3 ms·

> Otherwise, most of these questions become trivial when consciousness is considered as a physical, biological process bound to the brain. If it were trivial,

> Otherwise, most of these questions become trivial when consciousness is considered as a physical, biological process bound to the brain. If it were trivial, we'd be creating conscious entities via knowhow and will, not the old fashioned (fun) way. We... need it be said... cannot. We can't even describe what consciousness is in a way it can be measured or analyzed. We can make things that do things, sure. We can even impart some of our own "consciousness" into these doer machines like robots. But we have no useful way of understanding the phenomena we feel and how that might differ from the robot, or a cat, or a bat, or whatever. > Why is consciousness bound to a person's location? Because their brain is bound inside their skull. We might as well ask: why is software in a robot the way it is? Because the software is on that CPU in that physical case over there. It's a non-answer and a diversion. Software can be transferred to other hardware, and there are many questions to be had whether software is consciousness, and also what the nature of that consciousness is given that there's clearly a layer of representation (1s and 0s) different than the material reality of the electrons pumping through silicon.

krapp 5y ago
>If it were trivial, we'd be creating conscious entities via knowhow and will, not the old fashioned (fun) way. I wasn't claiming the problem of consciousness as a whole was trivial, rather the specific questions being asked in the above comment become trivial when a biological origin of consciousness is assumed. > But we have no useful way of understanding the phenomena we feel and how that might differ from the robot, or a cat, or a bat, or whatever. This isn't entirely true. We've studied the brain and the relationship between the brain and consciousness for decades. We may not understand exactly how consciousness arises in the brain, or even why it exists, but there is absolutely a pile of evidence that consciousness is something the brain creates and that it doesn't exist apart from the brain. >Software can be transferred to other hardware, and there are many questions to be had whether software is consciousness, and also what the nature of that consciousness is given that there's clearly a layer of representation (1s and 0s) different than the material reality of the electrons pumping through silicon. If you want to be pedantic, software isn't ever transferred, only copied. Also, while the "brain as computer" metaphor is tempting, I think it's also misleading. Decades of failure to produce a general AI demonstrate how alien one architecture is from another. Brains just don't operate enough like computers for comparisons of biological consciousness to software to be meaningful. And that 'layer of representation' is an illusion. There are no 1s and 0s separate from the material reality of electrons and silicon, that's an entirely human abstraction that doesn't exist in the hardware, certainly not at the physical level where quantum effects become relevant and everything is just a charge that does or doesn't meet a tolerance.
- abernard1 5y ago
  > the specific questions being asked in the above comment become trivial when a biological origin of consciousness is assumed. But unless there are complementary answers, they're trivial in the "useless" sense. They (1) don't provide any explanatory power, and (2) may very well be wrong--because as we've established--we have no clue. It's of the same argumentative caliber as the anthropic principle: "Well, we're here because that's just the way we do things here in UniverseCorp." I too could assume that consciousness is due to a particularly fascinating arrangement of angels dancing on physical atomic pins. I could say that every person is localized to a certain angel, or maybe a soul, and vociferously call it trivial because if you assume this thing then it naturally follows. But I don't want to assume that thing because that thing is totally useless at describing anything. Which is still where we are with consciousness, and the history of science is filled with whiplash and disappointment at finding older more primitive beliefs were more "true." > There are no 1s and 0s separate from the material reality of electrons and silicon, that's an entirely human abstraction that doesn't exist in the hardware There are 1s and 0s that are going across the world right now from you to me, and they're being transferred into electrons and photons and who knows what else afterwards. They may be emergent phenomena, but they exist, just like molecules exist as combinations of atoms: they have rules, those rules are exact and can be understood. Those rules are also not materially real, and yet they can be made immanent. We as tiny humans have built a real system where we have separated representation from reality, and we have not yet determined whether The Universe (TM) has made a comparable innovation.
  - svachalek 5y ago
    For all the fancy words here, I don't find any substance. The evidence that consciousness is tied to the physical brain is overwhelming, and evidence that it exists outside the brain is nonexistent.
zubspace 5y ago
Well said. I think one of the problems is, that most just think that consciousness is a given and have a hard time to acknowledge, that we actually have no damn clue what it really is. It's easy to say, that believing in a soul or something like it is hogwash, but just closing your eyes and telling yourself "I think and therefore I am" does not bring us any closer to an answer. We have to assume that all unfalsifiable arguments could be true until we have proof, that they are incorrect. That is the only scientific approach.

krapp 5y ago

>If it were trivial, we'd be creating conscious entities via knowhow and will, not the old fashioned (fun) way. I wasn't claiming the problem of consciousness as a whole was trivial, rather the specific questions being asked in the above comment become trivial when a biological origin of consciousness is assumed. > But we have no useful way of understanding the phenomena we feel and how that might differ from the robot, or a cat, or a bat, or whatever. This isn't entirely true. We've studied the brain and the relationship between the brain and consciousness for decades. We may not understand exactly how consciousness arises in the brain, or even why it exists, but there is absolutely a pile of evidence that consciousness is something the brain creates and that it doesn't exist apart from the brain. >Software can be transferred to other hardware, and there are many questions to be had whether software is consciousness, and also what the nature of that consciousness is given that there's clearly a layer of representation (1s and 0s) different than the material reality of the electrons pumping through silicon. If you want to be pedantic, software isn't ever transferred, only copied. Also, while the "brain as computer" metaphor is tempting, I think it's also misleading. Decades of failure to produce a general AI demonstrate how alien one architecture is from another. Brains just don't operate enough like computers for comparisons of biological consciousness to software to be meaningful. And that 'layer of representation' is an illusion. There are no 1s and 0s separate from the material reality of electrons and silicon, that's an entirely human abstraction that doesn't exist in the hardware, certainly not at the physical level where quantum effects become relevant and everything is just a charge that does or doesn't meet a tolerance.

abernard1 5y ago
> the specific questions being asked in the above comment become trivial when a biological origin of consciousness is assumed. But unless there are complementary answers, they're trivial in the "useless" sense. They (1) don't provide any explanatory power, and (2) may very well be wrong--because as we've established--we have no clue. It's of the same argumentative caliber as the anthropic principle: "Well, we're here because that's just the way we do things here in UniverseCorp." I too could assume that consciousness is due to a particularly fascinating arrangement of angels dancing on physical atomic pins. I could say that every person is localized to a certain angel, or maybe a soul, and vociferously call it trivial because if you assume this thing then it naturally follows. But I don't want to assume that thing because that thing is totally useless at describing anything. Which is still where we are with consciousness, and the history of science is filled with whiplash and disappointment at finding older more primitive beliefs were more "true." > There are no 1s and 0s separate from the material reality of electrons and silicon, that's an entirely human abstraction that doesn't exist in the hardware There are 1s and 0s that are going across the world right now from you to me, and they're being transferred into electrons and photons and who knows what else afterwards. They may be emergent phenomena, but they exist, just like molecules exist as combinations of atoms: they have rules, those rules are exact and can be understood. Those rules are also not materially real, and yet they can be made immanent. We as tiny humans have built a real system where we have separated representation from reality, and we have not yet determined whether The Universe (TM) has made a comparable innovation.
- svachalek 5y ago
  For all the fancy words here, I don't find any substance. The evidence that consciousness is tied to the physical brain is overwhelming, and evidence that it exists outside the brain is nonexistent.

zubspace 5y ago

Well said. I think one of the problems is, that most just think that consciousness is a given and have a hard time to acknowledge, that we actually have no damn clue what it really is. It's easy to say, that believing in a soul or something like it is hogwash, but just closing your eyes and telling yourself "I think and therefore I am" does not bring us any closer to an answer. We have to assume that all unfalsifiable arguments could be true until we have proof, that they are incorrect. That is the only scientific approach.