3 ms·
Yes, well, we can't notice each other noticing. Yesterday I watched an ML researcher talk far and wide about how one can build consciousness out of an attention
by ganzuul 7y ago
Yes, well, we can't notice each other noticing. Yesterday I watched an ML researcher talk far and wide about how one can build consciousness out of an attention mechanism and finally at the end someone in the audience called him out on his BS and he admitted the had an 'easy problem of consciousness' concept. IMO that should never be called consciousness in the first place. It may soon be downright dangerous to confuse the content of the mind for its entirety, because real mind-machine interfaces are already working in monkeys. We need to prepare ourselves to deal with consciousness for real, but since the experience remains subjective our normal assumptions are not as effective. Right now we can not say with confidence that everyone with a functioning mind is conscious.
The tools of physics are developing and while working out the kinks of the standard model a new set of tools are emerging. These tools deal with information and complexity. The boundary between the terms 'entropy' of CS and physics is blurring, and decoherence is a physical information process. Many ANN research papers that I have read use concepts familiar from physics.
Why would there exist separate realities for information processes, consciousness, and physics? Personally I think that consciousness is inseparable from physics and it makes no sense to say that one precedes the other. I think our minds simply notice a universe of consciousness and our confusion comes from adding retrievable memory on top of it. I challenge anyone to come up with a simpler explanation...
- ncmncm 7y agoTo say "consciousness is inseparable from physics" reads like nonsense to me. You might as well say "speed is inseparable from cars", or "corporate governance is inseparable from office chairs". Studying one tells you nothing about the other, and mentioning both in the same sentence justs suggests you are confused but don't know it.
- ganzuul 7y agoI mean to say that consciousness exists in the universe, therefore it is a part of the universe, therefore you can not take consciousness out of the universe. The set of all things contains consciousness. I'm trying to implicate the unorganized information process of quantum decoherence as consciousness, and the organized information process of a neural network as the mind. One can neatly describe both processes with what appears to be the same laws. I reason that since a process which is described by the same mathematics gives rise to the mind, then with a slight tweak it will give rise to something else. Since consciousness is close at hand I plug it in and try to see if it fits.
- ncmncm 7y agoMight as well try corporate governance, then, or fiscal responsibility, or moral probity, or turbulent mixing. Why choose consciousness to try to shoehorn into the physics? Are two things not fathomed better than one?
- ncmncm 7y agoI have never heard of anybody using the Schroedinger equation to analyze either a neural net or psychology. Where do you get the idea they involve the same mathematics?