8 ms·

Sentience is a philosophy question, not a neuroscience question. Neuroscientists and computer programmers owe the world a lot more than “this model behaves som

Sentience is a philosophy question, not a neuroscience question. Neuroscientists and computer programmers owe the world a lot more than “this model behaves somewhat like neurons” to be convincing that a computer simulation actually experiences. Yes we’re getting to the point that the dismissal can’t just be automatic, but exclaiming “you can’t prove I’m wrong” isn’t much of a basis for defending your position with you can only defend otherwise with shallow similarities.

blackbear_ 4y ago
> Sentience is a philosophy question, not a neuroscience question. Came here to say the same thing. Neuroscience can give us one answer, but neuron-like "things", whether real or artificial, need not be the only way to build sentient beings.
- colechristensen 4y ago
  I don't think neuroscience can convincingly determine if a set of neurons is sentient either. They can't point to the progression of sentience between an embryo and an adult human, they can't tell you why sentience goes away when you're sedated, drunk, or anesthetized, they can't measure the difference in sentience between a flea, a cat, and a human, they can't do much of anything at all with sentience besides assert that it's there and has something to do with neurons. It's something like the dark matter of the field. Physicists can say that it really appears that there is something there because of how galaxies behave, they can see evidence of a thing really being there but have nothing but guesses and handwaving to explain what.
  - scoofy 4y ago
    The problem of qualia is exactly that... a serious philosophical problem. The only evidence for sentience we have is our own experience. We assume other minds exist, but we have no causal factors that can demonstrate it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia We live in a world of dualism mind and body, but this is typically unacceptable to most philosophers. Generally the problem breaks down to: Materialism -> Consciousness is probably an illusion. Idealism -> The material world is an illusion and/or consciousness is in everything regardless of material. Modern NN tech views -> Consciousness is a material-independent orchestra of neural networks Superstitions -> god(s) grants consciousness to specific beings and not others That said, I think it's plausible to come pretty close to figuring it all out if we have enough time and experimentation. E.g. we now have very good evidence that most mammals have similar experience to our own through better understanding of language acquisition and evolution. This wasn't always the case. We don't know what we don't know, and something out there may provide a serious breakthrough in building a model of philosophy of mind that is convincing.
mannykannot 4y ago
The study of infectious diseases wasn't a biochemistry question until we learned something about the biochemistry of infectious agents and their targets. Pidgeonholing knowledge is a dubious activity at best, and especially when done before it has been acquired.
- NickM 4y ago
  Sure, but there's a purely subjective aspect of consciousness, which by nature of being subjective, cannot be objectively quantified or measured. This puts it squarely outside the realm of science, which is deliberately and solely focused on measuring objective phenomena.
  - mannykannot 4y ago
    To NickM and whimsicalism: The quantitative argument is a red herring. Science is one of the disciplines in the business of explaining things, not in the business of calculating values, but it just so happens that when you get into the details, quantifying properties leads to better explanations. For example, I can give a qualitative explanation for why it rains, which can be expanded into a quantitative one. The subjectivity of experience can be attributed to the scientifically-explainable inability of our conscious mind to directly access the physical state of the brain. If arguments such as "Mary the Neuroscientist" show anything, it is that phenomenal experiences can not be conveyed by any language, scientific or otherwise, so if you are demanding an explanation must do that, neither science nor philosophy nor anything else will explain consciousness.
    - waserwill 4y ago
      What's wrong with helping consciousness in the realm of poetry and religion? It's the most humanistic thing we can know, after all. Consciousness, being internal and subjective, exists at odds with anything else that science considers. Sure, study cognition and neurology, but there's an ontological gap between those and experience.
      - 4y ago

blackbear_ 4y ago

> Sentience is a philosophy question, not a neuroscience question. Came here to say the same thing. Neuroscience can give us one answer, but neuron-like "things", whether real or artificial, need not be the only way to build sentient beings.

colechristensen 4y ago
I don't think neuroscience can convincingly determine if a set of neurons is sentient either. They can't point to the progression of sentience between an embryo and an adult human, they can't tell you why sentience goes away when you're sedated, drunk, or anesthetized, they can't measure the difference in sentience between a flea, a cat, and a human, they can't do much of anything at all with sentience besides assert that it's there and has something to do with neurons. It's something like the dark matter of the field. Physicists can say that it really appears that there is something there because of how galaxies behave, they can see evidence of a thing really being there but have nothing but guesses and handwaving to explain what.
- scoofy 4y ago
  The problem of qualia is exactly that... a serious philosophical problem. The only evidence for sentience we have is our own experience. We assume other minds exist, but we have no causal factors that can demonstrate it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia We live in a world of dualism mind and body, but this is typically unacceptable to most philosophers. Generally the problem breaks down to: Materialism -> Consciousness is probably an illusion. Idealism -> The material world is an illusion and/or consciousness is in everything regardless of material. Modern NN tech views -> Consciousness is a material-independent orchestra of neural networks Superstitions -> god(s) grants consciousness to specific beings and not others That said, I think it's plausible to come pretty close to figuring it all out if we have enough time and experimentation. E.g. we now have very good evidence that most mammals have similar experience to our own through better understanding of language acquisition and evolution. This wasn't always the case. We don't know what we don't know, and something out there may provide a serious breakthrough in building a model of philosophy of mind that is convincing.

mannykannot 4y ago

The study of infectious diseases wasn't a biochemistry question until we learned something about the biochemistry of infectious agents and their targets. Pidgeonholing knowledge is a dubious activity at best, and especially when done before it has been acquired.

NickM 4y ago
Sure, but there's a purely subjective aspect of consciousness, which by nature of being subjective, cannot be objectively quantified or measured. This puts it squarely outside the realm of science, which is deliberately and solely focused on measuring objective phenomena.
- mannykannot 4y ago
  To NickM and whimsicalism: The quantitative argument is a red herring. Science is one of the disciplines in the business of explaining things, not in the business of calculating values, but it just so happens that when you get into the details, quantifying properties leads to better explanations. For example, I can give a qualitative explanation for why it rains, which can be expanded into a quantitative one. The subjectivity of experience can be attributed to the scientifically-explainable inability of our conscious mind to directly access the physical state of the brain. If arguments such as "Mary the Neuroscientist" show anything, it is that phenomenal experiences can not be conveyed by any language, scientific or otherwise, so if you are demanding an explanation must do that, neither science nor philosophy nor anything else will explain consciousness.
  - waserwill 4y ago
    What's wrong with helping consciousness in the realm of poetry and religion? It's the most humanistic thing we can know, after all. Consciousness, being internal and subjective, exists at odds with anything else that science considers. Sure, study cognition and neurology, but there's an ontological gap between those and experience.
    - 4y ago