3 ms·

>It seems inevitable that we will at some point. We have no idea what causes consciousness. The only thing I'm sure about is that I'm conscious. Are all the

by yreg 4y ago

>It seems inevitable that we will at some point. We have no idea what causes consciousness. The only thing I'm sure about is that I'm conscious. Are all the other people conscious? I strongly believe so, but I don't have a proof. Are all the animals conscious? I think that they are, to different degrees. Would a simulation of full human brain on a computer be conscious? Uhh, I guess so? Would the same simulation, but instead computed with pen on paper be conscious? Whoa… maybe? Is it possible that any sufficiently complex and computing structure might be conscious in some way? No idea.

cnity 4y ago
You've sort of summarized "I am a Strange Loop", which is a good book on this topic. Also for a fun idea of sentient individuals forming the components of a computer (a kind of inverse of what AI is), I recommend "Three Body Problem".
Xcelerate 4y ago
Haha, this is a great way to summarize the state of our understanding on consciousness > The only thing I'm sure about is that I'm conscious. A lot of people deny that consciousness exists at all, which I find funny, because for me it’s the only thing that I am absolutely certain exists. Everything else, I’m not so sure about.
- hgomersall 4y ago
  That's what a conscious emulating automaton _would_ say.
- vidarh 4y ago
  I wouldn't go so far as to deny consciousness, but I will go as far as saying that I don't know whether my consciousness extends in time (to the past or to the future) or is just a moment. I believe it does, but I wouldn't be able to tell that apart from if I'm just a simulation of a single moment, so I recognise it is just a belief. In terms of further deconstructing consciousness and the ego, a big challenge is to figure out what that actually entails. E.g. an intriguing outcome of split brain experiments is that the brain appears willing to act as if it knows things it possibly can, just retroactively spinning explanations of decisions that were unknown to it, which to me raises the question of how thin a veneer consciousness is on top of underlying autonomous or semi-autonomous processes, and how unitary the mind is (or rather isn't). There appears to potentially be a whole lot of emperor and very little cloth.
williamcotton 4y ago
I have a hunch that consciousness is at least dependent on autonomous interaction with an environment.
shak3zz 4y ago
Best comment. Nobody can prove or disprove consciousness.
jqpabc123 4y ago
Would a simulation of full human brain on a computer be conscious? Uhh, I guess so? The biggest fallacy in thinking about consciousness is that it is all neatly isolated in the brain. What about your nervous system? What about your gut? It's all one big interconnected system. https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/the-gut-brain-connection https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/the-g... The truth is, until we can define consciousness; we can't possibly reproduce it on a binary logic playback device (aka a "computer").
- JohnPrine 4y ago
  > The truth is, until we can define consciousness; we can't possibly reproduce it on a binary logic playback device (aka a "computer"). There's nothing stopping us from reproducing consciousness before we fully understand it. Evolution created consciousness via random search; I don't think you can argue that evolution "understands" the consciousness it created
  - jqpabc123 4y ago
    There's nothing stopping us from reproducing consciousness before we fully understand it. Except for the fact that this "belief" that has never been achieved. This is the core tenant of the AI religion. Can you show me one problem that a computer has ever solved without detailed understanding by someone at some level and very specific instructions and a clear logical definition of the objective? What is commonly called AI is no exception. It's mostly statistical search and pattern matching that only occurs through specific instructions by someone who understands in detail how the search should be organized and conducted. In order for a computer to search for "consciousness", it must be explicitedly defined in terms of binary logic because this is all a "computer" understands. Any results are logically bound to this definition. If your definition is lacking, the search results will be likewise.
- vidarh 4y ago
  I think including other parts of the body is the least of the problems. The bigger problem is that we don't understand how close to the structure of the brain (+ nervous system and gut and anything else contributing) we need to get for the simulated system to have a subjective experience of consciousness. E.g. is it enough to run a simulation on a normal computer? Does it need to process information at a certain rate to sustain this process? Is a certain physical structure of the simulating machinery required? I don't agree we necessarily will be unable to reproduce it without being able to define consciousness, though, but I suspect we would agree that we won't be able to know if we have reproduced it or just created something very good at acting as if it's conscious (and we don't know whether or not the two are equivalent).

by yreg 4y ago

cnity 4y ago

You've sort of summarized "I am a Strange Loop", which is a good book on this topic. Also for a fun idea of sentient individuals forming the components of a computer (a kind of inverse of what AI is), I recommend "Three Body Problem".

Xcelerate 4y ago

Haha, this is a great way to summarize the state of our understanding on consciousness > The only thing I'm sure about is that I'm conscious. A lot of people deny that consciousness exists at all, which I find funny, because for me it’s the only thing that I am absolutely certain exists. Everything else, I’m not so sure about.

hgomersall 4y ago
That's what a conscious emulating automaton _would_ say.
vidarh 4y ago
I wouldn't go so far as to deny consciousness, but I will go as far as saying that I don't know whether my consciousness extends in time (to the past or to the future) or is just a moment. I believe it does, but I wouldn't be able to tell that apart from if I'm just a simulation of a single moment, so I recognise it is just a belief. In terms of further deconstructing consciousness and the ego, a big challenge is to figure out what that actually entails. E.g. an intriguing outcome of split brain experiments is that the brain appears willing to act as if it knows things it possibly can, just retroactively spinning explanations of decisions that were unknown to it, which to me raises the question of how thin a veneer consciousness is on top of underlying autonomous or semi-autonomous processes, and how unitary the mind is (or rather isn't). There appears to potentially be a whole lot of emperor and very little cloth.

williamcotton 4y ago

I have a hunch that consciousness is at least dependent on autonomous interaction with an environment.

shak3zz 4y ago

Best comment. Nobody can prove or disprove consciousness.

jqpabc123 4y ago

Would a simulation of full human brain on a computer be conscious? Uhh, I guess so? The biggest fallacy in thinking about consciousness is that it is all neatly isolated in the brain. What about your nervous system? What about your gut? It's all one big interconnected system. https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/the-gut-brain-connection https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/the-g... The truth is, until we can define consciousness; we can't possibly reproduce it on a binary logic playback device (aka a "computer").

JohnPrine 4y ago
> The truth is, until we can define consciousness; we can't possibly reproduce it on a binary logic playback device (aka a "computer"). There's nothing stopping us from reproducing consciousness before we fully understand it. Evolution created consciousness via random search; I don't think you can argue that evolution "understands" the consciousness it created
- jqpabc123 4y ago
  There's nothing stopping us from reproducing consciousness before we fully understand it. Except for the fact that this "belief" that has never been achieved. This is the core tenant of the AI religion. Can you show me one problem that a computer has ever solved without detailed understanding by someone at some level and very specific instructions and a clear logical definition of the objective? What is commonly called AI is no exception. It's mostly statistical search and pattern matching that only occurs through specific instructions by someone who understands in detail how the search should be organized and conducted. In order for a computer to search for "consciousness", it must be explicitedly defined in terms of binary logic because this is all a "computer" understands. Any results are logically bound to this definition. If your definition is lacking, the search results will be likewise.
vidarh 4y ago
I think including other parts of the body is the least of the problems. The bigger problem is that we don't understand how close to the structure of the brain (+ nervous system and gut and anything else contributing) we need to get for the simulated system to have a subjective experience of consciousness. E.g. is it enough to run a simulation on a normal computer? Does it need to process information at a certain rate to sustain this process? Is a certain physical structure of the simulating machinery required? I don't agree we necessarily will be unable to reproduce it without being able to define consciousness, though, but I suspect we would agree that we won't be able to know if we have reproduced it or just created something very good at acting as if it's conscious (and we don't know whether or not the two are equivalent).