3 ms·

It's not as if one additional atom added to a structure turns it from "unconscious" to "conscious". There must be a sliding scale, where at some point, somehow

It's not as if one additional atom added to a structure turns it from "unconscious" to "conscious". There must be a sliding scale, where at some point, somehow, these structures exhibit tiny bits of consciousness. Think a patient under general anesthesia who is woken up ever so slightly. As the systems become more complex, they become "more conscious". This would be similar to you being extremely groggy versus awake and fully alert. That's what I mean by not binary on/off. There is no sudden switch that gets flipped and then, bang, self-aware being.

Jedd 3y ago
Again, you're imploring 'there must' but without evidence to back that position. I'm not necessarily saying I disagree with your belief, merely that I don't share the same conviction that the argument's a done deal. The patient analogy isn't terribly compelling, mostly because the patient, biologically, evolutionarily, previously, has presumably exhibited consciousness (using whatever measure you may prefer) -- and in this context that capability has been temporarily retarded and is now being regained. So there's no actual question there of the capability of consciousness, at least as most reasonable people would characterise it. The suggestion that complexity and consciousness are linearly correlated ... well, I don't think that's generally accepted, though it may well be true. Or at least, mostly true. But again, not a done deal. Given the spectrum of species alive (and previously alive) on this planet, the spectrum claim does sound like something we could evaluate using a natural experiment. I suspect a discussion down that path would require at least one of us to define consciousness. So, good luck with that. ; )
- EMM_386 3y ago
  Well given that the brain has evolved from single-celled organisms into humans today, through all the stages in between, there have been varying levels of consciousness. You have things with just nerve nets, like jellyfish. Then you have ganglia, in things like worms and insects. Then you'd have what we'd consider the first actual "brains", in bilaterians ... things like flatworms. Then the vertebrates, with brains, such as hagfish and lampreys. Somewhere along the line, between these types of things and human beings, consciousness developed, and it would have been on a sliding scale. These things eventually evolved into complex being such as primates and humans. There is no "evidence" of this because I can't even prove that another human is conscious (solipsism). But I'm assuming that monkeys, lions, dogs, etc. are conscious even though that is lower on the spectrum of human consciousness. The question remains as to where on this long lineage of things, self-awareness rose, and what exactly causes that? If the first life arose from RNA in the ocean (or whatever), I don't think RNA is conscious. But a hagfish? Well, it has a spinal cord, ganglia, and a brain. So maybe, yes? What is it about that arrangement that causes it to occur? Again, I'm mostly interested because the answer to that question can help us answer if machine consciousness is possible. Right now, there are a few theories out there that could be applicable to AI if any of them are true: - Integrated Information Theory - Global Workspace Theory - Predictive Processing Theory - Orchestrated Objective Reduction (not as much with this one) - Panpsychism (not really scientific) It's just very, very hard (or impossible) to obviously objectively test any of these.

Jedd 3y ago

Again, you're imploring 'there must' but without evidence to back that position. I'm not necessarily saying I disagree with your belief, merely that I don't share the same conviction that the argument's a done deal. The patient analogy isn't terribly compelling, mostly because the patient, biologically, evolutionarily, previously, has presumably exhibited consciousness (using whatever measure you may prefer) -- and in this context that capability has been temporarily retarded and is now being regained. So there's no actual question there of the capability of consciousness, at least as most reasonable people would characterise it. The suggestion that complexity and consciousness are linearly correlated ... well, I don't think that's generally accepted, though it may well be true. Or at least, mostly true. But again, not a done deal. Given the spectrum of species alive (and previously alive) on this planet, the spectrum claim does sound like something we could evaluate using a natural experiment. I suspect a discussion down that path would require at least one of us to define consciousness. So, good luck with that. ; )

EMM_386 3y ago
Well given that the brain has evolved from single-celled organisms into humans today, through all the stages in between, there have been varying levels of consciousness. You have things with just nerve nets, like jellyfish. Then you have ganglia, in things like worms and insects. Then you'd have what we'd consider the first actual "brains", in bilaterians ... things like flatworms. Then the vertebrates, with brains, such as hagfish and lampreys. Somewhere along the line, between these types of things and human beings, consciousness developed, and it would have been on a sliding scale. These things eventually evolved into complex being such as primates and humans. There is no "evidence" of this because I can't even prove that another human is conscious (solipsism). But I'm assuming that monkeys, lions, dogs, etc. are conscious even though that is lower on the spectrum of human consciousness. The question remains as to where on this long lineage of things, self-awareness rose, and what exactly causes that? If the first life arose from RNA in the ocean (or whatever), I don't think RNA is conscious. But a hagfish? Well, it has a spinal cord, ganglia, and a brain. So maybe, yes? What is it about that arrangement that causes it to occur? Again, I'm mostly interested because the answer to that question can help us answer if machine consciousness is possible. Right now, there are a few theories out there that could be applicable to AI if any of them are true: - Integrated Information Theory - Global Workspace Theory - Predictive Processing Theory - Orchestrated Objective Reduction (not as much with this one) - Panpsychism (not really scientific) It's just very, very hard (or impossible) to obviously objectively test any of these.