3 ms·
Why are these scientists so desperate for a Magical Quantum Solution to consciousness? Shouldn't they first disprove the much more likely hypothesis that consci
by taberiand 3y ago
Why are these scientists so desperate for a Magical Quantum Solution to consciousness? Shouldn't they first disprove the much more likely hypothesis that consciousness is an emergent property of the (macro level) structure and operation of the brain?
- mensetmanusman 3y agoPeople realized long ago you can't wave around the word 'emergent' to solve this problem.
- anonzzzies 3y agoEmergent can be the first step; something emerges. Then you have to explain why/how. Emergent alone is never enough but it’s the first step. Consciousness is emergent until we explain how it comes to be and then it’s just an understood process.
- taberiand 3y agoOh really? Who, and when - and with what proof?
- mensetmanusman 3y agoI'm just referencing the existing debates on the topic. It doesn't appear we are at a stage to prove or disprove subjective experience. One hint we will know our understanding is solved is when others can enter the plane of our mind and add or subject imaginative objects.
- BeautifulSynch 3y agoScientists are people too. These efforts have always struck me as a desperate attempt to cling to conventionally intuitive views of what humanity and sapience actually means, in the face of physical laws which don't seem to treat "personhood" as anything special (aside from the "observer-interaction" of quantum physics, which some claim involves impact on the universe being observed rather than just what parts of reality the sensor/observer can perceive). EDIT: Though to be fair, I wouldn't be surprised if neurons just so happen to use quantum decoherence in their computations. I just don't think it has any relevance to the macro-level phenomenon we call "consciousness".
- colanderman 3y agoBecause we're on the brink of creating machines whose observable behavior is indistinguishable from consciousness, and whose macro structure mirrors that of our own brains, yet it is tantalizingly tempting for many to cling to the belief that humans are in some way special. (My bet: within 5 years someone has glued together the in-retrospect obvious macro components of what we call "consciousness" into a technological golem which causes a mass crisis of faith in those who haven't made peace with the idea that consciousness is neither magical nor unique to humans. Personally I believe it's likely someone already has.)
- sublinear 3y agoHave you considered it's more likely that mere subjective macro-level observations are becoming obsolete?
- junon 3y agoI think you're giving way too much credit to LLMs.
- yetihehe 3y agoHe didn't say anything about LLMs, I too think someone will do a real thinking machine, but more like in 10 years. LLMs maybe will be a part of such creation, but only a part.
- colanderman 3y agoSibling is correct. LLMs are missing most of the macro structure that known existing consciousnesses have (memory, emotion, desire, self-observation of internal and external processes, etc.) They do however provide an important stepping stone towards creation of an artificial consciousness and recognition thereof, as a mechanism by which an artificial consciousness can integrate qualia into action, and as a bonus, communicate in a language which us humans understand.
- 1letterunixname 3y agoThe intelligent design crowd knows it needs more than Ark Encounter to sell religion by using science against itself to "find" the ghost in the machine.