8 ms·
It's a shame to see so many comments engaged in this kind of pseudoscience. There's no evidence that consciousness is anything other than a state arising from t
by jemmyw 3y ago
It's a shame to see so many comments engaged in this kind of pseudoscience. There's no evidence that consciousness is anything other than a state arising from the physical processes in our bodies. I'm open minded to hypothesis that are potentially testable, but people keep just repeating the implausible.
I also hate that I keep reading that consciousness, or anything else, is a universe "hack" which is several levels of stupid. From the language level, you cannot apply that word to a non engineered system with no purpose because it implies subverting the purpose.
- FrustratedMonky 3y agoI think that there is such a groundswell of articles about 'consciousness', right now, is because of the surge in AI and GPT. If this is true. >"state arising from the physical processes" Then nothing prevents silicon from eventually also being 'conscious'. Carbon or Silicon, they are both a physical processes. Electrical potentials. So the section of population that just can't abide that AI could be 'conscious' are finding all these more esoteric arguments about the universe being 'consciousness', quantum something or other, etc... To find 'some spark' in the human, some metaphysical argument, to keep us special.
- orwin 3y agoAgree. I'll also say it's a lot further away than your comment implies. Once ChatGPT4 can add metonymy by itself in a random discussion, talking about consciousness in silicon can be interesting.
- FrustratedMonky 3y agoGPT4 is just the latest thing. It was only a few years ago that AlphaGo beat the best human at GO. Supposedly a game so deep that only some unknown quality of being a human could ever grasp it. And AlphaStar also wins against humans in SC2, where there is hidden information and 'deception'. I'd say that is more worry than GPT. GPT is a language model. AlphaGo is winning in a competitive game. and Life is just a game. Just start adding more variables, and more goals. Start combining GPT/AlphaGo/Visions Systems/etc.... It might not be that far.
- jemmyw 3y ago> Then nothing prevents silicon from eventually also being 'conscious'. I would agree except "nothing we know" because we still don't know how consciousness works.
- nico 3y ago> the section of population that just can't abide that AI could be 'conscious' are finding all these more esoteric arguments about the universe being 'consciousness' Panpsychism asserts that everything is conscious, which means that AI or silicon would already be conscious, which basically means there is no special human spark If anything, if you are trying to prove that AI is not conscious, you would be absolutely rejecting panpsychism or anything that remotely resembles it
- grantcas 3y ago[dead]
- BasedAnon 3y ago>There's no evidence that consciousness is anything other than a state arising from the physical processes in our bodies Actually this is backward, "I think therefore I am". There's no reason to believe consciousness is a state arising from a physical process, our experience of consciousness precedes our experience of sensory input and therefore the physical world. There is more evidence for the reality of consciousness than there is for the physical world, in fact we know for a fact that our understanding of the physical world is aberrational. edit: evidently alot of empiricists aren't very happy with this comment hahaha
- jemmyw 3y agoThere are plenty of reasons to believe it's physical. I mean, in some ways I can't believe I'm having to write "there are no ghosts" to a technically minded community. If consciousness was not physical then where is it? Why would it switch on and off with physical changes to brains? Why would you be able to get altered states of consciousness with chemicals, disease and age? Why would be be able to marry some conscious activity with MRI scans? There's quite a few bits of evidence to suggest it's physical even if we don't know how it works. There doesn't appear to be any evidence of another... what is a non physical process anyway? Surely there's only two options: the physics we know and the physics we don't know?
- BasedAnon 3y agoThe difference is that you do not experience ghosts, but you do experience conciousness. >If consciousness was not physical then where is it? We can invert this and ask, if physicality is not ideal, then how do we come to know it? >Surely there's only two options: the physics we know and the physics we don't know? The third option is that physics is unable to interrogate itself.
- jemmyw 3y ago> We can invert this and ask, if physicality is not ideal, then how do we come to know it? Why would we ask that? Not ideal for what? It just is. > The third option is that physics is unable to interrogate itself. This is likely true. We are the product of physics and we can only delve so deep. It might be that we cannot see to the most fundamental level(s). That's not a third option though, that's just the state of any scientific investigation at any point of time. However, given all we have learnt so far, what we don't need to do is invent new gods for the levels we cannot see or the things we cannot yet understand. I mean, people will, evidently, but that's all just wishful thinking. Meanwhile there is slow progress to piece together how the brain works. My opinion is that we will figure it out but the answers about consciousness will be unsatisfactory. Just like right now, given the current understanding of physical processes even taking into account quantum systems having probabilistic outcomes, we have no free will. It's an answer, I find it a compelling one, but most folks don't like that answer.
- orwin 3y agoI think consciousness emerge from physical processes. Imho consciousness is necessary to have a sense of self, and especially of self through time. This imply any living being capable of improvising new strategies (not randomly through chance and genetic lottery) is 'conscious' in the same sense that we are.
- nico 3y agoNot rejecting your comment. Just a note that consciousness does not need a sense of self You can absolutely be conscious without having a sense of self
- nico 3y agoThere are many ways to have a non-self or non-dual consciousness experience Do some research, you can get into meditation or find a safe way to experience with psychedelics Also, it’s a natural part of our own human experience. Babies are born without a sense of self, which mainly develops over the first few years of existence
- kklisura 3y ago> It's a shame to see so many comments engaged in this kind of pseudoscience. You have Roger Penrose [1] interested in link to say between consciousness and physics [2]. Would you consider that to be pseudoscience? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose [2] https://nautil.us/roger-penrose-on-why-consciousness-does-not-compute-236591/ https://nautil.us/roger-penrose-on-why-consciousness-does-no...
- VirusNewbie 3y agoPenrose, like it or not, has developed a fairly rigorous, if not flawed hypothesis that is quite a stark contrast between many philosophers who espouse such ideas as pan psychism.
- tsimionescu 3y agoYes, Roger Penrose, despite his extraordinary career and contributions to science, has more recently been engaging more in this type of pseudoscience. It can and has happened to other extraordinary minds as well - Linus Pauling, one of the forefathers of quantum chemistry and molecular biology, but also a promoter of vitamin C as a panacea in his later years.
- cscurmudgeon 3y ago> pseudoscience Repeatedly calling something pseudoscience doesn't make it so.
- gaganyaan 3y agoYou're rather missing their point. Great minds have fallen for pseudoscience. Why should we think Penrose is any different?
- tsimionescu 3y agoGP asked whether we are calling what Roger Penrose is doing pseudoscience, and I responded that we do. Now, why is it pseudoscience? Because the parts of the theory due to Penrose are essentially philosophical, he doesn't really make any firm claims beyond "quantum effects - particularly superposition - are involved in human decision-making". The parts that Hameroff brings to the table are specific, but fanciful. The whole "microtubules observe quantum effects" is about as plausible as cold fusion - it is motivated thinking that contradicts some basic limits that we have observed, and relies on some gaps in our physical knowledge to not quite be provably wrong. Overall they are combining musings about the universe with bits of biology and QM that are not yet fully understood into a theory that uses the trappings of science, but relies on motivated thinking to have any plausibility. It's most similar to the homeopathic quacks' claims about the memory of water: not fully proven to be impossible, but moatly on account of the vagueness of the claims. So, what they are doing fits the definition of pseudoscience.
- bigboy12 3y ago200 years ago, we thought the universe was just the Milky Way. You really can’t determine what consciousness is until you know what it is. There’s no evidence that consciousness arises from the physical body at all. If you look at a dead body. The “life” is gone. Who knows where or. what it is, we certainly don’t at this point.
- prng2021 3y agoThis is the same kind of thinking that flat earthers have. 200 years ago you should have been ridiculed for claiming that something existed beyond the Milky Way without any evidence. Why do you say there’s no evidence that consciousness arises from a physical body? If my physical body completely destroyed by an explosion, could my own consciousness still exist? Suppose a surgeon slowly cuts out parts of my brain and at some point, I am definitely not conscious. Suppose instead, I undergo extreme mental changes but no matter what mental anguish, happiness, etc you induce, you find I remain a conscious being. To you, these two experiments don’t provide evidence that consciousness arises from the physical body? I think it’s abundantly clear that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. If you claim otherwise, provide evidence for it.
- amatecha 3y agoYeah, I’ve believed for most of my life that consciousness is some emergent thing that arises from the interaction of all the complex biological processes of our brain and its sensory input. Most people don’t like to hear this though, and I don’t express the idea often - it’s disappointing to consider this possibility (I consider it certain, as I’ve observed nothing to suggest otherwise).
- MrYellowP 3y agoImagine there's no internet and you don't have a dictionary. When you've never observed the Eiffel tower and someone tells you the Eiffel Tower exists, will you tell them that they're wrong? "There's no evidence that the Eiffel Tower exists." Do you have any evidence the Eiffel Tower does not exist? No? Then it makes no sense to assume you know what's reality. The reason, why you insist that it doesn't exist, is because you're narrow minded and boring. It's not because you know better, because you can't know better. In regards to the topic of consciousness it is not just insanely ignorant to believe that the lack of evidence is evidence that it is NOT something, it is also incredibly full of yourself to assume you're right simply because of that. Fact of the matter is that a lack of evidence does not necessarily automatically prove anything. Us not being able to find evidence means exactly nothing, which is proven by human history itself. For example, if Ignaz Semmelweiß would have had your flawed reasoning, he would have never tried washing his arms and hands.
- amatecha 3y agoI'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make here. What is this hypothetical Eiffel tower situation an analogy to? Someone claiming our consciousness is derived from some ephemeral soul or spirit? I'm not trying to assert or prove the inexistence of something (especially considering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence ). My belief is that our consciousness is a physical, organic phenomenon, directly emergent from the "circuitry" of our brain. I don't personally believe there is anything beyond that, unfortunately. Simultaneously, I'm not directly arguing that assertion or trying to "prove" it, because I'm simply stating my subjective opinion, which was clearly communicated in my post, with the wording "I’ve believed for most of my life" and "I consider it". It will never be anything more than a belief, because I will never be able to prove this. My observations and knowledge I've gained through life support my belief quite strongly, while none have ever provided a shred of support for an argument for any sort of "soul" or "spirit". I'm 100% open to the idea, but unfortunately literally all experiences related to life, consciousness and existence in my nearly 40 years alive have correlated with my "I am nothing more than my body" opinion.
- cscurmudgeon 3y ago> There's no evidence that consciousness is anything other than a state arising from the physical processes in our bodies. Just because you didn't don't know about X doesn't mean X doesn't exist. Simple logic that even children learn quickly.
- mikhailfranco 3y agoPrevious post did not say the unknown X doesn't exist. They said there is no evidence for X. Absence of evidence is not (usually) evidence of absence. Seems like you agree. No children involved.
- hnfong 3y agoThis is sadly a recurring feature of how modern scientists make excuses. I don’t know how many times I’ve heard this as an excuse from COVID fuckups The infuriating part is how often the evidence is there, just not in the convenient peer reviewed format that scientists are addicted to these days
- eureka-belief 3y agoYou say you’re open to any testable hypothesis. But I’d argue that there is just as little evidence that consciousness arises from biological processes as there is that it arises from the universe. And the article talks about that. (Ie the so called “zombie” problem) You can’t prove that I’m conscious and I can prove that you’re conscious. We only make that assumption.
- jemmyw 3y agoI'm not making that assumption. I'm thinking that either I'm a zombie or you're insane.
- lend000 3y agoWhy is it pseudoscience to label the medium by which particles are entangled as consciousness? We have no better definition than that, since the observers of any delayed choice quantum eraser experiment are ultimately conscious, and we have no means of recording similar results without a conscious observer. I used to think I was very clever for independently coming to effectively the same conclusion as Schmidhuber, that consciousness is a byproduct of data compression in the brain, and a brain needs to tell itself it has subjective qualia to do all the complex things we can do. And while that might be theoretically sound, I think it leaves high dose psychedelic experiences woefully unexplained, which I think really transcend any evolutionary or biological reason for happening and have incredible parallels across people and cultures (the consistency of seeing "machine elves" while on DMT, for example). Ultimately, an infinite consciousness experiencing infinite reality seems so much more elegant as a base level of existence than the Standard Model being the root of all existence. But, to each their own.
- mikhailfranco 3y ago> Why is it pseudoscience to label the medium by which particles are entangled as consciousness Because it's just the identification of mysteries: all mysteries are each other's explanation. But in this case, there is no evidence of any connection (pace Penrose & Hameroff, not yet).
- jemmyw 3y ago> Why is it pseudoscience to label the medium by which particles are entangled as consciousness Because it's untestable nonsense. Just because all consciousness derives from physical processes that include quantum effects doesn't then lead to all consciousness being linked, being one, being infinite. Entanglement is an interaction to interaction thing, it's not a magical side channel for information. > Ultimately, an infinite consciousness experiencing infinite reality seems so much more elegant as a base level of existence than the Standard Model being the root of all existence There are many ideas that are more elegant than the Standard Model. One day we might find one that works and fills in some gaps, and that would be great. Coming up with a philosophical idea (consciousness is infinite and connected) with no evidence or any real basis in reality other than it sounds nice and then tying that to an existing scientific idea that sounds vaguely like it could support it (QM has entanglement of particles over distance) but actually wouldn't support the idea anyway is exactly what pseudoscience is. What I'm saying is: even if there was some kind of consciousness network, the mechanism for that would not be entangled quantum particles.
- mnky9800n 3y agoRecognizing emergent behaviour has led to a lot of deeper understanding of the universe. Why should this be any different? I'm not saying there's some consciousness field that my mind is a perturbation of. But it is interesting that we all have more or less the same experience of existing even though we are simply a collection of atoms in a local low entropy state.