5 ms·

Of course, apart from how the actual implementation works I don't think many people have a problem with that. And if it was just that, Wigner's friend wouldn't

by kmm 6y ago

Of course, apart from how the actual implementation works I don't think many people have a problem with that. And if it was just that, Wigner's friend wouldn't be nearly as interesting, it would suffice to say that if quantum mechanical effects really keep working all the way up to the macroscopic level (which again is anything but obvious), that his friend's body and brain would simply be in a superposition of both states. But this understand of the surroundings and capability to react to stimuli comes with a subjective experience, which is what is actually meant with "consciousness". This is the hard problem of consciousness[0]. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

keymone 6y ago
One of brain’s responsibilities is to model the environment, which means modeling all it’s parts. Since each brain is unique - those models are different and “personal”. Physical stimuli evoke some of those models and that’s what we call “blue color” or whatever else we’re experiencing. I don’t think I understand the problem enough to understand why it’s a problem.
- felipeko 6y ago
  By inner experience, we mean that there's a subject which gets to have perception of such models. There's no need for such subject to exist. For example, most people assume that, so far, computers do not have any inner experience. A computer could, conceivably, execute the same functions as our brain, yet have no inner experience of anything. Numbers get in, numbers get out, without any inner experience being needed.
  - keymone 6y ago
    Sure, just like a thermostat doesn’t experience the feeling of temperature, there is no need for human to feel it, so I understand that we need to explain why is it that we still feel the feeling rather than just observe the signal and react. So why is it wrong to explain this by the necessary recursiveness of predictive modeling that includes modeling “self”? We observe the temperature but we also observe ourselves observing the temperature. First is the signal, second is the introspection of the model evoked by that signal - the feeling.
    - unishark 6y ago
      Yes but where does this observer come from in the first place? Some theories do presume the thermostat experiences the temperature, just in a less-sophisticated form of consciousness. If an "observer" is nothing more than neurons firing in response to stimuli, then it's not fundamentally different from the thermostat.
      - felipeko 6y ago
        Exactly. It is understandable that having an model of an observer can be useful to a brain. But how/why does that opens a window to an actual observer, and not just a model, is the question. And we only know that - an actual observer exists - through first hand experience. It is our most immediate and certain knowledge (Cogito, ergo sum), everything else can be questioned. Yet, there's nothing in physics or computer science that gives a hint to this being the case.
        jlokier 6y ago
        Ok, so first hand experience tells you an observer exists. Are you sure that observer has your personality, mind and memories? Are you sure that observer is involved in any way with the world, other than observing it? Or are those other things just part of the machinery, and quite illusory. For example our perception of time, coherent thought and personality aren't all that consistent, as we know from various experiments and observations. Here is the crux of my point: If there's an actual observer, let's call it "primal consciousness", but they are observing the world through the lens of a mind, which is a complex, self-referential, reactive process running on a brain and body, we don't need to say that any particular physical process "creates" consciousness. We can settle with physical processes create something complex and interesting, which runs models of itself and the world, which "primal consciousness" observes. The "mind machine" running on the physics does not contain the observer, it's observed by the observer. That doesn't "solve" the hard problem, but it's a model with different properties and consequences than some of the other models.
      - keymone 6y ago
        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24336755 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24336755

by kmm 6y ago

keymone 6y ago

One of brain’s responsibilities is to model the environment, which means modeling all it’s parts. Since each brain is unique - those models are different and “personal”. Physical stimuli evoke some of those models and that’s what we call “blue color” or whatever else we’re experiencing. I don’t think I understand the problem enough to understand why it’s a problem.

felipeko 6y ago
By inner experience, we mean that there's a subject which gets to have perception of such models. There's no need for such subject to exist. For example, most people assume that, so far, computers do not have any inner experience. A computer could, conceivably, execute the same functions as our brain, yet have no inner experience of anything. Numbers get in, numbers get out, without any inner experience being needed.
- keymone 6y ago
  Sure, just like a thermostat doesn’t experience the feeling of temperature, there is no need for human to feel it, so I understand that we need to explain why is it that we still feel the feeling rather than just observe the signal and react. So why is it wrong to explain this by the necessary recursiveness of predictive modeling that includes modeling “self”? We observe the temperature but we also observe ourselves observing the temperature. First is the signal, second is the introspection of the model evoked by that signal - the feeling.
  - unishark 6y ago
    Yes but where does this observer come from in the first place? Some theories do presume the thermostat experiences the temperature, just in a less-sophisticated form of consciousness. If an "observer" is nothing more than neurons firing in response to stimuli, then it's not fundamentally different from the thermostat.
    - felipeko 6y ago
      Exactly. It is understandable that having an model of an observer can be useful to a brain. But how/why does that opens a window to an actual observer, and not just a model, is the question. And we only know that - an actual observer exists - through first hand experience. It is our most immediate and certain knowledge (Cogito, ergo sum), everything else can be questioned. Yet, there's nothing in physics or computer science that gives a hint to this being the case.
      - jlokier 6y ago
        Ok, so first hand experience tells you an observer exists. Are you sure that observer has your personality, mind and memories? Are you sure that observer is involved in any way with the world, other than observing it? Or are those other things just part of the machinery, and quite illusory. For example our perception of time, coherent thought and personality aren't all that consistent, as we know from various experiments and observations. Here is the crux of my point: If there's an actual observer, let's call it "primal consciousness", but they are observing the world through the lens of a mind, which is a complex, self-referential, reactive process running on a brain and body, we don't need to say that any particular physical process "creates" consciousness. We can settle with physical processes create something complex and interesting, which runs models of itself and the world, which "primal consciousness" observes. The "mind machine" running on the physics does not contain the observer, it's observed by the observer. That doesn't "solve" the hard problem, but it's a model with different properties and consequences than some of the other models.
    - keymone 6y ago
      https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24336755 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24336755