2 ms·

You are arguing that by performing the algorithms for perception, one is conscious. I am arguing that algorithms alone aren't enough, and that yes conscious is

You are arguing that by performing the algorithms for perception, one is conscious. I am arguing that algorithms alone aren't enough, and that yes conscious is still some unexplained physics that takes the results of those perception algorithms in our brains and generates our awareness and experience from them. I am not trying to win any argument, but it does annoy me when people argue with incomplete information and try to trivialize consciousness, because of what you know about some basic neural nets in computer science. Look at this video released last month, where scientists show a model for just 3 neurons [1], which they think is super important to consciousness. Only 3 neurons out of billions. There is just so much we still don't know. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5s5I-rUyDTA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5s5I-rUyDTA

lend000 10y ago
> You are arguing that by performing the algorithms for perception, one is conscious. Pretty close -- my argument is that for an entity to be intelligent, self-aware, and perceptive, it must also believe itself to be conscious, in the sense that it believes it has "experiences." Furthermore, and most importantly, if an entity believes it is conscious, it is conscious. > I am arguing that algorithms alone aren't enough, and that yes conscious is still some unexplained physics that takes the results of those perception algorithms in our brains and generates our awareness and experience from them. There's so much undiscovered truth about physics that it's always possible there are important, still completely unknown properties of physics that play specific roles in consciousness. However, that's mostly speculation (like the article) and there's no real evidence for it, whereas it's becoming increasingly intuitive to some AI researchers and myself that such a 'Holy Grail of Physics' yet-to-be-discovered property does not seem to be necessary. Many AI experts presume that by scaling and adding complexity to models that are pretty similar to today's AI models, we can achieve general intelligence. I think that this logically requires the intelligent agent to believe itself to be conscious, and therefore be just as conscious as any human, albeit in a different way. The combination of intelligence and self-awareness are logically incompatible with a lack of consciousness.

lend000 10y ago

> You are arguing that by performing the algorithms for perception, one is conscious. Pretty close -- my argument is that for an entity to be intelligent, self-aware, and perceptive, it must also believe itself to be conscious, in the sense that it believes it has "experiences." Furthermore, and most importantly, if an entity believes it is conscious, it is conscious. > I am arguing that algorithms alone aren't enough, and that yes conscious is still some unexplained physics that takes the results of those perception algorithms in our brains and generates our awareness and experience from them. There's so much undiscovered truth about physics that it's always possible there are important, still completely unknown properties of physics that play specific roles in consciousness. However, that's mostly speculation (like the article) and there's no real evidence for it, whereas it's becoming increasingly intuitive to some AI researchers and myself that such a 'Holy Grail of Physics' yet-to-be-discovered property does not seem to be necessary. Many AI experts presume that by scaling and adding complexity to models that are pretty similar to today's AI models, we can achieve general intelligence. I think that this logically requires the intelligent agent to believe itself to be conscious, and therefore be just as conscious as any human, albeit in a different way. The combination of intelligence and self-awareness are logically incompatible with a lack of consciousness.