3 ms·

The study of infectious diseases wasn't a biochemistry question until we learned something about the biochemistry of infectious agents and their targets. Pidgeo

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.
    - mannykannot 4y ago
      Who is saying there is anything against either poetry or religion saying whatever they can about consciousness? I'm doubting the value of pidgeonholing. To claim an ontological gap is to put the cart before the horse. If or when we understand consciousness, we will be able to tell if there is a relevant ontological gap, or whether it is an illusion generated by our ignorance.
  - whimsicalism 4y ago
    I never said anything about quantitativeness, but science is the art of predicting the results of experiments/observations.. I agree with the second bit you are saying - we cannot convey these experiences so it is outside the realm of science.
    - mannykannot 4y ago
      Predicting the results of experiments/observations is a means, not an end. A theory is much more than a compendium of the things it predicts. Would you say that rain is inexplicable because no explanation can actually cause rain?
kelseyfrog 4y ago
What would we have to learn to make sentience a scientific question? We're in the regeime of the pre-theoretic - we don't even know what we don't know.
- mannykannot 4y ago
  You are making the case against premature pidgeonholing.
- colechristensen 4y ago
  A testable theory that would enable the mechanisms to be measured and manipulated.
whimsicalism 4y ago
Not at all a convincing rebuttal. Biochemistry has obvious things one can observe and experiment on. Consciousness is purely subjective, it would be like trying to falsify solipsism - impossible.
- p1mrx 4y ago
  Solipsist of the world, unite!
  - TuringTest 4y ago
    I'm stealing that as my personal slogan, and I don't care what you think of it!
    - dane-pgp 4y ago
      It's not stealing if you came up with it yourself.
colechristensen 4y ago
In the present, sentience is a philosophy question, nothing stops neuroscientists from practicing a little philosophy, but they (as in the author) should be a little more cautious when asserting that ML models being somewhat similar to human brains means they can be sentient in their current state. There is no science that can currently be done with sentience beyond basic psychological games, there's no objective testable theories where you can point to something and convincingly say "this is sentience" analytically. Plenty of current neuroscience fields were once only a question for philosophy but have graduated into matters of science (Kant has plenty of opinions about things which can easily be replaced with actual neuro- knowledge, for example)
- mannykannot 4y ago
  I am completely in agreement with your second paragraph - and with your first as far as it goes, though for balance, I think we should cast an equally skeptical eye over what philosophy has achieved during its tenure over this topic. Personally, I feel it spends way too much time worrying about zombies. There's a slightly ironic moment where the author mentions the pushback Ilya Sutskever got for tweeting "It may be that today's large neural networks are slightly conscious." This is not a view to which I would assign much credence, but it is more or less axiomatic (though in a different sense, perhaps) in some forms of panpsychism that I am also rather skeptical of (what on Earth does Goff mean when he says that electric charge is a form of consciousness?)

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.
  - mannykannot 4y ago
    Who is saying there is anything against either poetry or religion saying whatever they can about consciousness? I'm doubting the value of pidgeonholing. To claim an ontological gap is to put the cart before the horse. If or when we understand consciousness, we will be able to tell if there is a relevant ontological gap, or whether it is an illusion generated by our ignorance.
- whimsicalism 4y ago
  I never said anything about quantitativeness, but science is the art of predicting the results of experiments/observations.. I agree with the second bit you are saying - we cannot convey these experiences so it is outside the realm of science.
  - mannykannot 4y ago
    Predicting the results of experiments/observations is a means, not an end. A theory is much more than a compendium of the things it predicts. Would you say that rain is inexplicable because no explanation can actually cause rain?

kelseyfrog 4y ago

What would we have to learn to make sentience a scientific question? We're in the regeime of the pre-theoretic - we don't even know what we don't know.

mannykannot 4y ago
You are making the case against premature pidgeonholing.
colechristensen 4y ago
A testable theory that would enable the mechanisms to be measured and manipulated.

whimsicalism 4y ago

Not at all a convincing rebuttal. Biochemistry has obvious things one can observe and experiment on. Consciousness is purely subjective, it would be like trying to falsify solipsism - impossible.

p1mrx 4y ago
Solipsist of the world, unite!
- TuringTest 4y ago
  I'm stealing that as my personal slogan, and I don't care what you think of it!
  - dane-pgp 4y ago
    It's not stealing if you came up with it yourself.

colechristensen 4y ago

In the present, sentience is a philosophy question, nothing stops neuroscientists from practicing a little philosophy, but they (as in the author) should be a little more cautious when asserting that ML models being somewhat similar to human brains means they can be sentient in their current state. There is no science that can currently be done with sentience beyond basic psychological games, there's no objective testable theories where you can point to something and convincingly say "this is sentience" analytically. Plenty of current neuroscience fields were once only a question for philosophy but have graduated into matters of science (Kant has plenty of opinions about things which can easily be replaced with actual neuro- knowledge, for example)

mannykannot 4y ago
I am completely in agreement with your second paragraph - and with your first as far as it goes, though for balance, I think we should cast an equally skeptical eye over what philosophy has achieved during its tenure over this topic. Personally, I feel it spends way too much time worrying about zombies. There's a slightly ironic moment where the author mentions the pushback Ilya Sutskever got for tweeting "It may be that today's large neural networks are slightly conscious." This is not a view to which I would assign much credence, but it is more or less axiomatic (though in a different sense, perhaps) in some forms of panpsychism that I am also rather skeptical of (what on Earth does Goff mean when he says that electric charge is a form of consciousness?)