5 ms·

The idea that scribbles on a paper would be conscious is really hard to believe. It also sounds like it's own form of dualism that's functional instead of subst

The idea that scribbles on a paper would be conscious is really hard to believe. It also sounds like it's own form of dualism that's functional instead of substance-based. I wouldn't consider it a good physical theory of consciousness.

zozbot234 6y ago
Well, to a panpsychist, there's no reason why "conciousness" would need to stop at a human scale. The universe as a whole might be concious, and part of that concious experience might be isomorphic to the subjective experience of the brain that's being replicated on those pieces of paper. Though I can see how people might object that this is merely conflating "conciousness" with "computation", that's really inherent in what the thought experiment is doing.
joe_the_user 6y ago
The original claim was lots-and-lots-of-people calculating on many pieces of paper. But it's just an example of this endless stream of sort of ridiculous bait-and-switch arguments. First someone, says "so it's mechanical, so a big, fast, accurate speak-and-spell could simulate it" and you say "well, OK, it would have to be huge, incredibly fast and accurate and so-forth" and then the person "well, I doubt consciousness is just a speak-and-spell.
- goatlover 6y ago
  If the claim is that certain functions are what "generates" consciousness, then it's fair to ask whether any sort of functional arrangement will do, including writing stuff out on paper. I don't think it matters whether a billion Chinese are busy writing out 1s and 0s, or a computer is moving electrons around. None of that is conscious in my view, or at least I see no reason it would be.
  - joe_the_user 6y ago
    I would sort of agree. Just avoiding first positing "well, even something silly would do" and then saying "well, that proves it's impossible 'cause it's silly". Then the argument is clearly unfair.
  - red75prime 6y ago
    What makes electrochemical and chemical reactions in a brain so special that you see a reason for them to create consciousness? Or is it a lack of complete understanding of those processes that makes you think so?
  - mannykannot 6y ago
    Your billion-person computer certainly would not appear to be conscious in real time - maybe that's why you just can't get your mind around the picture. Can you imagine a billion people, none of whom who have never even heard of chess, writing out 1s and 0s, and thereby beating a grand master at the game? (in an appropriately slowed-down game, of course.)
    - mietek 6y ago
      Yes. There’s a short story from 1981 by Vernor Vinge titled “True Names”. Recommended reading.
hackinthebochs 6y ago
>The idea that scribbles on a paper would be conscious is really hard to believe. But it's not that the scribbles on paper are conscious; scribbles on paper have no causal powers for example. The scribbles on paper are the volatile storage of this causal chain: the causal cascade flowing through the actions of the person reading the symbols, manipulating them, then writing out new symbols. The bait-and-switch is that when you adjust the thought experiment, the focus shifts from the unified casual process performing certain computations to the inert substrates of the paper (or in the case of the Chinese room, the man performing the computations). But no matter the medium of computation, the causal chains are still instantiated and so there's no reason to think this process is not conscious.
- goatlover 6y ago
  Fair enough, but what makes the instantiation of causal cascade conscious? I see no reason to suppose it would feel pain or see color. What makes it so?
  - XorNot 6y ago
    You're looking for a hard cut off where none exists. Most likely everything is conscious on many different levels and scopes of capability. So the case which makes people really uncomfortable - are cows conscious (because we eat them) has the very unsatisfying answer of "yes, not in the same way we are most likely, but in some way".
  - dodobirdlord 6y ago
    Why wouldn't it? Supposing that it doesn't presupposes that somewhere along the gradual chain of replacing a human brain with this paper processing system those properties are lost either gradually or abruptly.
    - goatlover 6y ago
      Assuming it's the functions the brain performs that are conscious. But it's part of the hard problem. Why and how is anything conscious in the physical world? What does that mean for other physical arrangements? How would we know?

zozbot234 6y ago

Well, to a panpsychist, there's no reason why "conciousness" would need to stop at a human scale. The universe as a whole might be concious, and part of that concious experience might be isomorphic to the subjective experience of the brain that's being replicated on those pieces of paper. Though I can see how people might object that this is merely conflating "conciousness" with "computation", that's really inherent in what the thought experiment is doing.

joe_the_user 6y ago

The original claim was lots-and-lots-of-people calculating on many pieces of paper. But it's just an example of this endless stream of sort of ridiculous bait-and-switch arguments. First someone, says "so it's mechanical, so a big, fast, accurate speak-and-spell could simulate it" and you say "well, OK, it would have to be huge, incredibly fast and accurate and so-forth" and then the person "well, I doubt consciousness is just a speak-and-spell.

goatlover 6y ago
If the claim is that certain functions are what "generates" consciousness, then it's fair to ask whether any sort of functional arrangement will do, including writing stuff out on paper. I don't think it matters whether a billion Chinese are busy writing out 1s and 0s, or a computer is moving electrons around. None of that is conscious in my view, or at least I see no reason it would be.
- joe_the_user 6y ago
  I would sort of agree. Just avoiding first positing "well, even something silly would do" and then saying "well, that proves it's impossible 'cause it's silly". Then the argument is clearly unfair.
- red75prime 6y ago
  What makes electrochemical and chemical reactions in a brain so special that you see a reason for them to create consciousness? Or is it a lack of complete understanding of those processes that makes you think so?
- mannykannot 6y ago
  Your billion-person computer certainly would not appear to be conscious in real time - maybe that's why you just can't get your mind around the picture. Can you imagine a billion people, none of whom who have never even heard of chess, writing out 1s and 0s, and thereby beating a grand master at the game? (in an appropriately slowed-down game, of course.)
  - mietek 6y ago
    Yes. There’s a short story from 1981 by Vernor Vinge titled “True Names”. Recommended reading.

hackinthebochs 6y ago

>The idea that scribbles on a paper would be conscious is really hard to believe. But it's not that the scribbles on paper are conscious; scribbles on paper have no causal powers for example. The scribbles on paper are the volatile storage of this causal chain: the causal cascade flowing through the actions of the person reading the symbols, manipulating them, then writing out new symbols. The bait-and-switch is that when you adjust the thought experiment, the focus shifts from the unified casual process performing certain computations to the inert substrates of the paper (or in the case of the Chinese room, the man performing the computations). But no matter the medium of computation, the causal chains are still instantiated and so there's no reason to think this process is not conscious.

goatlover 6y ago
Fair enough, but what makes the instantiation of causal cascade conscious? I see no reason to suppose it would feel pain or see color. What makes it so?
- XorNot 6y ago
  You're looking for a hard cut off where none exists. Most likely everything is conscious on many different levels and scopes of capability. So the case which makes people really uncomfortable - are cows conscious (because we eat them) has the very unsatisfying answer of "yes, not in the same way we are most likely, but in some way".
- dodobirdlord 6y ago
  Why wouldn't it? Supposing that it doesn't presupposes that somewhere along the gradual chain of replacing a human brain with this paper processing system those properties are lost either gradually or abruptly.
  - goatlover 6y ago
    Assuming it's the functions the brain performs that are conscious. But it's part of the hard problem. Why and how is anything conscious in the physical world? What does that mean for other physical arrangements? How would we know?