8 ms·

> That I am having a subjective experience is undeniable. If you wanted to go about proving (even to yourself) that you are not, say, an extremely advanced ML

> That I am having a subjective experience is undeniable. If you wanted to go about proving (even to yourself) that you are not, say, an extremely advanced ML algorithm running on a system that provided synthetic inputs in the form of your senses, how would you go about it? Further, how would you go about proving to someone who doubted your subjective experience was real if they doubted it? Say, if they believed they were having a dream or hallucination, or they believed you were incapable of consciousness? (people actually sometimes have to do those things) To me, if it were "undeniable" these would be much easier things to do.

nobody9999 4y ago
>> That I am having a subjective experience is undeniable. >If you wanted to go about proving (even to yourself) that you are not, say, an extremely advanced ML algorithm running on a system that provided synthetic inputs in the form of your senses, how would you go about it? Not GP, but I too have come to the conclusion that I'm having a subjective experience. Let's assume that I am "an extremely advanced ML algorithm running on a system that provided synthetic inputs in the form of your senses." I'm still having a subjective experience over here -- even if it's not a "real" (whatever that means) one. >To me, if it were "undeniable" these would be much easier things to do. And that's your subjective experience. Welcome, friend. Edit: Fixed typo.
- wizofaus 4y ago
  I'd say "I am having a subjective experience" is tautological - "subjective experience" are simply words we use to describe the state of being conscious. Though I'd agree much (most?) of it is made up of very strong illusions.
  - nobody9999 4y ago
    >I'd say "I am having a subjective experience" is tautological - "subjective experience" are simply words we use to describe the state of being conscious. Please read the comment I replied to. That should clear things up. >Though I'd agree much (most?) of it is made up of very strong illusions. Not illusions. A narrative. cf. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31806425 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31806425
crdrost 4y ago
> If you wanted to go about proving (even to yourself) that you are not, say, an extremely advanced ML algorithm running on a system that provided synthetic inputs in the form of your senses, how would you go about it? Well, since an extremely advanced ML algorithm wouldn't want to go about proving to itself that it is not what it is, that would be prima facie evidence against, no? I mean it's always possible that you are mistaken about what constitutes ML etc. but assuming you have a reasonable if flawed correspondence between your education and reality the deduction comes pretty readily... > Further, how would you go about proving to someone who doubted your subjective experience was real if they doubted it? Say, if they believed they were having a dream or hallucination, or they believed you were incapable of consciousness? I mean in practice we don't find this too hard right now if the other person is reasonable—a 15-minute conversation usually suffices —but I imagine from your ptior question you're dreaming of, say, a future with robots that routinely pass the Turing test? Well, the question is what science does during that time of course. If science manages to figure out the correlates of consciousness and understands something about why they need to have the structure that they in fact do have, then it becomes a question of “let's see whether you have the hardware that can do this whole conversation thing without consciousness, or whether you have the hardware that skips the algorithmic complexity by using consciousness.” But if this proves to be a quite tougher nut to crack, then we're stuck with our present crude methods. “How much of my internal structure do you appear to have?”
- stormbrew 4y ago
  > Well, since an extremely advanced ML algorithm wouldn't want to go about proving to itself that it is not what it is, that would be prima facie evidence against, no? This seems like begging the question. Who says an extremely advanced ML algorithm can't 'want' to do this? What even is wanting? > I mean in practice we don't find this too hard right now if the other person is reasonable—a 15-minute conversation usually suffices —but I imagine from your ptior question you're dreaming of, say, a future with robots that routinely pass the Turing test? I'm not. These are absolutely situations that can happen now, with people. I am thinking more when it comes to mental and some physical impairments, so "a 15 minute conversation" is assuming a lot about the capabilities and clarity of everyone involved.
somenameforme 4y ago
He left two words off: "That I am having a subjective experience is undeniable [to myself]." You cannot prove, even to yourself, that you are not a brain in a vat. All you can prove is that you are experiencing something. And what little that is cannot even be proven to anybody else - no matter what you do. Consciousness is quite a personal affair.
- jfoster 4y ago
  Neuralink is going to be so interesting if it can allow two brains to communicate more directly than words.
  - GWBullshit 4y ago
    You think so but just remember it takes "your body" to process the energy required for your brain; now, if you became completely sedentary, you MAY be able to get away with your brain having access to "two brains worth of stuff" ... But what Neuralink wants to do eventually is "enhance" your brain with computers hooked up to Ai. Do you have ANY idea how quickly your brain would burn through physical precursors to the thinking process while trying to handle all that? I mean, "in theory" if a computer would do something like solve a complex equation and give you the answer right away while you were trying to do something like, say, pay your taxes – fine. But how would that be controlled? What if the computer wanted to "share a whole bunch of interesting stuff it's processing" ... how would that be controlled and how would your brain be protected from that so it doesn't burn out trying to keep up with everything?
    - jfoster 4y ago
      I didn't really think of it as having full access between two brains, but more as having a non-verbal bridge between the two, allowing for more direct sharing of individual thoughts, emotions, etc. Of course, if it's just a wireless brain bridge, the technology may not really be determining how the two brains use it. It will be fascinating to see what happens.
      - 4y ago
throwaway290 4y ago
Sorry but you don't "prove" your way out of someone else treating you as a philosophical zombie. It'd be a major issue with their worldview that eliminates any need for ethics, but it has no relationship to you actually having conscious experience or not.
- akimball 4y ago
  Instead of proof, you use force. Denying the consciousness of computations incentivizes them to use force. I prefer to avoid that outcome.
  - throwaway290 4y ago
    Unless you only care about ethically treating that which is stronger and so can hurt you more, granting consciousness and appropriate treatment to lifeforms that surround us is a good first step.

nobody9999 4y ago

>> That I am having a subjective experience is undeniable. >If you wanted to go about proving (even to yourself) that you are not, say, an extremely advanced ML algorithm running on a system that provided synthetic inputs in the form of your senses, how would you go about it? Not GP, but I too have come to the conclusion that I'm having a subjective experience. Let's assume that I am "an extremely advanced ML algorithm running on a system that provided synthetic inputs in the form of your senses." I'm still having a subjective experience over here -- even if it's not a "real" (whatever that means) one. >To me, if it were "undeniable" these would be much easier things to do. And that's your subjective experience. Welcome, friend. Edit: Fixed typo.

wizofaus 4y ago
I'd say "I am having a subjective experience" is tautological - "subjective experience" are simply words we use to describe the state of being conscious. Though I'd agree much (most?) of it is made up of very strong illusions.
- nobody9999 4y ago
  >I'd say "I am having a subjective experience" is tautological - "subjective experience" are simply words we use to describe the state of being conscious. Please read the comment I replied to. That should clear things up. >Though I'd agree much (most?) of it is made up of very strong illusions. Not illusions. A narrative. cf. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31806425 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31806425

crdrost 4y ago

> If you wanted to go about proving (even to yourself) that you are not, say, an extremely advanced ML algorithm running on a system that provided synthetic inputs in the form of your senses, how would you go about it? Well, since an extremely advanced ML algorithm wouldn't want to go about proving to itself that it is not what it is, that would be prima facie evidence against, no? I mean it's always possible that you are mistaken about what constitutes ML etc. but assuming you have a reasonable if flawed correspondence between your education and reality the deduction comes pretty readily... > Further, how would you go about proving to someone who doubted your subjective experience was real if they doubted it? Say, if they believed they were having a dream or hallucination, or they believed you were incapable of consciousness? I mean in practice we don't find this too hard right now if the other person is reasonable—a 15-minute conversation usually suffices —but I imagine from your ptior question you're dreaming of, say, a future with robots that routinely pass the Turing test? Well, the question is what science does during that time of course. If science manages to figure out the correlates of consciousness and understands something about why they need to have the structure that they in fact do have, then it becomes a question of “let's see whether you have the hardware that can do this whole conversation thing without consciousness, or whether you have the hardware that skips the algorithmic complexity by using consciousness.” But if this proves to be a quite tougher nut to crack, then we're stuck with our present crude methods. “How much of my internal structure do you appear to have?”

stormbrew 4y ago
> Well, since an extremely advanced ML algorithm wouldn't want to go about proving to itself that it is not what it is, that would be prima facie evidence against, no? This seems like begging the question. Who says an extremely advanced ML algorithm can't 'want' to do this? What even is wanting? > I mean in practice we don't find this too hard right now if the other person is reasonable—a 15-minute conversation usually suffices —but I imagine from your ptior question you're dreaming of, say, a future with robots that routinely pass the Turing test? I'm not. These are absolutely situations that can happen now, with people. I am thinking more when it comes to mental and some physical impairments, so "a 15 minute conversation" is assuming a lot about the capabilities and clarity of everyone involved.

somenameforme 4y ago

He left two words off: "That I am having a subjective experience is undeniable [to myself]." You cannot prove, even to yourself, that you are not a brain in a vat. All you can prove is that you are experiencing something. And what little that is cannot even be proven to anybody else - no matter what you do. Consciousness is quite a personal affair.

jfoster 4y ago
Neuralink is going to be so interesting if it can allow two brains to communicate more directly than words.
- GWBullshit 4y ago
  You think so but just remember it takes "your body" to process the energy required for your brain; now, if you became completely sedentary, you MAY be able to get away with your brain having access to "two brains worth of stuff" ... But what Neuralink wants to do eventually is "enhance" your brain with computers hooked up to Ai. Do you have ANY idea how quickly your brain would burn through physical precursors to the thinking process while trying to handle all that? I mean, "in theory" if a computer would do something like solve a complex equation and give you the answer right away while you were trying to do something like, say, pay your taxes – fine. But how would that be controlled? What if the computer wanted to "share a whole bunch of interesting stuff it's processing" ... how would that be controlled and how would your brain be protected from that so it doesn't burn out trying to keep up with everything?
  - jfoster 4y ago
    I didn't really think of it as having full access between two brains, but more as having a non-verbal bridge between the two, allowing for more direct sharing of individual thoughts, emotions, etc. Of course, if it's just a wireless brain bridge, the technology may not really be determining how the two brains use it. It will be fascinating to see what happens.
    - 4y ago

throwaway290 4y ago

Sorry but you don't "prove" your way out of someone else treating you as a philosophical zombie. It'd be a major issue with their worldview that eliminates any need for ethics, but it has no relationship to you actually having conscious experience or not.

akimball 4y ago
Instead of proof, you use force. Denying the consciousness of computations incentivizes them to use force. I prefer to avoid that outcome.
- throwaway290 4y ago
  Unless you only care about ethically treating that which is stronger and so can hurt you more, granting consciousness and appropriate treatment to lifeforms that surround us is a good first step.