6 ms·

Well we do know emergent phenomena that occur as abstractions. Probably the most obvious example is a computer program. At a basic level, the computer really do

Well we do know emergent phenomena that occur as abstractions. Probably the most obvious example is a computer program. At a basic level, the computer really doesn't look like it's doing useful work, it just processes lists of rules and stuff, but actually the emergent behaviour is that I am browsing Hacker News. What is the difference between a computer and a rock? Well there isn't actually a fundamental difference, other than that the computer is physically arranged such that it is doing some complicated calculation resulting in this rich UI experience. I think it's the same with the brain. Why is there consciousness in this brain and not in a rock? Well because the brain is set up to perform a complicated "calculation" and the rock is not. Just like the program's behaviour only exists as an emergent property of the computer's physical state, so does consciousness arise as an emergent property from the brain's physical state. EDIT: to clarify this is why it is justified to say there is not a problem, but I do not personally find it satisfying

daseiner1 5y ago
But the question is when and from where does “experiencing things” (qualia) arise. When does calculation become sensation?
- joeberon 5y ago
  Those same people might say that it is just the experience of "being the computer" rather than seeing it from afar. But I don't know, because personally it isn't an argument I find convincing. As an aside, I think you have to be a bit arrogant or closed minded to assert that they actually can see the problem. I really don't think my wife is lying or being nefarious when she says she doesn't see a problem. I trust her and others when they say they don't see a problem.
  - GonzaloRizzo 5y ago
    So if there's such a thing as "being the computer" could we say that a computer experiences qualia and it is somewhat conscious?
    - joeberon 5y ago
      Yes, people who believe that consciousness is an emergent property of sufficiently complicated systems would say that a sufficiently complicated computer experiences qualia and is conscious.
- GlennS 5y ago
  Obviously: in the insect that wriggles its legs in pain. Earlier, in the cell that avoids the chemical.
nickelpro 5y ago
Exactly, you have a handwave. A vague idea that when a system becomes "complex" enough it suddenly becomes conscious. There's no mechanism, no rigor, no cause and effect. With the browser you can chase down every bit through the hardware, down to the quantum tunneling effect dictating what's happening in the silicon and come up with a concrete explanation based in physical laws. With the browser example, at no level of abstraction does there exist any ambiguity. "Emergent" in that framing simply means we can explain abstracted behaviors in terms of other abstractions. But if you wanted you could drill down to the particle physics and have a complete, rational explanation of the system. Not so with consciousness, and thus the "hard problem"
- joeberon 5y ago
  I don't have it, because it's not my argument, it's their argument, and it's clearly making you emotional so I think it's better to stop it here.
  - nickelpro 5y ago
    Apologies if my language is emotional, I like this debate a lot and get rare few opportunities to discuss it with people who are familiar with all the background. I don't mean to invalidate anyone, I think all camps are equally valid regardless of my personal feelings.
- adriand 5y ago
  One obvious difference between computers and humans is that only one of them is an animal. So far as we can tell, consciousness only arises in animals. This sounds like a truism, but I wonder if using phrases like “complex system“ masks it: both humans and computers are complex systems, and only one of them is conscious, and therefore what could possibly be the difference? Well, the list of differences between the two is enormous. As the article discusses, some of those differences include embodiment, emotions and moods. So perhaps the “hard problem” is not a philosophical one but a question of detailed knowledge: if we had the ability to drill down to the underlying particle physics of bodies, emotions and moods, plus all the other things that comprise our animal natures, then perhaps the problem would be solved. To put this another way: perhaps the issue with many approaches to understanding consciousness is that it assumes our animal nature doesn’t matter and that conscious minds can exist abstractly, or even be modelled in silicon. But maybe they can’t be, and so for us to truly understand consciousness we will need to truly understand the body, which we are very far away from. To sum this up: consciousness, in this view, is not an emergent property of complex systems. Rather it is a fundamental property of animals.
mensetmanusman 5y ago
A computer is only an emergent phenomena if you assume humans are (with no free will). Would a computer form with enough time and without consciousness from random interactions and the precise laws of the universe?

daseiner1 5y ago

But the question is when and from where does “experiencing things” (qualia) arise. When does calculation become sensation?

joeberon 5y ago
Those same people might say that it is just the experience of "being the computer" rather than seeing it from afar. But I don't know, because personally it isn't an argument I find convincing. As an aside, I think you have to be a bit arrogant or closed minded to assert that they actually can see the problem. I really don't think my wife is lying or being nefarious when she says she doesn't see a problem. I trust her and others when they say they don't see a problem.
- GonzaloRizzo 5y ago
  So if there's such a thing as "being the computer" could we say that a computer experiences qualia and it is somewhat conscious?
  - joeberon 5y ago
    Yes, people who believe that consciousness is an emergent property of sufficiently complicated systems would say that a sufficiently complicated computer experiences qualia and is conscious.
GlennS 5y ago
Obviously: in the insect that wriggles its legs in pain. Earlier, in the cell that avoids the chemical.

nickelpro 5y ago

Exactly, you have a handwave. A vague idea that when a system becomes "complex" enough it suddenly becomes conscious. There's no mechanism, no rigor, no cause and effect. With the browser you can chase down every bit through the hardware, down to the quantum tunneling effect dictating what's happening in the silicon and come up with a concrete explanation based in physical laws. With the browser example, at no level of abstraction does there exist any ambiguity. "Emergent" in that framing simply means we can explain abstracted behaviors in terms of other abstractions. But if you wanted you could drill down to the particle physics and have a complete, rational explanation of the system. Not so with consciousness, and thus the "hard problem"

joeberon 5y ago
I don't have it, because it's not my argument, it's their argument, and it's clearly making you emotional so I think it's better to stop it here.
- nickelpro 5y ago
  Apologies if my language is emotional, I like this debate a lot and get rare few opportunities to discuss it with people who are familiar with all the background. I don't mean to invalidate anyone, I think all camps are equally valid regardless of my personal feelings.
adriand 5y ago
One obvious difference between computers and humans is that only one of them is an animal. So far as we can tell, consciousness only arises in animals. This sounds like a truism, but I wonder if using phrases like “complex system“ masks it: both humans and computers are complex systems, and only one of them is conscious, and therefore what could possibly be the difference? Well, the list of differences between the two is enormous. As the article discusses, some of those differences include embodiment, emotions and moods. So perhaps the “hard problem” is not a philosophical one but a question of detailed knowledge: if we had the ability to drill down to the underlying particle physics of bodies, emotions and moods, plus all the other things that comprise our animal natures, then perhaps the problem would be solved. To put this another way: perhaps the issue with many approaches to understanding consciousness is that it assumes our animal nature doesn’t matter and that conscious minds can exist abstractly, or even be modelled in silicon. But maybe they can’t be, and so for us to truly understand consciousness we will need to truly understand the body, which we are very far away from. To sum this up: consciousness, in this view, is not an emergent property of complex systems. Rather it is a fundamental property of animals.

mensetmanusman 5y ago

A computer is only an emergent phenomena if you assume humans are (with no free will). Would a computer form with enough time and without consciousness from random interactions and the precise laws of the universe?