5 ms·

I still don't see his argument, unless he is saying that human neurons are magic so artificial consciousness is impossible.

by ftxbro 3y ago

ChatGTP 3y ago
Well you don't have evidence either way, maybe we do have magic neurons, until a computer displays the same level of consciousness as other living creatures, then we don't really know because we don't fully understand how a human brain works and we cannot build one. So I feel a bit similar about your argument to be honest.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- colordrops 3y ago
  That would make sense if we had other examples of magic.
  - ChatGTP 3y ago
    I guess that depends on your definition of magic, you talk like we understand everything about the universe, I'm sure that for all intense and purposes, there is plenty of "magic" left.
    - colordrops 3y ago
      I am FAR from believing that we understand everything about the universe. What I mean is that we haven't found an example of something where it has been shown that the only possible explanation is magic. Do you have an example? Sounds like you are the one that is claiming greater knowledge of things.
      - ChatGTP 3y ago
        If you can't see the magic in existence itself, in many natural phenomena, then I guess that's your problem. There is magic even in things we understand. Gravity, magnetic forces, the ability to feel emotions it goes on forever basically. What I've actually come to realize is the phrase, "nothing is magic" is actually nonsensical because it's a paradox. Things can be understood and still magic.
        colordrops 3y ago
        You are conflating different meanings of magic. Precise language is necessary for this conversation to have any value. > the magic in existence itself this refers to the mystery of why anything exists at all, and why it exists in the way it does. Not the same as some special property that only exists in certain phenomena. > There is magic even in things we understand This again refers to the "why it exists in the way that it does" again, as fundamental forces just "are" rather than having a causal explanation. Again, not the same thing. > Things can be understood and still magic That's the opposite of what you were saying before, which is that there is some special element within us that can't be replicated in a machine. That would require us not understanding something, or at the very least recognizing and understanding some property that we have identified that can't be replicated in machines, which we haven't. What is your definition of "magic"?
        ChatGTP 3y ago
        My TL;DR is really, just have an open mind because until we really truly understand how the brain works then you don't really know what type of "magic" is involved in producing the wonderful ability to enjoy life and experience. My definition of magic is: mysteriously enchanting; magical: magic beauty. That's from dictionary.com btw. Something can be explainable through words or scientific study and still be mysterious, enchanting and having magic beauty.
        colordrops 3y ago
        I'm very open minded, and have some pretty crazy ideas about reality (just look at my comment history), and in fact practice nondual meditation, which is grounded in the idea that everything is mind, and there is no separation between objective and subjective reality. Pretty magical stuff. But topics have scope. I still find value in science. I recognize that science is just the map and not the territory, and is not a final answer about any truth. Within the confines of science itself though, there are an internal set of rules that keep it consistent. Intermingling two systems only confuses the issue. I don't use dzogchen nondual meditation to analyze chemical reactions, and I don't use science to analyze the qualia of my personal experience. That being said, there is room for going up a level and seeing where the two systems might synergize or interact, but it requires a lot of thought and effort. It's not just something you come up with off the cuff. Magic in the Harry Potter sense may exist but until there is some mechanism for measuring it and understanding it, there's no room for it within scientific methods. It's a metaphysical issue to intertwine the two ideas, not a physical one.
- badcarbine 3y ago
  Well, to be honest, it seems we have achieved it. At least on a word-thought frame of mind. By no means a spiritual frame of mind.
  - ChatGTP 3y ago
    Excellent , job done.
teraflop 3y ago
As far as I can tell, the author seems to be trying to simultaneously use two separate definitions of "consciousness": 1. Something which results in "qualia" 2. Something which arises by a non-mechanistic process and then is just expecting readers to accept that these two definitions are equivalent. It's the same fatal flaw as the original Chinese Room argument.
- AnotherGoodName 3y ago
  For point 2 anything with real world input is non mechanistic since non determinism propagates. Eg. A regular computer with a camera that's programmed to do something if a photon hits a certain pixel is non deterministic. This type of setup is common in our ai systems. I personally do agree that consciousness probably does have an element of non determinism but I don't think that non determinism needs to come from neurons in the brain. We have a whole bunch of non deterministic inputs, consciousness could well come from that and that's true if computers too. In fact it's pretty well accepted there's nothing really quantum about human neurons. So point 2 is very weak.
anon291 3y ago
By all means human neurons (and animal neurons) are -- for lack of a better word -- magic as they achieve a thing that no other thing does. Namely they arise in some a lack of actual feeling that has no mechanistic explanation. That does not mean it's magic, it's just that we have no way of ascertaining whether computers are capable of this feeling and all evidence points to the contrary. A feeling in your mind is more than just a signal. Feeling a pit in one's stomach is not because I feel serotonin or GABA or whatever (i don't know which one). You really, truly feel a literal pit in your stomach. Why does one feel this? Even if you claim it's due to a physical pit in my stomach (perhaps due to muscle clenching or whatever), why do I sense a pit? Not in the 'oh my brain neurons fire indicating the presence of something' but in the 'why does it feel like that'?. Why why why? No one can explain the qualia of the sensation and the only way to claim this thing can be experienced by non-biological objects is by a blind faith. EDIT: there should be a rule on HN against downvotes without responses. Unless you can explain qualia; stop downvoting. It's a major problem.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > there should be a rule on HN against downvotes without responses Downvotes are specifically for things that do not support productive discussion, so downvote + response makes no sense. EDIT: If HN had a private message facility, I can somewhat see a case for private feedback with downvotes, though I suspect that would also end up unworkable.
  - jjtheblunt 3y ago
    downvote + rebuttal makes sense. (but i'm not downvoting your idea, to your point!)
- iainmerrick 3y ago
  No one can explain the qualia of the sensation Yep, I think almost everyone agrees with that. and the only way to claim this thing can be experienced by non-biological objects is by a blind faith. But not that. If you admittedly can’t explain the phenomenon in the first place, how can you have any confidence in that assertion? You’re trying to have it both ways. “Nobody can understand it, but I just know that it doesn’t work and definitely can’t work in the way you’re suggesting.”
tshaddox 3y ago
The argument is necessarily either that human neurons are magic and that artificial consciousness is impossible, or that some version of solipsism is true (the author asserts their own consciousness as self-evident and that no test can possibly show whether something else is conscious).
GuB-42 3y ago
The argument is essentially that artificial consciousness is impossible by definition. Because consciousness is only a subjective experience, there is nothing in the physical realm that can prove that something is conscious or not. Discussing about the relative merits of neurons and transistors will get you nowhere. It is a philosophical, possibly religious question, outside the real of natural science.
grantcas 3y ago
[dead]

I still don't see his argument, unless he is saying that human neurons are magic so artificial consciousness is impossible.

by ftxbro 3y ago

I still don't see his argument, unless he is saying that human neurons are magic so artificial consciousness is impossible.

ChatGTP 3y ago

Well you don't have evidence either way, maybe we do have magic neurons, until a computer displays the same level of consciousness as other living creatures, then we don't really know because we don't fully understand how a human brain works and we cannot build one. So I feel a bit similar about your argument to be honest.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
colordrops 3y ago
That would make sense if we had other examples of magic.
- ChatGTP 3y ago
  I guess that depends on your definition of magic, you talk like we understand everything about the universe, I'm sure that for all intense and purposes, there is plenty of "magic" left.
  - colordrops 3y ago
    I am FAR from believing that we understand everything about the universe. What I mean is that we haven't found an example of something where it has been shown that the only possible explanation is magic. Do you have an example? Sounds like you are the one that is claiming greater knowledge of things.
    - ChatGTP 3y ago
      If you can't see the magic in existence itself, in many natural phenomena, then I guess that's your problem. There is magic even in things we understand. Gravity, magnetic forces, the ability to feel emotions it goes on forever basically. What I've actually come to realize is the phrase, "nothing is magic" is actually nonsensical because it's a paradox. Things can be understood and still magic.
      - colordrops 3y ago
        You are conflating different meanings of magic. Precise language is necessary for this conversation to have any value. > the magic in existence itself this refers to the mystery of why anything exists at all, and why it exists in the way it does. Not the same as some special property that only exists in certain phenomena. > There is magic even in things we understand This again refers to the "why it exists in the way that it does" again, as fundamental forces just "are" rather than having a causal explanation. Again, not the same thing. > Things can be understood and still magic That's the opposite of what you were saying before, which is that there is some special element within us that can't be replicated in a machine. That would require us not understanding something, or at the very least recognizing and understanding some property that we have identified that can't be replicated in machines, which we haven't. What is your definition of "magic"?
        ChatGTP 3y ago
        My TL;DR is really, just have an open mind because until we really truly understand how the brain works then you don't really know what type of "magic" is involved in producing the wonderful ability to enjoy life and experience. My definition of magic is: mysteriously enchanting; magical: magic beauty. That's from dictionary.com btw. Something can be explainable through words or scientific study and still be mysterious, enchanting and having magic beauty.
        colordrops 3y ago
        I'm very open minded, and have some pretty crazy ideas about reality (just look at my comment history), and in fact practice nondual meditation, which is grounded in the idea that everything is mind, and there is no separation between objective and subjective reality. Pretty magical stuff. But topics have scope. I still find value in science. I recognize that science is just the map and not the territory, and is not a final answer about any truth. Within the confines of science itself though, there are an internal set of rules that keep it consistent. Intermingling two systems only confuses the issue. I don't use dzogchen nondual meditation to analyze chemical reactions, and I don't use science to analyze the qualia of my personal experience. That being said, there is room for going up a level and seeing where the two systems might synergize or interact, but it requires a lot of thought and effort. It's not just something you come up with off the cuff. Magic in the Harry Potter sense may exist but until there is some mechanism for measuring it and understanding it, there's no room for it within scientific methods. It's a metaphysical issue to intertwine the two ideas, not a physical one.
badcarbine 3y ago
Well, to be honest, it seems we have achieved it. At least on a word-thought frame of mind. By no means a spiritual frame of mind.
- ChatGTP 3y ago
  Excellent , job done.

teraflop 3y ago

As far as I can tell, the author seems to be trying to simultaneously use two separate definitions of "consciousness": 1. Something which results in "qualia" 2. Something which arises by a non-mechanistic process and then is just expecting readers to accept that these two definitions are equivalent. It's the same fatal flaw as the original Chinese Room argument.

AnotherGoodName 3y ago
For point 2 anything with real world input is non mechanistic since non determinism propagates. Eg. A regular computer with a camera that's programmed to do something if a photon hits a certain pixel is non deterministic. This type of setup is common in our ai systems. I personally do agree that consciousness probably does have an element of non determinism but I don't think that non determinism needs to come from neurons in the brain. We have a whole bunch of non deterministic inputs, consciousness could well come from that and that's true if computers too. In fact it's pretty well accepted there's nothing really quantum about human neurons. So point 2 is very weak.

anon291 3y ago

By all means human neurons (and animal neurons) are -- for lack of a better word -- magic as they achieve a thing that no other thing does. Namely they arise in some a lack of actual feeling that has no mechanistic explanation. That does not mean it's magic, it's just that we have no way of ascertaining whether computers are capable of this feeling and all evidence points to the contrary. A feeling in your mind is more than just a signal. Feeling a pit in one's stomach is not because I feel serotonin or GABA or whatever (i don't know which one). You really, truly feel a literal pit in your stomach. Why does one feel this? Even if you claim it's due to a physical pit in my stomach (perhaps due to muscle clenching or whatever), why do I sense a pit? Not in the 'oh my brain neurons fire indicating the presence of something' but in the 'why does it feel like that'?. Why why why? No one can explain the qualia of the sensation and the only way to claim this thing can be experienced by non-biological objects is by a blind faith. EDIT: there should be a rule on HN against downvotes without responses. Unless you can explain qualia; stop downvoting. It's a major problem.

dragonwriter 3y ago
> there should be a rule on HN against downvotes without responses Downvotes are specifically for things that do not support productive discussion, so downvote + response makes no sense. EDIT: If HN had a private message facility, I can somewhat see a case for private feedback with downvotes, though I suspect that would also end up unworkable.
- jjtheblunt 3y ago
  downvote + rebuttal makes sense. (but i'm not downvoting your idea, to your point!)
iainmerrick 3y ago
No one can explain the qualia of the sensation Yep, I think almost everyone agrees with that. and the only way to claim this thing can be experienced by non-biological objects is by a blind faith. But not that. If you admittedly can’t explain the phenomenon in the first place, how can you have any confidence in that assertion? You’re trying to have it both ways. “Nobody can understand it, but I just know that it doesn’t work and definitely can’t work in the way you’re suggesting.”

tshaddox 3y ago

The argument is necessarily either that human neurons are magic and that artificial consciousness is impossible, or that some version of solipsism is true (the author asserts their own consciousness as self-evident and that no test can possibly show whether something else is conscious).

GuB-42 3y ago

The argument is essentially that artificial consciousness is impossible by definition. Because consciousness is only a subjective experience, there is nothing in the physical realm that can prove that something is conscious or not. Discussing about the relative merits of neurons and transistors will get you nowhere. It is a philosophical, possibly religious question, outside the real of natural science.

grantcas 3y ago

[dead]