3 ms·

Not a good explanation. Why would a physically instantiated function feel like anything at all, rather than just a bunch of matter moving around? The question i

Not a good explanation. Why would a physically instantiated function feel like anything at all, rather than just a bunch of matter moving around? The question is about why the feelings themselves exist. "Functions" do not ever describe the feeling of the smell of chocolate or falling in love. That is the mystery. You have not remotely touched it.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
Retra 8y ago
Functions can describe pretty much anything. If you don't see how they can describe something, then you're just using the wrong functions.
- TaupeRanger 8y ago
  You misunderstand. A function cannot offer a description of the taste of chocolate. That is the kind of description I am referring to.
visarga 8y ago
> Why would a physically instantiated function feel like anything at all Because its life depends on it. Seeing a berry and not distinguishing its colour could be fatal. > rather than just a bunch of matter moving around We're all a bunch of matter moving around. But we have perception - which is just a neural net converting images to image representations (and other senses in a similar way), and a value function - which rates the expected future rewards in a situation. Perception + value (emotion) creates what philosophers call qualia. These systems have been created by evolution because they are useful for survival. > The question is about why the feelings themselves exist. Again, because we have specific apparatus that computes perception representations and estimates future rewards related to our current situation and action, and because these representations are essential for life to continue. The key differences between an agent and a non-agent are self replication and learning. We have these qualities while rocks don't. Self replication enables evolution and gives an intrinsic goal, a constraint if you will, to the agent. The constraint is what learning and evolution optimise against. More fundamentally, it's a process that maintains low entropy (order) of the body inside the environment by actively compensating for perturbations.
- TaupeRanger 8y ago
  > Because its life depends on it. Seeing a berry and not distinguishing its colour could be fatal. Not at all. There is absolutely no reason that the behavior of distinguishing berries should have any felt experience at all from a functional perspective. What we'd like to explain are the feelings themselves. A robot can distinguish berries without feeling a thing. > Again, because we have specific apparatus that computes perception representations and estimates future rewards related to our current situation and action, and because these representations are essential for life to continue. This is just sidestepping the actual question. This doesn't explain the nature of felt experience at all. The question is why these feelings exist at all. What about "computation" leads to the complex experience of falling in love or tasting chocolate? And why would it lead to the particular qualities that we actually experience, rather than some other qualities? Even if you believe that qualia exist to causally affect our behavior (a contentious and problematic view, given that we can't measure them), why those specific qualities and not some others that could produce the same behavior? There are so many deep mysteries here that you are simply handwaving by feigning understanding.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

Retra 8y ago

Functions can describe pretty much anything. If you don't see how they can describe something, then you're just using the wrong functions.

TaupeRanger 8y ago
You misunderstand. A function cannot offer a description of the taste of chocolate. That is the kind of description I am referring to.

visarga 8y ago

> Why would a physically instantiated function feel like anything at all Because its life depends on it. Seeing a berry and not distinguishing its colour could be fatal. > rather than just a bunch of matter moving around We're all a bunch of matter moving around. But we have perception - which is just a neural net converting images to image representations (and other senses in a similar way), and a value function - which rates the expected future rewards in a situation. Perception + value (emotion) creates what philosophers call qualia. These systems have been created by evolution because they are useful for survival. > The question is about why the feelings themselves exist. Again, because we have specific apparatus that computes perception representations and estimates future rewards related to our current situation and action, and because these representations are essential for life to continue. The key differences between an agent and a non-agent are self replication and learning. We have these qualities while rocks don't. Self replication enables evolution and gives an intrinsic goal, a constraint if you will, to the agent. The constraint is what learning and evolution optimise against. More fundamentally, it's a process that maintains low entropy (order) of the body inside the environment by actively compensating for perturbations.

TaupeRanger 8y ago
> Because its life depends on it. Seeing a berry and not distinguishing its colour could be fatal. Not at all. There is absolutely no reason that the behavior of distinguishing berries should have any felt experience at all from a functional perspective. What we'd like to explain are the feelings themselves. A robot can distinguish berries without feeling a thing. > Again, because we have specific apparatus that computes perception representations and estimates future rewards related to our current situation and action, and because these representations are essential for life to continue. This is just sidestepping the actual question. This doesn't explain the nature of felt experience at all. The question is why these feelings exist at all. What about "computation" leads to the complex experience of falling in love or tasting chocolate? And why would it lead to the particular qualities that we actually experience, rather than some other qualities? Even if you believe that qualia exist to causally affect our behavior (a contentious and problematic view, given that we can't measure them), why those specific qualities and not some others that could produce the same behavior? There are so many deep mysteries here that you are simply handwaving by feigning understanding.