4 ms·

Because nobody really agrees on what it means to be concious, so depending on what that means to you, either its trivial that a lot of things are concious or it

Because nobody really agrees on what it means to be concious, so depending on what that means to you, either its trivial that a lot of things are concious or its very unclear if even other people are concious.

yungporko 3y ago
there are certainly people that make me wonder
stavros 3y ago
The issue is that we don't assume consciousness and try to figure out whether some animals don't exhibit it, we assume everything is a robot until we can tell otherwise.
joak 3y ago
"consciousness" is often an alias for soul with a scientific flavor. That's why "machines cannot be conscious" despite the fact that humans obey to the same physical rules. Once you define consciousness it might be easy to implement. If I use the definition "perception of our own thoughts" it's already implemented with ps or activity monitor. The mystery is how this is done biologically and how evolution had led to it. But the implementation with computers is trivial.
- a_cardboard_box 3y ago
  > humans obey to the same physical rules. We do not know how the universe works on a fundamental level. We don't know if the universe can be simulated by a Turing machine. I think it's clear it can't. 1) I have subjective experience (there is something that it is like to be me). 2) My subjective experience is outside of what math can describe (perhaps math can describe the degree to which I experience each qualia, but that is different from experiencing the qualia themselves). 3) I am able to take this experience and write that I know that there is something beyond mathematical rules that exists. 4) My behaviour (what words I write) is influenced by the existence of something non-mathematical. 5) My behaviour can't be described as a mathematical function of the past.
  - PopePompus 3y ago
    You can certainly write "I know that there is something beyond mathematical rules that exists." That doesn't make it true.
    - a_cardboard_box 3y ago
      If there are only mathematical rules, then there isn't something that it's like to be me. I know that is false by experiencing the thing that it's like to be me. Perhaps there isn't anything that it's like to be you, in which case I have no hope of convincing you, because the underlying concept behind my words is ineffable.
      - bawolff 3y ago
        I think the counter-argument would go - there are all sorts of unintuitive mathematical rules. What if it just seems like there is something ineffable about experiencing life but its just an illusion? Mind you, i dont think either side of the debate has much in way of evidence, so it ends up coming down to just what feels "right" which is pretty unsatisfactory.
    - mistermann 3y ago
      True, but True is a subclass of Real, and what is Real drives causality, and is only partially constrained by Truth.
  - taneq 3y ago
    1) I'm slightly disappointed in myself that it's taken this long for me to really fully appreciate what a meaningless word salad 'there is something that it is like to be X' really is. And yet, this is the accepted 'definition' of subjective experience. 2) Prove it. 3) The fact that you're able to write this doesn't make it true. 4) Is it? What? Again, prove it. 5) What else is it a function of, then?
    - a_cardboard_box 3y ago
      Your criticism is all correct, in the sense that I haven't pinned down what I mean well enough to avoid it. Unfortunately, I mean by "subjective experience" is ineffable. And the reason it's ineffable is also ineffable. It's something you can only understand if you have it and introspect on it. So you're entirely correct that this sequence of words isn't a valid definition, because there isn't one. 5) It may be a function of the past, just not one that can be given a mathematical definition. I should have said "defined" rather than "described".
crazygringo 3y ago
Exactly this. This particular group of some specific biologists and philosophers can declare whatever they want. But when you see how they attempt to define consciousness, it falls apart, because we don't have any objective definition of it. The article states: > The declaration focuses on the most basic kind of consciousness, known as phenomenal consciousness... If a creature is phenomenally conscious, it has the capacity to experience feelings such as pain or pleasure or hunger, but not necessarily more complex mental states such as self-awareness. Unfortunately, we have no method whatsoever (yet) of distinguishing between creatures who genuinely feel pain/pleasure, and creatures who act in ways to avoid bad outcomes and seek good outcomes while feeling nothing, while we merely project our own feelings onto them. We don't even have a scientific definition of the verb "feel" at all. We have utterly no idea what distinguishes neurons that contribute to conscious feeling, from neurons that are subconscious and produce no feeling at all.
- anon291 3y ago
  As a good example of how clueless we are, look up 'blindsight' where people are blind (i.e they cannot see anything or observe what they see), and yet they can actually see by all quantifiable metrics (ie, when asked to point to the blue ball, they correctly do so; they avoid obstacles, etc). The eyes and visual system works but they have no conscious experience of it. Why? No one knows
  - taneq 3y ago
    Obligatory mention of the novel Blindsight by Peter Watts: https://rifters.com/real/Blindsight.htm https://rifters.com/real/Blindsight.htm Personally I have yet to see any compelling evidence that 'conscious experience' as some privileged special thing actually exists at all.
    - mistermann 3y ago
      Fitting, imho: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetlight_effect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetlight_effect
    - 3y ago
thuuuomas 3y ago
> its very unclear if even other people are concious Myopic edgelord main character syndrome. Under what circumstances would you, the human, be conscious but other humans are not?
- DangitBobby 3y ago
  Saying that a continuum of viewpoints exist between two extremes isn't the same as holding a viewpoint at one extreme.
- taneq 3y ago
  Reading the GP post in a charitable light, maybe this was meant as "it's very unclear if, from any given person's point of view, other people are conscious".

yungporko 3y ago

there are certainly people that make me wonder

stavros 3y ago

The issue is that we don't assume consciousness and try to figure out whether some animals don't exhibit it, we assume everything is a robot until we can tell otherwise.

joak 3y ago

"consciousness" is often an alias for soul with a scientific flavor. That's why "machines cannot be conscious" despite the fact that humans obey to the same physical rules. Once you define consciousness it might be easy to implement. If I use the definition "perception of our own thoughts" it's already implemented with ps or activity monitor. The mystery is how this is done biologically and how evolution had led to it. But the implementation with computers is trivial.

a_cardboard_box 3y ago
> humans obey to the same physical rules. We do not know how the universe works on a fundamental level. We don't know if the universe can be simulated by a Turing machine. I think it's clear it can't. 1) I have subjective experience (there is something that it is like to be me). 2) My subjective experience is outside of what math can describe (perhaps math can describe the degree to which I experience each qualia, but that is different from experiencing the qualia themselves). 3) I am able to take this experience and write that I know that there is something beyond mathematical rules that exists. 4) My behaviour (what words I write) is influenced by the existence of something non-mathematical. 5) My behaviour can't be described as a mathematical function of the past.
- PopePompus 3y ago
  You can certainly write "I know that there is something beyond mathematical rules that exists." That doesn't make it true.
  - a_cardboard_box 3y ago
    If there are only mathematical rules, then there isn't something that it's like to be me. I know that is false by experiencing the thing that it's like to be me. Perhaps there isn't anything that it's like to be you, in which case I have no hope of convincing you, because the underlying concept behind my words is ineffable.
    - bawolff 3y ago
      I think the counter-argument would go - there are all sorts of unintuitive mathematical rules. What if it just seems like there is something ineffable about experiencing life but its just an illusion? Mind you, i dont think either side of the debate has much in way of evidence, so it ends up coming down to just what feels "right" which is pretty unsatisfactory.
  - mistermann 3y ago
    True, but True is a subclass of Real, and what is Real drives causality, and is only partially constrained by Truth.
- taneq 3y ago
  1) I'm slightly disappointed in myself that it's taken this long for me to really fully appreciate what a meaningless word salad 'there is something that it is like to be X' really is. And yet, this is the accepted 'definition' of subjective experience. 2) Prove it. 3) The fact that you're able to write this doesn't make it true. 4) Is it? What? Again, prove it. 5) What else is it a function of, then?
  - a_cardboard_box 3y ago
    Your criticism is all correct, in the sense that I haven't pinned down what I mean well enough to avoid it. Unfortunately, I mean by "subjective experience" is ineffable. And the reason it's ineffable is also ineffable. It's something you can only understand if you have it and introspect on it. So you're entirely correct that this sequence of words isn't a valid definition, because there isn't one. 5) It may be a function of the past, just not one that can be given a mathematical definition. I should have said "defined" rather than "described".

crazygringo 3y ago

Exactly this. This particular group of some specific biologists and philosophers can declare whatever they want. But when you see how they attempt to define consciousness, it falls apart, because we don't have any objective definition of it. The article states: > The declaration focuses on the most basic kind of consciousness, known as phenomenal consciousness... If a creature is phenomenally conscious, it has the capacity to experience feelings such as pain or pleasure or hunger, but not necessarily more complex mental states such as self-awareness. Unfortunately, we have no method whatsoever (yet) of distinguishing between creatures who genuinely feel pain/pleasure, and creatures who act in ways to avoid bad outcomes and seek good outcomes while feeling nothing, while we merely project our own feelings onto them. We don't even have a scientific definition of the verb "feel" at all. We have utterly no idea what distinguishes neurons that contribute to conscious feeling, from neurons that are subconscious and produce no feeling at all.

anon291 3y ago
As a good example of how clueless we are, look up 'blindsight' where people are blind (i.e they cannot see anything or observe what they see), and yet they can actually see by all quantifiable metrics (ie, when asked to point to the blue ball, they correctly do so; they avoid obstacles, etc). The eyes and visual system works but they have no conscious experience of it. Why? No one knows
- taneq 3y ago
  Obligatory mention of the novel Blindsight by Peter Watts: https://rifters.com/real/Blindsight.htm https://rifters.com/real/Blindsight.htm Personally I have yet to see any compelling evidence that 'conscious experience' as some privileged special thing actually exists at all.
  - mistermann 3y ago
    Fitting, imho: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetlight_effect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetlight_effect
  - 3y ago

thuuuomas 3y ago

> its very unclear if even other people are concious Myopic edgelord main character syndrome. Under what circumstances would you, the human, be conscious but other humans are not?

DangitBobby 3y ago
Saying that a continuum of viewpoints exist between two extremes isn't the same as holding a viewpoint at one extreme.
taneq 3y ago
Reading the GP post in a charitable light, maybe this was meant as "it's very unclear if, from any given person's point of view, other people are conscious".