4 ms·

I’d say it’s anything but shallow. What I’m getting at is that there may be things completely beyond our current understanding related to consciousness. As in,

I’d say it’s anything but shallow. What I’m getting at is that there may be things completely beyond our current understanding related to consciousness. As in, multiple paradigm shifts away. Without getting into the weeds too much, I just find the certainty of the systems line of thinking a little unfounded.

robbedpeter 5y ago
Universal Turing Machines and number theory and formal logic aren't going away - the universe runs on math, and our brains operate in binary. Those statements are ground truth - there's no room for breaking things down further. Consciousness is an algorithm performed by a computer with messy biological parts, some of which are analog, which may have serious implications for the level of strictly digital computer power you need to successfully implement the algorithm in silicon. The same applies to intelligence, and it's an open question as to what exactly the relationship between subjective experience and intelligence is. You are a brain in a bone vat experiencing a subjective construct produced by a biological computer processing binary states consisting of internal feedback and sensory streams made entirely of patterns distinguished at any moment in time by the presence or absence of electrical impulses. Each neuron can be receiving a pattern of up to ten thousand individual bits, and whether the neuron fires or not depends on the current state and precise pattern of inputs. Everything you experience, think, or do, is determined by those electrical patterns.
- enchiridion 5y ago
  Well certainly, in some sense they are fundamental to the universe. But in this situation it’s a bit like saying the photon isn’t going away. Sure, but the strong link to consciousness isn’t there. However, the universe doesn’t run on math, it runs on itself. Math is the best way we have to describe it at the moment. It used to be that divination was the best method. Why are you so certain math in it’s recognizable form today will be the method used to describe the universe in 100k years? Our brains certainly do not run on binary. I think you might be confusing the information content, represented in bits, with the actual implementation. At the very least dendrites take in and mix signals of various strengths. The threshold for triggering and strength of the action potential are dependent on many chemicals signals. And that’s even a dated understanding which gave rise to the ideas of artificial neural networks. I’m sure the current understanding is much more complex and nuanced. You brush off the analog parts as an implementation detail, when it could have very real implications for the computability of consciousness. The thing is, we don’t know. But even all that is besides the point. The main point is, we don’t have the slightest idea how consciousness works. To the point that no one can even figure out how to ask the right questions about it. In the face of such great uncertainty, it is anti-scientific to state with such conviction that you have the correct model. It’s fine to present it as a hypothesis, but the certainty is unfounded.

robbedpeter 5y ago

Universal Turing Machines and number theory and formal logic aren't going away - the universe runs on math, and our brains operate in binary. Those statements are ground truth - there's no room for breaking things down further. Consciousness is an algorithm performed by a computer with messy biological parts, some of which are analog, which may have serious implications for the level of strictly digital computer power you need to successfully implement the algorithm in silicon. The same applies to intelligence, and it's an open question as to what exactly the relationship between subjective experience and intelligence is. You are a brain in a bone vat experiencing a subjective construct produced by a biological computer processing binary states consisting of internal feedback and sensory streams made entirely of patterns distinguished at any moment in time by the presence or absence of electrical impulses. Each neuron can be receiving a pattern of up to ten thousand individual bits, and whether the neuron fires or not depends on the current state and precise pattern of inputs. Everything you experience, think, or do, is determined by those electrical patterns.

enchiridion 5y ago
Well certainly, in some sense they are fundamental to the universe. But in this situation it’s a bit like saying the photon isn’t going away. Sure, but the strong link to consciousness isn’t there. However, the universe doesn’t run on math, it runs on itself. Math is the best way we have to describe it at the moment. It used to be that divination was the best method. Why are you so certain math in it’s recognizable form today will be the method used to describe the universe in 100k years? Our brains certainly do not run on binary. I think you might be confusing the information content, represented in bits, with the actual implementation. At the very least dendrites take in and mix signals of various strengths. The threshold for triggering and strength of the action potential are dependent on many chemicals signals. And that’s even a dated understanding which gave rise to the ideas of artificial neural networks. I’m sure the current understanding is much more complex and nuanced. You brush off the analog parts as an implementation detail, when it could have very real implications for the computability of consciousness. The thing is, we don’t know. But even all that is besides the point. The main point is, we don’t have the slightest idea how consciousness works. To the point that no one can even figure out how to ask the right questions about it. In the face of such great uncertainty, it is anti-scientific to state with such conviction that you have the correct model. It’s fine to present it as a hypothesis, but the certainty is unfounded.