8 ms·

I feel like everyone taking a hardline stance on this is being disingenuous - consciousness as it is used in pop culture is a largely non-scientific (and in my

I feel like everyone taking a hardline stance on this is being disingenuous - consciousness as it is used in pop culture is a largely non-scientific (and in my opinion a useless) term. If you claim 'consciousness' is just an emergent phenomena of complexity (something I happen to agree with) then sure neural nets are potentially slightly conscious, but that isn't how most people view consciousness unfortunately. Most people view 'consciousness' as some 'pie in the sky' component of biological life that has yet to be discovered by science, but this line of inquiry is completely outside the realm of useful dialog, so it seems pointless to debate such things. These are the two general views of consciousness, the first at least provides a useful framework for discussion, but the two camps will vehemently always disagree with each other. > "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim." - Edsger Dijkstra

igorkraw 5y ago
I meant to reply to this comment since IIT is the main coherent treatment I've seen+my thoughts about why people habe this pie in the sky tendency https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30409369 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30409369
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
fsckboy 5y ago
"I think consciousness is just emergent from complexity, so what I have to say is valid, but people who suspect that's not the full story, well that's pointless to debate, they should use my framework for discussion" sheesh. weak.
- jjcon 5y ago
  It is pointless to debate with someone that invokes ideas outside the realm of scientific inquiry... that is definitionally true isn't it?
  - vba616 5y ago
    If I claim "no advanced automobile will ever develop the ability to run like a horse as an emergent phenomenon" Does that mean that I regard running as outside the realm of scientific inquiry?
    - jjcon 5y ago
      I think OP is saying in this specific instance a lot of people are defining the word ‘consciousness’ as to be outside the realm of scientific inquiry. Certainly there is room to question if neural nets have developed consciousness as an emergent phenomena but if your definition of consciousness falls outside of scientific inquiry… what is the point in discussing it? Does that make more sense?
  - NateEag 5y ago
    If so, then there's no point in ever debating a mathematical idea.
    - jjcon 5y ago
      Since when is math outside the realm of science?
      - NateEag 5y ago
        Math is established by logic and proof. If a proof is sound, it should stand eternally. Humans are not perfect, so sometimes we are collectively mistaken about a proof's correctness. The fundamental nature of the process is still one of establishing inviolably proven facts and building on top of them. Science, on the other hand, is a never-ending iterative approximation process with occasional massive discontinuities when accepted theories are overturned. It relies on observed report and falsification of our current best guesses. No scientific "law" can ever be proven true, just labeled "not known to be wrong so far". Math is much closer to philosophy than science. It just happens to be pragmatically useful to the sciences: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreasonable_Effectiveness_of_Mathematics_in_the_Natural_Sciences https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreasonable_Effectivene...
- theferalrobot 5y ago
  >but people who suspect that's not the full story, well that's pointless to debate, they should use my framework for discussion You can believe whatever you want, use whatever framework you want (religion, spirituality, science etc). I'm just pointing out that it is pointless to debate between the two because they fundamentally disagree about how to inquire about the world and answer questions like this. Everyone in this debate is talking past each other without acknowledging that they are starting from two very different positions and sets of definitions.
  - fsckboy 5y ago
    it sounds like you put yourself in a class of people who are perfectly rational, and therefore anything that you can't think of doesn't exist, and anybody who thinks about those things is a mystic. you are making a mistake like physicists who believed "God does not play dice with the world" at the dawn of quantum mechanics or "time is a constant, not the speed of light" at the dawn of relativity. You have no idea where consciousness comes from, stop assuming you do, it's poor science. (For the record, I'm sure the integral of my history of atheism is strictly greater than yours, mentioning since that seems to be the subtext of your argument.)
    - theferalrobot 5y ago
      I think you are completely missing what I am saying and you also seem to be fallaciously appealing to skepticism (are you a global skeptic [0]?). Sure you can say ‘but there is so much we don’t know’, I’m not arguing we know everything. That is not in any way what I am saying. I am saying it is pointless to appeal to such things. If we always appealed to skepticism science would never advance because everything would be too unknowable. We get to define what words like consciousness means, so we can intentionally define to be within the realm of scientific inquiry. Most people probably define consciousness outside of scientific realm of inquiry (notions of a soul etc) and that is fine, but at least in the first definition there can be scientific debate. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_skepticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_skepticism
vba616 5y ago
I don't get the (perennial) dichotomy. It seems to me the question of whether a submarine can swim is well-formed and relevant. I feel confident that no advanced propeller driven craft will ever develop flippers and fish-like swimming as an emergent phenomenon. I also feel confident that an artificial device that does swim like a fish is entirely within the realm of engineering, let alone science. It has never made any sense to me that, by analogy, there is a conflict between those two beliefs. Economic forces may preclude fish-machines, but it might just mean they will be delayed for a long time because they are difficult.
- theferalrobot 5y ago
  I think the point is more that dwelling on wheather or not to call what a submarine does, ‘swimming’ is a pointless debate, only based on how you define the word. Certainly there are interesting conversations to be had around the subject as you point out, but arguing semantics probably isn’t one of them.
strainer 5y ago
I would hope most people regard consciousness as something which can beg compassion, tolerance or compromise for other consciousnesses sakes. Common creatures we know express suffering and to be amused or unaffected by suffering of others is most widely considered as pathological or psychotic. Without consciousness there is no suffering, no cause for compassion etc. Something may be incredibly complex, suggesting it has value in a world - perhaps to other creatures or the world itself somehow. But being a complex thing does not suggest that it can suffer or enjoy experiences. An idea that an experiential importance of things simply accompanies sufficient complexity seems 'pie in the sand'
- webmaven 5y ago
  Are you arguing that sociopaths and psychopaths are less conscious than other humans?
  - strainer 5y ago
    No, basically consciousness as we know it, entails a capacity to suffer, which is important to acknowledge on moral and health grounds, and that capacity is likely to be an essential part of consciousness. It makes whatever consciousness is or isn't, an important quality which demands consideration, to avoid suffering or to increase fulfillment or wellbeing etc in whatever we believe to be conscious. To 'virtualize' or academically detach that kind of importance of consciousness, as logically illusive or intangible distraction, is pathological. I tried to reply to the notion that consciousness "is just an emergent phenomena of complexity" . The words 'just' 'only' 'simply' can hardly be applied to such a special thing. The idea such a thing arises at a threshold of complexity is quite empty of insight. At a certain level of complexity - an iphone emerges! That's no understanding of what is required to create an iphone or how it works. What is required to emerge consciousness? if it where a matter of complexity then some quantity of iphones should achieve that threshold. But no mountain of iphones can experience suffering.
    - webmaven 5y ago
      Okay, I understand what you're saying. A conscious being is not necessarily required to also have the capacity for recognizing consciousness in other conscious beings. Do you think a capacity for suffering is not only necessary, but also entirely sufficient, for consciousness? That would imply that some other abilities such as memory, are not required.

igorkraw 5y ago

I meant to reply to this comment since IIT is the main coherent treatment I've seen+my thoughts about why people habe this pie in the sky tendency https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30409369 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30409369

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

fsckboy 5y ago

"I think consciousness is just emergent from complexity, so what I have to say is valid, but people who suspect that's not the full story, well that's pointless to debate, they should use my framework for discussion" sheesh. weak.

jjcon 5y ago
It is pointless to debate with someone that invokes ideas outside the realm of scientific inquiry... that is definitionally true isn't it?
- vba616 5y ago
  If I claim "no advanced automobile will ever develop the ability to run like a horse as an emergent phenomenon" Does that mean that I regard running as outside the realm of scientific inquiry?
  - jjcon 5y ago
    I think OP is saying in this specific instance a lot of people are defining the word ‘consciousness’ as to be outside the realm of scientific inquiry. Certainly there is room to question if neural nets have developed consciousness as an emergent phenomena but if your definition of consciousness falls outside of scientific inquiry… what is the point in discussing it? Does that make more sense?
- NateEag 5y ago
  If so, then there's no point in ever debating a mathematical idea.
  - jjcon 5y ago
    Since when is math outside the realm of science?
    - NateEag 5y ago
      Math is established by logic and proof. If a proof is sound, it should stand eternally. Humans are not perfect, so sometimes we are collectively mistaken about a proof's correctness. The fundamental nature of the process is still one of establishing inviolably proven facts and building on top of them. Science, on the other hand, is a never-ending iterative approximation process with occasional massive discontinuities when accepted theories are overturned. It relies on observed report and falsification of our current best guesses. No scientific "law" can ever be proven true, just labeled "not known to be wrong so far". Math is much closer to philosophy than science. It just happens to be pragmatically useful to the sciences: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreasonable_Effectiveness_of_Mathematics_in_the_Natural_Sciences https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreasonable_Effectivene...
theferalrobot 5y ago
>but people who suspect that's not the full story, well that's pointless to debate, they should use my framework for discussion You can believe whatever you want, use whatever framework you want (religion, spirituality, science etc). I'm just pointing out that it is pointless to debate between the two because they fundamentally disagree about how to inquire about the world and answer questions like this. Everyone in this debate is talking past each other without acknowledging that they are starting from two very different positions and sets of definitions.
- fsckboy 5y ago
  it sounds like you put yourself in a class of people who are perfectly rational, and therefore anything that you can't think of doesn't exist, and anybody who thinks about those things is a mystic. you are making a mistake like physicists who believed "God does not play dice with the world" at the dawn of quantum mechanics or "time is a constant, not the speed of light" at the dawn of relativity. You have no idea where consciousness comes from, stop assuming you do, it's poor science. (For the record, I'm sure the integral of my history of atheism is strictly greater than yours, mentioning since that seems to be the subtext of your argument.)
  - theferalrobot 5y ago
    I think you are completely missing what I am saying and you also seem to be fallaciously appealing to skepticism (are you a global skeptic [0]?). Sure you can say ‘but there is so much we don’t know’, I’m not arguing we know everything. That is not in any way what I am saying. I am saying it is pointless to appeal to such things. If we always appealed to skepticism science would never advance because everything would be too unknowable. We get to define what words like consciousness means, so we can intentionally define to be within the realm of scientific inquiry. Most people probably define consciousness outside of scientific realm of inquiry (notions of a soul etc) and that is fine, but at least in the first definition there can be scientific debate. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_skepticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_skepticism

vba616 5y ago

I don't get the (perennial) dichotomy. It seems to me the question of whether a submarine can swim is well-formed and relevant. I feel confident that no advanced propeller driven craft will ever develop flippers and fish-like swimming as an emergent phenomenon. I also feel confident that an artificial device that does swim like a fish is entirely within the realm of engineering, let alone science. It has never made any sense to me that, by analogy, there is a conflict between those two beliefs. Economic forces may preclude fish-machines, but it might just mean they will be delayed for a long time because they are difficult.

theferalrobot 5y ago
I think the point is more that dwelling on wheather or not to call what a submarine does, ‘swimming’ is a pointless debate, only based on how you define the word. Certainly there are interesting conversations to be had around the subject as you point out, but arguing semantics probably isn’t one of them.

strainer 5y ago

I would hope most people regard consciousness as something which can beg compassion, tolerance or compromise for other consciousnesses sakes. Common creatures we know express suffering and to be amused or unaffected by suffering of others is most widely considered as pathological or psychotic. Without consciousness there is no suffering, no cause for compassion etc. Something may be incredibly complex, suggesting it has value in a world - perhaps to other creatures or the world itself somehow. But being a complex thing does not suggest that it can suffer or enjoy experiences. An idea that an experiential importance of things simply accompanies sufficient complexity seems 'pie in the sand'

webmaven 5y ago
Are you arguing that sociopaths and psychopaths are less conscious than other humans?
- strainer 5y ago
  No, basically consciousness as we know it, entails a capacity to suffer, which is important to acknowledge on moral and health grounds, and that capacity is likely to be an essential part of consciousness. It makes whatever consciousness is or isn't, an important quality which demands consideration, to avoid suffering or to increase fulfillment or wellbeing etc in whatever we believe to be conscious. To 'virtualize' or academically detach that kind of importance of consciousness, as logically illusive or intangible distraction, is pathological. I tried to reply to the notion that consciousness "is just an emergent phenomena of complexity" . The words 'just' 'only' 'simply' can hardly be applied to such a special thing. The idea such a thing arises at a threshold of complexity is quite empty of insight. At a certain level of complexity - an iphone emerges! That's no understanding of what is required to create an iphone or how it works. What is required to emerge consciousness? if it where a matter of complexity then some quantity of iphones should achieve that threshold. But no mountain of iphones can experience suffering.
  - webmaven 5y ago
    Okay, I understand what you're saying. A conscious being is not necessarily required to also have the capacity for recognizing consciousness in other conscious beings. Do you think a capacity for suffering is not only necessary, but also entirely sufficient, for consciousness? That would imply that some other abilities such as memory, are not required.