5 ms·

You're making an assumption out of thin air here: that consciousness is somehow produced or emergent, or that if it isn't you're in the realm of spiritual or so

You're making an assumption out of thin air here: that consciousness is somehow produced or emergent, or that if it isn't you're in the realm of spiritual or something. What's your basis for that assumption other than just asserting it?

xg15 4y ago
> that consciousness is somehow produced or emergent, or that if it isn't you're in the realm of spiritual or something. Yeah, I genuinely only see those two possibilities: Either consciousness is somehow the result of the interactions of (some of) the billions of neurons in our brain - or it isn't. If it isn't, either consciousness is a product of some other biological or physical* process that so far isn't identified - or it isn't. And if it's not the result of any physical process then I don't see what would be left except metaphysics. We don't know as of now what consciousness is or how it is produced - but I think there are some strong hints that in fact it is produced by the interactions of our neurons. Mainly that we can directly influence consciousness with psychoactive drugs - which don't do anything interesting physics-wise except affecting how neurons exchange signals - and that we can also observe certain patterns of physical activity in the brain using EEG, MRI and other technologies and map this activity to mental tasks like concentrating or relaxing. Edit: * I used "psychological" there but that was a typo. I meant "physical".
- wellpast 4y ago
  > that so far isn't identified ... then I don't see what would be left except metaphysic So out of all "that so far isn't identified", there are just two classes of things: (i) biological and psychological processes; and (ii) metaphysics. This is some magic voodoo hand-waving here. Metaphysics seems to be just your way of saying "everything we don't know or understand".
  - xg15 4y ago
    I think "physical process" already covers a lot of ground besides metaphysics. My main distinction was that anything physical is governed by the laws of physics that we know and that are generally deterministic. In contrast, metaphysics would be something entirely out of our realm of reality - which was how consciousness has been generally seen for a long time. But what other possibility would you see? Edit: > (i) biological and psychological processes Sorry, I had mixed up the word there. I was meaning "physical process", not "psychological". I had edited the other post to fix the word.
    - wellpast 4y ago
      I think what you're doing is just saying "there's stuff we understand" and "stuff we don't understand" and you're calling all of it "Physics". And then you say "some other biological or physical process that so far isn't identified". The assumption here is that we'll eventually "identify" everything, which is another very bizarre, if not voodoo, assumption. It seems magical to think that humans evolved our perception and thought in this environment to be such things that could eventaully "identify" everything. But just in case you don't actually think that. Then you're calling "Physics" all of the things, including the things that we'll never "identify". Again, seems very much like a magic claim.
    - akimball 4y ago
      Physical laws are stochastic, not deterministic.
  - doliveira 4y ago
    Something that happens in our universe that Physics somehow has nothing to do with? How is that not magical/spiritual/metaphysical voodoo handwaving?
    - wellpast 4y ago
      Physics is a set of things we understand about the universe and often used to include some mystifying things, i.e. that we don't quite understand (eg Bell's theorem). To just claim that Physics has to do with _more_ than this - that it has to do with all the things we don't understand is just blind-faith ascription. It's a nearly meaningless statement, really. So it's bizarre or voodoo to say it so casually and assuredly as if it were obvious or given.
      - doliveira 4y ago
        Physics, by definition, has to do with everything, well, physical going on in this Universe. It's not about whether we understand it or not, or whether we're comfortable with it. So yeah, if you claim conscience is not physical, then you're talking about metaphysics. Which is okay to do, but then claiming that those that say that Physics alone is probably enough are saying voodoo... Well, it's ironic.
        wellpast 4y ago
        By whose definition? You don't _have_ to define it that way. To _choose_ a definition that ropes _everything_ under "Physics" is an unnecessary move, it's more magic trick than grounded derivation.
jungturk 4y ago
> if you accept the assumption that consciousness is biological The poster wasn't making that assumption - they're stating the implications of those who do.
- xg15 4y ago
  Yeah, but if isn't biological, then what exactly is it?
  - akimball 4y ago
    A system of process relations.
godelski 4y ago
> that consciousness is somehow produced or emergent, or that if it isn't you're in the realm of spiritual or something. I'm reading the parent's comment as "Either consciousness is super natural or is created from nature." I don't think this is an unreasonable assumption (literally "all things are either hot dogs, or not hot dogs", it is simple but not unreasonable). If you have a third possibility I'd like to know what that is. Supposing that consciousness (whatever it is) isn't super natural it follows that we can create it. It does not follow that it will be easy or done anytime soon (or even in the distant future), but possible nonetheless. Unless you have reason to believe that a physical process cannot be reproduced.
- xg15 4y ago
  Thank you, that was exactly what I wanted to say.
  - godelski 4y ago
    I don't think it was a misstep in what you said. I also don't think wellpast was intentionally misreading. I think it was a miscommunication due to working off of different priors (psychological priming). One thing I wish we (the AI community) would do more is talk about alignment among humans and how this often leads to miscommunications and can actually cause unintended fights. This is why I think it is so important to operate under good faith conditions and constantly remind ourselves to do this. I'll give Godelski's Corollary to Hanlon's Razor: never attribute to malice what can easily be attributed to miscommunication. I think this is especially important to remember in a globalized world with a compressed form of communication --text (all communication is compressed. We're compressing our thoughts to communication and then decompressing it when listening. But text is more compressed than verbal or in person). We're highly lacking on context clues (cultures can often be part of this) but those contexts often make up the majority of communication (something I think AI will have a wildly difficult time solving and might/likely require AGI to do so).

xg15 4y ago

> that consciousness is somehow produced or emergent, or that if it isn't you're in the realm of spiritual or something. Yeah, I genuinely only see those two possibilities: Either consciousness is somehow the result of the interactions of (some of) the billions of neurons in our brain - or it isn't. If it isn't, either consciousness is a product of some other biological or physical* process that so far isn't identified - or it isn't. And if it's not the result of any physical process then I don't see what would be left except metaphysics. We don't know as of now what consciousness is or how it is produced - but I think there are some strong hints that in fact it is produced by the interactions of our neurons. Mainly that we can directly influence consciousness with psychoactive drugs - which don't do anything interesting physics-wise except affecting how neurons exchange signals - and that we can also observe certain patterns of physical activity in the brain using EEG, MRI and other technologies and map this activity to mental tasks like concentrating or relaxing. Edit: * I used "psychological" there but that was a typo. I meant "physical".

wellpast 4y ago
> that so far isn't identified ... then I don't see what would be left except metaphysic So out of all "that so far isn't identified", there are just two classes of things: (i) biological and psychological processes; and (ii) metaphysics. This is some magic voodoo hand-waving here. Metaphysics seems to be just your way of saying "everything we don't know or understand".
- xg15 4y ago
  I think "physical process" already covers a lot of ground besides metaphysics. My main distinction was that anything physical is governed by the laws of physics that we know and that are generally deterministic. In contrast, metaphysics would be something entirely out of our realm of reality - which was how consciousness has been generally seen for a long time. But what other possibility would you see? Edit: > (i) biological and psychological processes Sorry, I had mixed up the word there. I was meaning "physical process", not "psychological". I had edited the other post to fix the word.
  - wellpast 4y ago
    I think what you're doing is just saying "there's stuff we understand" and "stuff we don't understand" and you're calling all of it "Physics". And then you say "some other biological or physical process that so far isn't identified". The assumption here is that we'll eventually "identify" everything, which is another very bizarre, if not voodoo, assumption. It seems magical to think that humans evolved our perception and thought in this environment to be such things that could eventaully "identify" everything. But just in case you don't actually think that. Then you're calling "Physics" all of the things, including the things that we'll never "identify". Again, seems very much like a magic claim.
  - akimball 4y ago
    Physical laws are stochastic, not deterministic.
- doliveira 4y ago
  Something that happens in our universe that Physics somehow has nothing to do with? How is that not magical/spiritual/metaphysical voodoo handwaving?
  - wellpast 4y ago
    Physics is a set of things we understand about the universe and often used to include some mystifying things, i.e. that we don't quite understand (eg Bell's theorem). To just claim that Physics has to do with _more_ than this - that it has to do with all the things we don't understand is just blind-faith ascription. It's a nearly meaningless statement, really. So it's bizarre or voodoo to say it so casually and assuredly as if it were obvious or given.
    - doliveira 4y ago
      Physics, by definition, has to do with everything, well, physical going on in this Universe. It's not about whether we understand it or not, or whether we're comfortable with it. So yeah, if you claim conscience is not physical, then you're talking about metaphysics. Which is okay to do, but then claiming that those that say that Physics alone is probably enough are saying voodoo... Well, it's ironic.
      - wellpast 4y ago
        By whose definition? You don't _have_ to define it that way. To _choose_ a definition that ropes _everything_ under "Physics" is an unnecessary move, it's more magic trick than grounded derivation.

jungturk 4y ago

> if you accept the assumption that consciousness is biological The poster wasn't making that assumption - they're stating the implications of those who do.

xg15 4y ago
Yeah, but if isn't biological, then what exactly is it?
- akimball 4y ago
  A system of process relations.

godelski 4y ago

> that consciousness is somehow produced or emergent, or that if it isn't you're in the realm of spiritual or something. I'm reading the parent's comment as "Either consciousness is super natural or is created from nature." I don't think this is an unreasonable assumption (literally "all things are either hot dogs, or not hot dogs", it is simple but not unreasonable). If you have a third possibility I'd like to know what that is. Supposing that consciousness (whatever it is) isn't super natural it follows that we can create it. It does not follow that it will be easy or done anytime soon (or even in the distant future), but possible nonetheless. Unless you have reason to believe that a physical process cannot be reproduced.

xg15 4y ago
Thank you, that was exactly what I wanted to say.
- godelski 4y ago
  I don't think it was a misstep in what you said. I also don't think wellpast was intentionally misreading. I think it was a miscommunication due to working off of different priors (psychological priming). One thing I wish we (the AI community) would do more is talk about alignment among humans and how this often leads to miscommunications and can actually cause unintended fights. This is why I think it is so important to operate under good faith conditions and constantly remind ourselves to do this. I'll give Godelski's Corollary to Hanlon's Razor: never attribute to malice what can easily be attributed to miscommunication. I think this is especially important to remember in a globalized world with a compressed form of communication --text (all communication is compressed. We're compressing our thoughts to communication and then decompressing it when listening. But text is more compressed than verbal or in person). We're highly lacking on context clues (cultures can often be part of this) but those contexts often make up the majority of communication (something I think AI will have a wildly difficult time solving and might/likely require AGI to do so).