8 ms·
Consciousness as a State of Matter (2015)
- kevin_thibedeau 8y agoOfftopic, but I really hate arXiv's page layout. Nowhere else is the link to primary content sequestered off to a sidebar. The abstract isn't that important and web pages aren't modern index cards with limited space. Horrible ergonomics with this site.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- sandov 8y agoFrom my really ignorant, but introspective, point of view, this notion that life and consciousness somewhat escape from the physical rules that govern rocks, air and the rest of the universe seems like holding onto the theist idea of soul after the decline of religion. I think the universe doesn't care about us, we are just the natural result of the fundamental interactions of matter, the same interactions that burn stars. We are complex automatons.
- vokep 8y agoThe material universe doesn't care about us, but we do, and we are not separate from the universe. Consciousness is the important thing, why it all matters, why bad things are really actually bad. Pain may be expressed, but as all other consciousness itself or qualia, the experience itself cannot be measured, but is very real.
- Symmetry 8y agoWhat do you mean that consciousness cannot be measured? We can perceive it and talk about it, can't we? Chamlers says that the reason we talk about having qualia has nothing to do, causally, with our experience of qualia but I think we can dismiss that idea out of hand. So by asking people questions about their experiences and getting large enough sample sizes we have a means to conduct a quantitative and scientific investigation of consciousness. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3971003/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3971003/
- YjSe2GMQ 8y agoI think he meant that consciousness is currently irreducible. Consider this: 1. Someone figures out in a lab all possible causes of fear via the surveying method. Fear seems solved. 2. New people appear that claim to experience fear when someone taps their left feet. 3. You have to redo 1. Therefore fear wasn't solved in the first place. Replace "tapping left feet" with something more obscure, or fear with pain, to continue. Underlying problem: you cannot compute the "preimage" of fear.
- mannykannot 8y agoIf I am following your line of argument, it would seem to apply to biology in general, which is not complete, yet which is effective at explaining lots of things, as well as able to assimilate new discoveries.
- PavlovsCat 8y ago> How odd I can have all this inside me and to you it’s just words. -- David Foster Wallace
- Symmetry 8y agoIt's not at all odd when you consider the bandwidths of the various channels involved.
- cobbzilla 8y agoeven with infinite bandwidth, you cannot reduce all qualia to bits. especially feelings.
- PavlovsCat 8y ago> They developed writing, as did we. But their writing soon began to no longer just mean what it said. For them, the writing was what it said and their words were what they meant. The flow of the language froze and they began to stack individual concepts one onto the other like stones. Their language lost its spirit. They were still very clever, but without spirit. They built the tower of their words higher and higher and converted everything magical, which they feared, into dead material, and filled it with new, spiritless life. But they completely control this undead material. -- Albion ( https://i.imgur.com/8GHPl6S.png https://i.imgur.com/8GHPl6S.png ) > Among the many forms of alienation, the most frequent one is alienation in language. If I express a feeling with a word, let us say, if I say "I love you," the word is meant to be an indication of the reality which exists within myself, the power of my loving. The word "love" is meant to be a symbol of the fact love, but as soon as it is spoken it tends to assume a life of its own, it becomes a reality. I am under the illusion that the saying of the word is the equivalent of the experience, and soon I say the word and feel nothing, except the thought of love which the word expresses. The alienation of language shows the whole complexity of alienation. Language is one of the most precious human achievements; to avoid alienation by not speaking would be foolish -- yet one must be always aware of the danger of the spoken word, that it threatens to substitute itself for the living experience. -- Erich Fromm ( https://www.marxists.org/archive/fromm/works/1961/man/ https://www.marxists.org/archive/fromm/works/1961/man/ )
- lawlorino 8y ago> why bad things are really actually bad. In a material universe there is no objective good or bad.
- stcredzero 8y agoIn a material universe there is no objective good or bad. I'm willing to bet that there's a sadist out there who, if they had you under their control, could eventually convince you there is definite objective bad.
- 09bjb 8y agoAnd yet for every one of these sadists, a Viktor Frankl pops up to say "“Everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms—to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way.”
- stcredzero 8y agoI'd pull a nihilist into my lifeboat. I wouldn't be happy about it, though. If I had to choose Viktor Frankl or a nihilist, I'd choose Viktor Frankl. I wouldn't be happy about that either.
- vokep 8y agoPain is objectively bad. Even if in a greater moral system pain is necessary to balance things and so is "good" in that sense, even then it would be a necessary evil. (keyword evil) If there were a way without it, that would be better.
- incompatible 8y agoPain is just a way that animals experience strong motivation. People born without the ability to feel pain have serious problems, because they don't make enough effort to avoid damage.
- andai 8y agoWould you then agree that the interactions that burn stars also produce a form of consciousness?
- sandov 8y agoYes, Consciousness is the result of the fundamental laws of the universe. It's also an abstraction, a way to understand complex arrangements of matter, in the same way that a table is an abstraction: the matter in a table isn't made of table molecules, it's just that the way in which those molecules are arranged and stuck together makes them a table.
- nbulka 8y agoCould those stars then potentially have thoughts or actions?
- incompatible 8y agoIt doesn't seem likely to me, since they aren't the kinds of physical processes that generate thoughts, so far as we understand it. The idea that composite objects like tables don't actually exist is called mereological nihilism.
- jewelthief91 8y agoI think the concept of "supervenience" would be helpful here. So the rules that govern the rocks you mentioned should ultimately depend on the rules that govern the particles the rocks are made out of. The rules that govern the air also depend on the same rules that govern the particles the rocks are made out of, however it seems to be that rocks and air have pretty meaningfully different rules that they follow. There are definable sets of rules that emerge out of other sets of rules. " X is said to supervene on Y if and only if some difference in Y is necessary for any difference in X to be possible. Equivalently, X is said to supervene on Y if and only if X cannot vary unless Y varies." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supervenience https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supervenience
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- AnimalMuppet 8y agoI think your first paragraph is spot on. And why do people do that? I also agree that your second paragraph is the logical conclusion of a materialist starting point - that is, the physical universe is all there is. There is really no other conclusion from that starting point. But that leaves us with no free will (automatons don't decide anything). It leaves us without love. (Real love is choosing to do what's best for the other person, and we can't choose. And even what we feel as love is just neurons and biochemicals doing canned mechanistic responses.) It leaves is with no morals. (When a rock falls off a cliff, you don't say that it should have fallen differently, or not fallen at all. We don't think morals apply to mere material objects that are merely obeying the laws of physics, no matter how complex they are.) It leaves us with no truth. (Our brains evolved to get a good enough answer fast enough, not to discover truth in any absolute, platonic sense. And when we "think", we're just letting those neurons do what they're wired to do, without knowing all the bugs in the hardware.) But we also have years of experience of what it means to live as a human being. We experience choosing, loving, knowing that some things are right and others are wrong, and discovering truth. We know, via first-hand experience of living, that "complex automatons" does not adequately describe human life. It's kind of like putting on a t-shirt backwards. It covers all the places that need covering, but it just doesn't fit. And no matter how you try to move it around and re-arrange it, it still doesn't fit. In the same way, the logical conclusions of the materialist starting point don't fit our experience of what it is to live as human beings. This leaves us with two possible responses. The first is that, out of random chance, the universe has created complex automatons that have the experience of being (and the desire to be) more than automatons - to be genuinely personal, rather than just the impersonal plus complexity. Those perceptions are wrong, and those desires will forever be unfulfilled. It would be cruel, except that the universe doesn't have motivations, and to to call it cruel is a category error. The second possibility is that the materialist starting point is mistaken - that there is more than merely matter and the laws of physics. This is what I believe. More strongly, I believe that our experience of living as humans is evidence that the materialist starting point is mistaken. When the Bible says that God made man in His own image, it is saying something about this 21st-century argument. It is saying that there was a first there was personal, not impersonal, and that God (someone, not just something) created humans to also be someone, not just something. And therefore, our experience of being personal rather than impersonal is in line with what has always been.
- davebryand 8y agoThe way that non-dualists (those that see a single consciousness of which our own awareness is an aspect <-- not a great definition) approach this is from the basis that consciousness is primary and the physical manifestations that exist around that flow from consciousness. So, from that perspective, physical rules that govern rocks are actually subordinate to consciousness. Non-dualism doesn't make any sense to the rational mind, non-dual realization usually arises in someone that has explored the realm of their own personal consciousness very deeply (meditation, contemplation, psychedelics, hypnosis, lucid dreaming, etc).
- DennisP 8y agoOh I don't know, there have been some rather well-respected philosophers who made rational arguments for idealism.
- joe_the_user 8y agoI would claim a materialist perspective that views the mind and consciousness as arising out of material processes is also a non-dualistic (monist) perspective just as much as an "everything flows from consciousnes" (idealist monist) perspective. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/ Quote: "Because common sense tells us that there are physical bodies, and because there is intellectual pressure towards producing a unified view of the world, one could say that materialist monism is the ‘default option’."
- 09bjb 8y agoI think the non-dualists in the parent comment here would agree, saying something vaguely Alan Watts-y along the lines of "consciousness and matter are merely two sides of the same coin and imply each other mutually." Come to think of it, "does consciousness arise from matter, or does matter arise from consciousness" is a modern Koan par excellence. FWIW, the last time I grooved on that for a while while on a psychedelic, the answer I came up was...decidedly spiritual. Caveat lector ;)
- 8y ago
- TACIXAT 8y ago>I think the universe doesn't care about us Aren't statements like this holding on to the idea of a higher power after the decline of religion? You're ascribing the capability of feeling to the universe.
- n4r9 8y agoIsn't it explicitly refusing to ascribe a particular feeling (caring) to the universe?
- tbabb 8y agoI don't see how saying that it doesn't exhibit a feeling implies that it exhibits feelings.
- TACIXAT 8y agoTake the sentence - he doesn't like dogs. This implies that he has preferences and those preferences do not contain dogs. It is one thing to say the universe lacks consciousness, or that it is incapable of care because it is inanimate. It is another to give it a preference, saying it does not care about us.
- n4r9 8y agoHonestly, I think you're reading too far into the phrasing. Very few would infer that the author thinks there are things the universe does care about.
- GregSutliff 8y agoThat doesn’t follow at all. Rocks don’t care about us, and the reason that’s true is that rocks aren’t capable of feeling any way at all. Moreover, even if the universe could properly be said to have feelings, that doesn’t entail anything about the existence of a “higher power”. Humans feel things, but that by itself is not proof or disproof of the existence of a “higher power”
- coleifer 8y agoRegardless of any of that, it sure is interesting to be alive and human. We feel emotions, can talk to one another...it's all very, very wonderful and strange.
- a_lieb 8y agoIn Tegmark's case, his hypothesis doesn't necessarily imply that consciousness escapes the laws of physics in any sense, even somewhat. He's simply arguing that consciousness is a state of matter, like liquid, solid or gas, and its properties emerge from lower-level physical laws, just like the other states of matter. Kind of a wild claim, but still compatible with strict materialism. Tegmark's theory is an expanded version of Tononi's Integrated Information Theory, which has gotten a lot of interest in mainstream cognitive science. IIT also stays well within the laws of physics. Non-materialist philosophers of mind tend to like these theories since they make consciousness correspond with fairly low-level processes, and that looks a lot more plausible than consciousness being something that only pops up in animal brains for some mystical reason. But neither IIT nor Tegmark's approach actually require any kind of escaping from the laws of physics. In fact Tononi sounds to me mostly like a materialist, although he's pretty slippery about it. Not as sure about Tegmark. Also, important to note that almost no one believes in vitalism (the idea that life itself requires special extra-physical "secret sauce" to exist) anymore. It is only consciousness that is up for debate in mainstream philosophy.
- davesque 8y agoInteresting questions. It makes me think of some things I read about how the brain integrates different sensory information into a seamless experience. I don't have a source for this, but the idea I remember is that nerve impulses from different sense organs arrive at different times due to the physical mechanism of propagation of the nerve signals. So the brain has to do a fair bit of post-processing to make our conscious experience seem fully integrated. That's why the sensation of touching our own finger and seeing ourselves touch the finger seem to correlate with the same moment in time. If our brains didn't do this, then things would seem all disjointed or perhaps entirely incoherent. That got me thinking: if our brain constructs that portion of reality, perhaps it actually constructs the entire conscious experience of reality down to the minutest detail. So we're never "directly" experiencing reality but only our brain's constructed (and evolved) representation of it. Perhaps that is the explanation for why the universe appears to have four dimensions in our day to day experience: because that's the most advantageous representation of reality by some evolutionary metric. So the process of biological evolution has crafted the brain and the brain crafts the experience of reality which includes all the rules of logic, laws of physics, and perceived physical phenomena. You could go out on a limb and perhaps even say that this explains how advances in pure mathematics often turn out to have some use in physics and vice versa; because mathematics (logic) and perceived physical processes are both rooted in the structure of the brain and are therefore rather intertwined even though the physical world appears to be separate from the mental world. These ideas seem remotely similar on some level to what Dr. Tegmark is proposing: that the observer (or, the evolved observer as I'm saying) plays a much more significant role in the structure of the universe than anyone has admitted up to this point.
- achillesheels 8y agoWelcome to the world of Immanuel Kant and George Berkeley. Yo have exceptional intuition to arrive at these conclusions independently. Current natural science is practiced abhorrently in that it ignores such philosophical understandings of human knowledge which is over two centuries old and presupposes the subject has a 1:1 correspondence with the object - this a century after the double slit experiment! I’m a bit more downstream and conceive of conscious activity more mathematically formally as a power-limited digital filter of sensory motion, which includes the discrete-time sampling of its action (“motion”) upon the body. Consciousness then is the quantization of the motion perceived.
- ypeterholmes 8y agoA computer running pre-programmed processes wouldn't be said to have consciousness. But what if one of the pre-programmed processes was for the computer to monitor all its own sub-processes, and dynamically re-direct them as necessary relative to pre-programmed higher level goals? Couldn't that machine be described as conscious?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- daenz 8y agoMaybe, but imo there's an infinitely-recursive (up until hardware or wetware limits) nature of introspection to consciousness. I can reflect on reflecting on reflecting on reflecting etc etc, until I stack overflow. But on each level of reflection, I can do something useful wrt adjusting the processes that I am reflecting on. I'm not sure how you could program this recursive nature unless you generalized what it means to be introspective. But by definition, introspection defines itself. The process of introspection has to also be aware of itself in order to "break out" to the higher level.
- joe_the_user 8y agoMaybe, but imo there's an infinitely-recursive (up until hardware or wetware limits) nature of introspection to consciousness. I can reflect on reflecting on reflecting on reflecting etc etc, until I stack overflow. But on each level of reflection, I can do something useful wrt adjusting the processes that I am reflecting on. I don't see why one couldn't write program to do something - a subroutine that called-itself and analyzed some of the contents on up the stack in some vaguely useful way. One can pretty easily write a program that approximating satisfies most vague descriptions of consciousness. It doesn't "feel" like "real consciousness" but that brings up other questions.
- ypeterholmes 8y agoExactly. But to your last point, what are feelings if not data? For example, if the system was programmed to interpret feedback threatening its higher level goals as negative data (anxiety, fear) and feedback supporting its goals as positive data (happiness, joy), then feelings can very much be represented in the model.
- TLC555 8y ago"So, what about consciousness? As defined above, it is in fact the most certain knowledge there is. Pure awareness is not even possible to deny, since the very act of denial takes place in and as an activity of awareness. You can not escape or avoid it. Thoughts can of course imagine a brain that existed in the past without awareness, but that itself is a thought in awareness. One can doubt whether the thought refers to something true or real, but the awareness is unavoidable. This suggests that consciousness, not matter, is fundamentally real." -- Tom McFarlane, B.S. Physics, Stanford University Ref: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-basis-of-reality-matter-or-consciousness-Why# https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-basis-of-reality-matter-or...
- nabla9 8y agoScott Aaronson has a good critique of s Giulio Tononi’s Integrated Information Theory. Very short version: https://youtu.be/cscRdv57oRQ?t=849 https://youtu.be/cscRdv57oRQ?t=849 IIT is basically just hypothesis that defines consciousness by identifying it with certain information processing abilities that have lots of integration and can't be 'divided'. When Aaronson points out some peculiar things having these abilities (like error correcting codes) Tegmark doubles down and says they are conscious and human intuition is wrong. IIT explains very little, it just defines consciousness to be something.
- stared 8y agoWhen I see a title with possibly overblown philosophical implications, I get cautious. When I see "Max Tegmark", it is a sign to close a tab. While science, in general, suffers from overblowing implications (as in promising that given research revolutionizes everything, etc - to get credit and the next grant), he is an ace of that. To contrast it with "YOLOv3: An Incremental Improvement" https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.02767 https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.02767 in which the author goes to the other extreme, being bluntly honest.
- dang 8y ago2017: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14192946 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14192946 2014: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7024651 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7024651