (which is just the value or reward intuited in certain situations and actions). Yes certain chemicals are released in the brain depending on your actions, but of course it's all chemicals; it's a biological system. 7. This internal stream of perceptions and judgements is consciousness. No, this is just a function of part of the brain, which we can be aware of through consciousness. All in all, there is completely no depth to your explanation at all. The fact we haven't got a definite blueprint for the brain, does really mean it is currently beyond our understanding. Neuroscientists have died of old age trying to figure out the secrets of the brain, and it's because they were looking a bit more in-depth that it's just a bunch of atoms.

by lend000 10y ago

SomeStupidPoint 10y ago

Nothing about our understanding of intelligence or self-awareness explains why we're not philosophical zombies. Your explanation only addresses the form of perception, not why there's perception at all. It doesn't even address it, just implicitly assumes there must be such! Your comment isn't even wrong: it fails to address the topic at all.

abiox 10y ago
> Nothing about our understanding of intelligence or self-awareness explains why we're not philosophical zombies. perhaps we really are zombies. > why there's perception at all why do atoms interact at all? why do fields interact at all? perhaps "there's perception" because fields and matter can interact.
- SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
  Well, that would agree with the article and disagree with the person I was replying to. So I think you're responding to the wrong person.
- praxulus 10y ago
  >perhaps we really are zombies Maybe you are, but I'm definitely conscious. I find it hard to believe that I'm unique in that respect.
  - lend000 10y ago
    > Maybe you are, but I'm definitely conscious. I think the real takeaway is that a philosophical zombie cannot exist, because all of the intelligent, aware, normal things that a philosophical zombie is supposed to be able to do require some sort of consciousness to integrate the mechanical signals. That's all consciousness is -- data compression, signal processing. You wouldn't work if you weren't conscious.
    - visarga 10y ago
      Put it in another way, consciousness is selecting actions that lead are associated with maximal predicted rewards. So it's a system that has perception and ranks possible actions. Its role is to make us more adaptive to external states.
lend000 10y ago
> Your comment isn't even wrong: it fails to address the topic at all. It always surprises me when people make seemingly innocuous discussions political. The pros and cons of a pseudo-anonymous Internet. Regardless, I'm not sure what point you're talking about or how this article is not the perfect place to discuss consciousness. > Nothing about our understanding of intelligence or self-awareness explains why we're not philosophical zombies. As I posted on another comment, I think this could also be phrased conversely (that a philosophical zombie makes no sense), depending on your definition of a zombie. > Your explanation only addresses the form of perception, not why there's perception at all. Not sure what you mean here, but it sounds like you're still viewing consciousness as something 'greater' than what is necessary to process signals and generate outputs. And then calling it perception.

hacker_9 10y ago

It's not like this viewpoint isn't known, it's just not accepted because it makes no sense. Consciousness really is unexplainable by what we know of the physical world, it's constancy is just odd. When were talking about the most advanced organ in the history of the universe, is it really a leap to consider that new physics would be involved?

abiox 10y ago
"Consciousness really is unexplainable by what we know of the physical world" maybe. or perhaps it simply has a mystical privilege. there do seem to be a fair number of terms and concepts (like 'qualia') that hold sway over some people's discussion, but themselves seem questionable.
- visarga 10y ago
  Qualia and the hard problem are just dualism disguised. Dualism is rife with contradictions and has been largely abandoned, but now it's trying to gain acceptance again under new names. The idea that there is something special about internal states of brains, that can't be explained away, puts mental states on a special place, apart from everything else - a dualism.
visarga 10y ago
> Consciousness really is unexplainable by what we know of the physical world, it's constancy is just odd. Consciousness is just you adapting to the world. You need consciousness in order to live in the world, with all its complexity and dangers. The brain has nothing magical about it, it is made of the same kind of atoms as anything else. What is happening is just perception, judgement and action in a loop, each supported by neural networks. Every moment, a full perception-judgement-action loop plays itself. It generates a stream of experience and emotion (which is just the value or reward intuited in certain situations and actions). This internal stream of perceptions and judgements is consciousness.
- hacker_9 10y ago
  Amazing that every sentence you wrote is objectively wrong. I'm bored so lets go through them: 1. Consciousness is just you adapting to the world Since when did adaptation require consciousness? We're not even sure most animals are conscious, but they adapt to their conditions just fine. 2. You need consciousness in order to live in the world, with all its complexity and dangers. Where does this need come from? A self driving car could navigate the world without being conscious at all. 3. The brain has nothing magical about it, it is made of the same kind of atoms as anything else. Didn't say it was magical, but saying it's made of atoms moves this conversation along by zero percent. It's like saying computers are just a bunch of transistors, disregarding the millions of lines of code required for it to even just take my key inputs as I type out this pointless comment, and turn them into glyphs on the screen. 4. What is happening is just perception, judgement and action in a loop, each supported by neural networks. Where has this come from? We don't even know what goes on inside one neuron, let alone the billions of networks. 5. Every moment, a full perception-judgement-action loop plays itself. So what happens if I close my eyes and cover my ears? Now I am unable to perceive the world around me, and break the 'loop'. It's not like I shut down. I don't think you've thought this through. 6. It generates a stream of experience and emotion (which is just the value or reward intuited in certain situations and actions). Yes certain chemicals are released in the brain depending on your actions, but of course it's all chemicals; it's a biological system. 7. This internal stream of perceptions and judgements is consciousness. No, this is just a function of part of the brain, which we can be aware of through consciousness. All in all, there is completely no depth to your explanation at all. The fact we haven't got a definite blueprint for the brain, does really mean it is currently beyond our understanding. Neuroscientists have died of old age trying to figure out the secrets of the brain, and it's because they were looking a bit more in-depth that it's just a bunch of atoms.