4 ms·

I personally don't understand how a logically and rationally thinking person could get to a conclusion anything other than that we are a combination of algorith

I personally don't understand how a logically and rationally thinking person could get to a conclusion anything other than that we are a combination of algorithms. So essentially we can in theory be simulated and there is nothing special about us. In this case the machine simulating us would be as conscious as ourselves. It seems any other conclusion is just fooling oneself.

goatlover 7y ago
Replace algorithms with math and you'll see that you're making a rather strong metaphysical claim that is essentially Platonism.
- mannykannot 7y ago
  One reaction to that statement might be "so be it." I did not, however, come here to defend the idea that consciousness is an algorithm. Personally, I consider it rather more plausible that a computer plus a random number generator might achieve consciousness through simulating the sorts of physical processes that occur in a brain, and if it is a 'true' random number generator, rather than a deterministic PRNG, then we are no longer talking about math, at least in the sense that you use to conclude Platonism. One might respond by saying that if the universe is deterministic, then there is no such thing as a 'true' random number generator, as distinct from a PRNG. My understanding of the philosophical implications of QM, and its competing interpretations, is insufficient for me to be sure whether the universe as we experience it is deterministic, but regardless of whether it is or is not, I suspect that the true hard problem of consciousness is 'why do we (feel that we) have free will?'
  - goatlover 7y ago
    > I suspect that the true hard problem of consciousness is 'why do we (feel that we) have free will?' Free will and consciousness are separate issues. You can potentially have one and not the other. What's important for free will is whether choice is free and what that freedom amounts to. What's important to consciousness is subjectivity. You can feel pain while not having a choice about feeling that pain, say if you were restrained and unable to do anything about it, just to give an example. And potentially, a robot could be free to make choices while not feeling anything.
    - mannykannot 7y ago
      I doubt that 'will', as it is commonly conceived, has any meaning, or at least a very different one, for a non-conscious agent. It's similar to the way i think IIS is clouding rather than clarifying the issue. For related reasons, I feel that compatibilist positions on the issue are largely avoiding it. As for subjectivity, I had more to say about it here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23162714 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23162714 Regardless of whether I am right or wrong on this, I think my other points in this post (platonism, etc.) are independent of it.
  - mewpmewp2 7y ago
    I don't think there can be or is a reason to believe there exists a 'true' random number generator. What's the reason to believe such a thing exists? If something seems random to us likelier explanation is because we couldn't observe it from close enough so we do not know the exact algorithm/causes behind that event or occurrence. To me it seems like even if there's a random number generator there's no reason to believe such a thing exists. Simpler explanation is that there's some logic involved which we just can't observe (yet). Same thing as we can't prove that a man in the cloud does not exist, but there's no good reason to believe that one exists - except for people's ego of course.
umvi 7y ago
We are obviously more than just "algorithms". Algorithms don't have free will. Unless you are also arguing there is no such thing as free will and that the world is just playing out in a predetermined physics reaction? Yet even that doesn't 100% jive with physics because quantum mechanics are not deterministic.
- Rury 7y ago
  > Yet even that doesn't 100% jive with physics because quantum mechanics are not deterministic QM is a branch of physics, with some theories having multiple interpretations, some being deterministic and some non-deterministic. By this I mean, quite literally there exists deterministic and non-deterministic models of the same phenomenon, which both work in accurately describing said phenomenon. As so, it hasn't been proven whether QM is deterministic or non-deterministic. Regardless, in cases where it skews non-deterministic - how can we be certain that the exhibited randomness isn't just simply because we aren't accounting for all conditions there is to know about the phenomenon (hidden variables)? Before shooting that down, Bell even admitted his own theorem does not rule out determinism - as determinism which evades it - he calls "superdeterminism".
mellosouls 7y ago
While I wouldn't claim a special case for us over machines as a foundation for consciousness, plenty of logical and rational people consider a reduction of cognition ("AGI") to algorithms to be a naive but understandable approach in early decades. There has been zero success with it in creating a sentient being in all that time, so who's fooling themselves? And that's just cognition; not consciousness which is a different matter, and still not even understood on a philosophical level, let alone scientific - physics, computing or other. You should consider the possibility this is a gap in your understanding, rather than a privileged access to rational and intelligent thought over others.

goatlover 7y ago

Replace algorithms with math and you'll see that you're making a rather strong metaphysical claim that is essentially Platonism.

mannykannot 7y ago
One reaction to that statement might be "so be it." I did not, however, come here to defend the idea that consciousness is an algorithm. Personally, I consider it rather more plausible that a computer plus a random number generator might achieve consciousness through simulating the sorts of physical processes that occur in a brain, and if it is a 'true' random number generator, rather than a deterministic PRNG, then we are no longer talking about math, at least in the sense that you use to conclude Platonism. One might respond by saying that if the universe is deterministic, then there is no such thing as a 'true' random number generator, as distinct from a PRNG. My understanding of the philosophical implications of QM, and its competing interpretations, is insufficient for me to be sure whether the universe as we experience it is deterministic, but regardless of whether it is or is not, I suspect that the true hard problem of consciousness is 'why do we (feel that we) have free will?'
- goatlover 7y ago
  > I suspect that the true hard problem of consciousness is 'why do we (feel that we) have free will?' Free will and consciousness are separate issues. You can potentially have one and not the other. What's important for free will is whether choice is free and what that freedom amounts to. What's important to consciousness is subjectivity. You can feel pain while not having a choice about feeling that pain, say if you were restrained and unable to do anything about it, just to give an example. And potentially, a robot could be free to make choices while not feeling anything.
  - mannykannot 7y ago
    I doubt that 'will', as it is commonly conceived, has any meaning, or at least a very different one, for a non-conscious agent. It's similar to the way i think IIS is clouding rather than clarifying the issue. For related reasons, I feel that compatibilist positions on the issue are largely avoiding it. As for subjectivity, I had more to say about it here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23162714 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23162714 Regardless of whether I am right or wrong on this, I think my other points in this post (platonism, etc.) are independent of it.
- mewpmewp2 7y ago
  I don't think there can be or is a reason to believe there exists a 'true' random number generator. What's the reason to believe such a thing exists? If something seems random to us likelier explanation is because we couldn't observe it from close enough so we do not know the exact algorithm/causes behind that event or occurrence. To me it seems like even if there's a random number generator there's no reason to believe such a thing exists. Simpler explanation is that there's some logic involved which we just can't observe (yet). Same thing as we can't prove that a man in the cloud does not exist, but there's no good reason to believe that one exists - except for people's ego of course.

umvi 7y ago

We are obviously more than just "algorithms". Algorithms don't have free will. Unless you are also arguing there is no such thing as free will and that the world is just playing out in a predetermined physics reaction? Yet even that doesn't 100% jive with physics because quantum mechanics are not deterministic.

Rury 7y ago
> Yet even that doesn't 100% jive with physics because quantum mechanics are not deterministic QM is a branch of physics, with some theories having multiple interpretations, some being deterministic and some non-deterministic. By this I mean, quite literally there exists deterministic and non-deterministic models of the same phenomenon, which both work in accurately describing said phenomenon. As so, it hasn't been proven whether QM is deterministic or non-deterministic. Regardless, in cases where it skews non-deterministic - how can we be certain that the exhibited randomness isn't just simply because we aren't accounting for all conditions there is to know about the phenomenon (hidden variables)? Before shooting that down, Bell even admitted his own theorem does not rule out determinism - as determinism which evades it - he calls "superdeterminism".

mellosouls 7y ago

While I wouldn't claim a special case for us over machines as a foundation for consciousness, plenty of logical and rational people consider a reduction of cognition ("AGI") to algorithms to be a naive but understandable approach in early decades. There has been zero success with it in creating a sentient being in all that time, so who's fooling themselves? And that's just cognition; not consciousness which is a different matter, and still not even understood on a philosophical level, let alone scientific - physics, computing or other. You should consider the possibility this is a gap in your understanding, rather than a privileged access to rational and intelligent thought over others.