5 ms·

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 sou

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.

k__ 5y ago
But maybe a computer isn't a complex system. Most, if not all, animals are much more complex than computers.
n4r9 5y ago
If we take a human and replace one of their neurons with a silicon chip that exactly replicates its electrical activity, is the human any less "conscious"? Presumably their conscious experience is the same (if not why not?) If the human is still conscious, what if we continue one by one to replace all the neurons with silicon chips in the same way? Where does this thought experiment fail?
- joeberon 5y ago
  Personally I think most people who argue consciousness is an emergent property of complicated physical systems would believe that the machine would still be conscious after replacing every neuron with a chip
  - slfnflctd 5y ago
    Given a sufficiently advanced chip which included all chemical interactions (or effective simulations), why wouldn't they be? If after the transition is complete we determine/decide they aren't conscious, then we have to argue about at what point the 'hybrid' brain ceases to manifest consciousness, and why. Maybe the organic parts would start to change their prior functionality in response to the synthesized parts... but that would suggest we just didn't have a complete enough model of the neuron and we're back to square one. Once that model is complete, there should by definition be no problem, unless you want to argue it can never be complete, for which you then need evidence to convince everyone. I say it's worth continued study.
    - lovecg 5y ago
      On the topic of simulating neurons, we might be able to simulate the _static_ structure but neurons also move around and make new connections. This video opened my eyes on how far we really are from a realistic simulation: https://youtu.be/CJ3d1FgbmFg https://youtu.be/CJ3d1FgbmFg
- adriand 5y ago
  My house is made of bricks. I can confidently remove one of the bricks and replace it with a Kleenex box. The house is still standing, it’s perfectly liveable and no one can tell the difference. Now what happens when I replace all the bricks with Kleenex boxes?
  - LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago
    You have a honey-comb structure. Maybe put exactly fitting X-shaped stabilizers into them, before. For safety, and such :)
  - n4r9 5y ago
    At some point, the structure will collapse or blow over. When that happens depends on the order in which you work, and the weather conditions, but the outcome is at least well-defined and conceptually graspable.
CuriouslyC 5y ago
You think your computer isn't conscious? How do you know? Just because it's not demonstrating free will? How many layers of error correction are built into computers to stifle the "randomness" of electronic equipment? Do you think you could still exercise free will locked in a padded room and strapped to a bed with a straightjacket?
- unyttigfjelltol 5y ago
  This comment is amazing. Thank you.
- Dudeman112 5y ago
  I don't think free will matters at all for consciousness. How is a world where your will is decided by quarks randomly zagging instead of zigging any more open to free will than a deterministic world?
- adriand 5y ago
  There's a difference between knowing, and knowing how you know. I know my computer is not conscious even if I'm not entirely certain how I know. I chalk this up to the fact that, as a conscious animal with millions of years of evolutionary history, it is both beneficial and entirely natural for me to be able to recognize conscious beings when I encounter them. (It also helps that I know how to program computers and don't view that activity as bringing consciousness in the world. I have children, however, so it turns out that I am — with some help — also able to bring consciousness into the world. The former activity I am both able to do and fully understand, while the latter I am clearly able to do, but don't at all understand.) I recognize this point of view isn't popular among a lot of technical folks. I get it, I was there once too, but I've come around to a new appreciation for our animal nature. This question — how do you know what is conscious? — is very similar to questions like, "how do you know that that dog is afraid?" The short answer to that question is, "because we are kin". Which is an explanation I find much more rich and satisfying than reductionism.
  - rhn_mk1 5y ago
    That breaks down for anything that is not your kin though. "How do you know the computer is not conscious?" does not allow the answer "Because we are not kin". Best you can say is "Because we are not kin, I don't know". The dog example is illustrative of only half of the question.
eli_gottlieb 5y ago
>To sum this up: consciousness, in this view, is not an emergent property of complex systems. Rather it is a fundamental property of animals. Or at the very least, it's a fundamental property of the particular kinds of physical systems that animals happen to be, and without understand what that is, we have no hope of replicating consciousness in any non-animal. This makes sense to me, because consciousness seems to be a question related to brains, which are part of animals, so a really great way to confuse yourself would be to abstract the entire question of consciousness away from the life sciences and then wonder why you're so confused.
- adriand 5y ago
  > a really great way to confuse yourself would be to abstract the entire question of consciousness away from the life sciences and then wonder why you're so confused Yes, exactly. Which is a direct challenge to transhumanism because it means that maybe it actually won't be possible to achieve immortality via brain upload, or build general AI (without first solving the life science "problem", i.e. building an artificial body), and so on.
  - eli_gottlieb 5y ago
    Sure, but was anyone really suggesting that we somehow create disembodied people? That seems to be the other side of the dialectical coin from immaterial souls, which are precisely what most Hard Problem disbelievers deny.
mensetmanusman 5y ago
“ 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.” Doubtful since the medium of our thought is clear to us but impossible to share and difficult to describe.
- donkeybeer 5y ago
  "If I learn C I would be able to understand the Linux kernel" It is but a first step, and particle physics/C is the lowest level, we have to understand the complex code written with them and the emergent phenomena.

k__ 5y ago

But maybe a computer isn't a complex system. Most, if not all, animals are much more complex than computers.

n4r9 5y ago

If we take a human and replace one of their neurons with a silicon chip that exactly replicates its electrical activity, is the human any less "conscious"? Presumably their conscious experience is the same (if not why not?) If the human is still conscious, what if we continue one by one to replace all the neurons with silicon chips in the same way? Where does this thought experiment fail?

joeberon 5y ago
Personally I think most people who argue consciousness is an emergent property of complicated physical systems would believe that the machine would still be conscious after replacing every neuron with a chip
- slfnflctd 5y ago
  Given a sufficiently advanced chip which included all chemical interactions (or effective simulations), why wouldn't they be? If after the transition is complete we determine/decide they aren't conscious, then we have to argue about at what point the 'hybrid' brain ceases to manifest consciousness, and why. Maybe the organic parts would start to change their prior functionality in response to the synthesized parts... but that would suggest we just didn't have a complete enough model of the neuron and we're back to square one. Once that model is complete, there should by definition be no problem, unless you want to argue it can never be complete, for which you then need evidence to convince everyone. I say it's worth continued study.
  - lovecg 5y ago
    On the topic of simulating neurons, we might be able to simulate the _static_ structure but neurons also move around and make new connections. This video opened my eyes on how far we really are from a realistic simulation: https://youtu.be/CJ3d1FgbmFg https://youtu.be/CJ3d1FgbmFg
adriand 5y ago
My house is made of bricks. I can confidently remove one of the bricks and replace it with a Kleenex box. The house is still standing, it’s perfectly liveable and no one can tell the difference. Now what happens when I replace all the bricks with Kleenex boxes?
- LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago
  You have a honey-comb structure. Maybe put exactly fitting X-shaped stabilizers into them, before. For safety, and such :)
- n4r9 5y ago
  At some point, the structure will collapse or blow over. When that happens depends on the order in which you work, and the weather conditions, but the outcome is at least well-defined and conceptually graspable.

CuriouslyC 5y ago

You think your computer isn't conscious? How do you know? Just because it's not demonstrating free will? How many layers of error correction are built into computers to stifle the "randomness" of electronic equipment? Do you think you could still exercise free will locked in a padded room and strapped to a bed with a straightjacket?

unyttigfjelltol 5y ago
This comment is amazing. Thank you.
Dudeman112 5y ago
I don't think free will matters at all for consciousness. How is a world where your will is decided by quarks randomly zagging instead of zigging any more open to free will than a deterministic world?
adriand 5y ago
There's a difference between knowing, and knowing how you know. I know my computer is not conscious even if I'm not entirely certain how I know. I chalk this up to the fact that, as a conscious animal with millions of years of evolutionary history, it is both beneficial and entirely natural for me to be able to recognize conscious beings when I encounter them. (It also helps that I know how to program computers and don't view that activity as bringing consciousness in the world. I have children, however, so it turns out that I am — with some help — also able to bring consciousness into the world. The former activity I am both able to do and fully understand, while the latter I am clearly able to do, but don't at all understand.) I recognize this point of view isn't popular among a lot of technical folks. I get it, I was there once too, but I've come around to a new appreciation for our animal nature. This question — how do you know what is conscious? — is very similar to questions like, "how do you know that that dog is afraid?" The short answer to that question is, "because we are kin". Which is an explanation I find much more rich and satisfying than reductionism.
- rhn_mk1 5y ago
  That breaks down for anything that is not your kin though. "How do you know the computer is not conscious?" does not allow the answer "Because we are not kin". Best you can say is "Because we are not kin, I don't know". The dog example is illustrative of only half of the question.

eli_gottlieb 5y ago

>To sum this up: consciousness, in this view, is not an emergent property of complex systems. Rather it is a fundamental property of animals. Or at the very least, it's a fundamental property of the particular kinds of physical systems that animals happen to be, and without understand what that is, we have no hope of replicating consciousness in any non-animal. This makes sense to me, because consciousness seems to be a question related to brains, which are part of animals, so a really great way to confuse yourself would be to abstract the entire question of consciousness away from the life sciences and then wonder why you're so confused.

adriand 5y ago
> a really great way to confuse yourself would be to abstract the entire question of consciousness away from the life sciences and then wonder why you're so confused Yes, exactly. Which is a direct challenge to transhumanism because it means that maybe it actually won't be possible to achieve immortality via brain upload, or build general AI (without first solving the life science "problem", i.e. building an artificial body), and so on.
- eli_gottlieb 5y ago
  Sure, but was anyone really suggesting that we somehow create disembodied people? That seems to be the other side of the dialectical coin from immaterial souls, which are precisely what most Hard Problem disbelievers deny.

mensetmanusman 5y ago

“ 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.” Doubtful since the medium of our thought is clear to us but impossible to share and difficult to describe.

donkeybeer 5y ago
"If I learn C I would be able to understand the Linux kernel" It is but a first step, and particle physics/C is the lowest level, we have to understand the complex code written with them and the emergent phenomena.