6 ms·
Mu. The definition provided ("consciousness is experience") explains nothing, you cannot experimentally decide if atoms experience anything, the fact that they
by ajuc 7y ago
Mu. The definition provided ("consciousness is experience") explains nothing, you cannot experimentally decide if atoms experience anything, the fact that they do or don't doesn't change any prediction for how they behave over time. It's meaningless, like wondering if magic exists but is actively hiding from us. Paranoia is that way.
> Despite great progress in our scientific understanding of the brain, we still don’t have even the beginnings of an explanation of how complex electrochemical signaling is somehow able to give rise to the inner subjective world of colors, sounds, smells and tastes that each of us knows in our own case. There is a deep mystery in understanding how what we know about ourselves from the inside fits together with what science tells us about matter from the outside.
We can make a very simple robot that reacts to the environment - for example follows light and learns where the walls are so as not to collide with them in the future.
It checks all the boxes that simple life does - if you say that a bacteria experience world then so does that robot. So it is conscious but we know where it comes from - it comes from the computational power and interactions with the world it can do. There's no magical spiritualism around it, it's just nested if-then-elses + memory + feedback. Which btw is as good a definition for consciousness as any other. When you become unconscious the feedback loop is interrupted.
> “Of course, you can’t do that. I designed physical science to deal with quantities, not qualities.”
"Quantity has a quality of its own". There's no qualities in the universe, just quantities and we arbitrarily assign labels (qualities) to them.
In the end I think "is X conscious" is as productive a question as "is Pluto a planet" or "can submarines swim".
- fredgrott 7y agonot to mention the simplest one celled animals do exhibit thinking problem solving functions despite not having neurons
- platz 7y agoI think you are simplifying the concept of consciousness a bit too much and are too hard in the paint for a very un-nuanced interpretation of behavioralism. Your position would be better described as consciousness is an illusion or consciousness does not exist. It has compelling elements but I find it a hard sell.
- ajuc 7y agoThanks I've learned a new idiom. Yes I am pretty confident that there isn't "conscious force" and "consciousness equations". Because we would have encountered them already if they were there. So we're not arguing new physics, just adding stuff to our model of universe that changes nothing. > Your position would be better described as consciousness is an illusion or consciousness does not exist. I don't think turbulent water doesn't exist. I just think it's not some fundamental concept, just an emergent phenomenon that we can explain basing on currently known laws of physics if we're smart enough. > It has compelling elements but I find it a hard sell. Why?
- platz 7y agoBecause it doesn't explain my experience. You can still be a materialist and allow for consciousness via emergence, but that is not quite the argument you are making.
- platz 7y agoIf if emergence is right, you should be not so confident about it because it is an extremely delicate position with also a lot of handwavimg and question marks
- ajuc 7y agoI'm pretty sure that's the argument I'm making? 1. consciousness isn't fundamental, it's a consequence of normal physics 2. because it's not fundamental the definitions will always be arbitrary, just like with any other emergent phenomena (when does fog stop and rain start? At which height does atmosphere end? What is a planet)? All just labels and arbitrary thresholds slapped on some consequences of laws of physics. > it is an extremely delicate position with also a lot of handwavimg and question marks At least i'm not making untestable assumptions. If we can make a perfect copy of a brain and it doesn't work then I'm wrong. I prefer my theories to be delicate - that means they can be disproven. The alternative is "because magic".
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago> So it is conscious but we know where it comes from - it comes from the computational power and interactions with the world it can do. How little computational ability is required to define something as conscious? Even a brick reacts to stimuli, albeit in the same completely predictable (to our high-powered brains) way that a simple robot does.
- ajuc 7y agoMy point exactly. Why is Mercury a planet and Pluto isn't? Because we arbitrarily decided on the threshold. Universe doesn't care, there's nothing in the laws of physics about Pluto or planets it's just a special case we focus on. Let me try another definition: Consciousness is a feedback loop we can empathize with.
- hosh 7y agoConsciousness may be that thing that shows the limits of scientific experimentation.
- TuringTest 7y agoJust like religious experience, then. Or any other metaphysical property, for that matter.
- hosh 7y agoI would argue that religious experience is really an exploration into consciousness framed imperfectly in religious terms.
- TuringTest 7y agoYeah, I probably agree. But then, every concept can be framed as an exploration of consciousness, as everything rational is conscious.
- CuriouslyC 7y agoWe already know atoms in aggregate experience something. That's settled. If you want to argue that individual atoms are incapable of feeling, then you need to explain how the interaction of atoms brings something distinctly non-physical into being. The ironic thing is your position is actually the one that requires additional evidence, while the position you're arguing against is well supported.
- ajuc 7y ago> If you want to argue that individual atoms are incapable of feeling, then you need to explain how the interaction of atoms brings something distinctly non-physical into being. How do you know it is nonphysical? How is it more nonphysical than "rain" or "red" or "planet". Neither of these things shows up in any law of physics. > We already know atoms in aggregate experience something. What do you mean by "experience"? > the position you're arguing against is well supported The position I'm arguing against provides no predictions. I can make even better theory if you value that: "everything happens because of magic". I'll call it the ultimate theory of everything, because it explains everything and cannot be disproved.
- svara 7y agoYou should look into the "Chinese room" thought experiment [0], this line of thinking has been explored pretty thoroughly by people taking some position relative to that. [0] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/
- ajuc 7y agoI'm aware of it. My opinion is - the fact that people going through the motions don't understand what they are doing doesn't mean that the system (human + instructions + working memory) has no understanding. Any single neuron in my brain don't understand Polish but the brain as a whole sure does.
- keiferski 7y agoBut it will become a productive question when/if machines start becoming complex enough to be considered "intelligent." Does a machine deserve political rights? Some would say that yes, if it has consciousness. But then what do we mean by consciousness? It's a tricky question and the answer has serious implications in ethics. Labels have consequences in social and political realms, even if they don't necessarily have them in physical science ones.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 7y agoAt the point where this question ceases to be academic, it's not going to be philosophers that turn the tide. It's going to be people falling in love with robots and simulated humans. At first, they will be labelled as freaks, just like early adopters of any new technology. Remember when online dating had a stigma attached to it? That's going to be a dark time for you if you happen to be a machine person. Assuming we don't wipe ourselves out using this technology, eventually it will touch enough lives that it loses its stigma. The circle of human empathy will stretch to encompass machine people, and they will be given some rights. It won't matter whether some panpsychist says that all matter is conscious, or some religious person says that only those made in god's image are. What's going to matter is that machine people will give every appearance of being conscious, and humans are nothing if not slaves to appearance and pattern matching.
- keiferski 7y agoI meant more in a legalistic sense. The justice system is designed for human beings; if a person does something wrong, we imprison them or otherwise punish them, understanding that their consciousness and body is limited in time and space. But what about a machine consciousness that can manifest in numerous locations? If it commits a crime, how do we punish it? Rights often imply responsibilities. These are very complex questions and I don't think there are any easy answers. Quite an interesting time to be alive.
- ajuc 7y agoWe already have non-human beings with legal rights - companies :) Nobody cares if they are conscious, people care if they pay taxes and follow the law :)
- marcAKAmarc 7y ago>"There's no qualities in the universe, just quantities and we arbitrarily assign labels (qualities) to them." I understand your standpoint. I feel pretty frustrated with these questions too - especially when people throw large assumptions around like panpsychism. However, I gotta disagree with the idea notion that no qualities exist in the universe. Afterall, isn't every single thing a part of the universe, including thoughts, feelings, and experience? Here is a thought experiement: Think about experiencing pain and what it feels like to you. Really try to simulate it in your thoughts. Probably sucks. Now think about happiness and what that feels like to you. Probably doesn't suck as much. Without watching a scan of your brain, and without collecting any sort of scientific data about your nervous system, you were most likely able to discern the difference between those two feelings just now. You didn't do this by any type of measurement of quantity, just by quality of experience (qualia). So I would argue that either quality definitely exists, or everyone reading this just experienced something that is extra-universal, which in my opinion is just as fantastic and assumptive as panpsychism. Also, I am not a theoretical physicist nor do I have half of a firm understanding of even classical physics, but apparently there has been advances in theoretical physics to include consciousness into the same theory as quantum and classical physics. Might be interesting for some readers to check out - The Causal Theory of Views: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338544509_The_Causal_Theory_of_Views_An_introduction_for_neuroscientists https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338544509_The_Causa...
- ajuc 7y ago> Afterall, isn't every single thing a part of the universe, including thoughts, feelings, and experience? They are, but they aren't fundamental. They are just our interpretation of the state of the universe (which is quantitative). > without watching a scan of your brain, and without collecting any sort of scientific data about your nervous system, you were most likely able to discern the difference between those two feelings just now. You didn't do this by any type of measurement of quantity, just by quality of experience (qualia). I did it by measuring quantities in my brain - voltage was over a threshold on neurons whose firing I interpret as pleasant or unpleasant. My brain is constructed in a way that automatically does this because it's useful for evolutionary purposes. Is "NullPointerException" a thing that exists just because java programs can throw it? Or is it just an interpretation of particular voltages on particular transistors that is shared between many computer systems because it's useful. > apparently there has been advances in theoretical physics to include consciousness into the same theory as quantum and classical physics A paper cited 0 times, read 2 times, citing 5 other papers by the same author. I would wait with calling it advancement in physics just yet :)
- hasbroslasher 7y ago> You cannot experimentally decide if atoms experience anything, the fact that they do or don't doesn't change any prediction for how they behave over time. It's meaningless, like wondering if magic exists but is actively hiding from us. Paranoia is that way. This has so much potential to become a semantic death trap - but let me ask if you think even human experience could be experimentally tested? If you put me in a room, what could you do to see whether or not I'm "having an experience"? Would the mere act of placing me there be an "experience" or would it be a false positive? What does "non-experience" even mean? I don't see it as counterintuitive to suggest that normally inanimate things like rocks can have experiences - though their experiences are fundamentally different than ours. For instance, we will never be smelted, turned into concrete, etc. and rocks don't have memory or feeling apparatus like we do.. but they do "experience" reality on a very simple level.
- ajuc 7y ago> What does "non-experience" even mean? Indeed, that's why putting meaningless arbitrarily defined touchy-feely words in physics is a bad idea. But I'll try. Experience = event that changes the model of the world you have in your brain. We can verify it experimentally by for example: - testing if you associate a loud buzz with food before the experiment (either by looking at neurons that activate when you think of food or by looking at saliva production) - repeatedly giving you food after buzzing - testing again if you associate a loud buzz with food We can deduce from that change that your internal model of the world changed to associate "buzz" with "food" so you experienced our experiment. This isn't a definition I will defend because I don't think such definitions are that important in the first place. Now I don't think a stone has internal model of the world, and even if it does - I don't see how can it change. But I cannot experimentally test it :)
- cameronh90 7y agoMaybe not stones, but what about plants? https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/phenomena/2015/12/15/can-a-plant-remember-this-one-seems-to-heres-the-evidence/ https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/phenomena/2015/12...
- 7y ago