3 ms·

I agree with GP. Consciousness isn't so hard to explain if you don't enshroud it with mysticism. Consciousness is the emergent, graduated phenomenon of an info

I agree with GP. Consciousness isn't so hard to explain if you don't enshroud it with mysticism. Consciousness is the emergent, graduated phenomenon of an information processing system when that information processing system has achieved significant complexity to model itself with relation to the various systemic inputs. It's not binary, it's a gradient. I have more developed consciousness than my dog, which has more developed consciousness than a rat, and then a fish, then an insect, etc. Somewhat disturbingly it also goes the other way, AIs may achieve a more profound conscious experience than humans - same for aliens. What does it mean for inferior forms of consciousness that have always placed themselves on a pedestal in relation to the rest of the animal kingdom simply because they have the most developed consciousness?

heyjamesknight 2y ago
Welp, that does it. Pack it up, Cognitive Scientists: we've solved the hard problem of consciousness right here on HN. What you're describing is what's been proposed by Giulio Tonini as "Integrated Information Theory" (IIT) [1]. I quite like the framework and the math behind it is beautiful. Unfortunately, it hasn't been supported well empirically. Re: AI, IIT actually gives basis for AI not being conscious. Not to mention that all conscious systems we can currently observe are dynamic/continuous, not discrete. The difference there is qualitative—there's no reason to assume that because a dynamic system is conscious that a discrete system approximating it is conscious too. [1: https://www.nature.com/articles/nrn.2016.44 https://www.nature.com/articles/nrn.2016.44]
wat10000 2y ago
It's a nice idea but there's no evidence for it. Not only is there no evidence, but nobody has any idea what such evidence would even look like. We can't even conceptualize an experiment that would support or refute this theory.
- heyjamesknight 2y ago
  That's not true, the authors of IIT [1] propose a number of experiments that would support or deny the underlying theory. To my knowledge, those experiments haven't shown much support. But there are aspects of it that are absolutely empirically falsifiable. [1: https://www.nature.com/articles/nrn.2016.44 https://www.nature.com/articles/nrn.2016.44]
  - wat10000 2y ago
    I don't buy it. It might support the part of the theory that talks about how brains work. But the statement that this is qualia is different, and can't be proven or disproven. Let's say I believe that some person is actually a P-zombie, someone with no conscious experience but who behaves exactly like a normal person. Would these experiments be able to tell me if my belief is correct? I don't see how.
    - heyjamesknight 2y ago
      You're welcome to read the paper. Tonini's work is well-known within CogSci and its not quackery by any stretch.
      - wat10000 2y ago
        I skimmed it. There's one mention of "qualia" and I didn't spot anything to connect their theory with the actual experience of consciousness besides them saying they think so.
        heyjamesknight 2y ago
        Better let Nature know their Peer Review committee screwed up then!
        skissane 2y ago
        > Better let Nature know their Peer Review committee screwed up then! The article you cite [0] is labelled as "opinion". The standards for peer review of opinion articles in scientific journals are a lot lower than those for ordinary research articles. While precise standards vary from journal to journal, for opinion articles peer reviewers often see their role as simply excluding egregious misinformation and blatant errors, as compared to research articles where their role is to make sure the article is presenting high quality evidence in support of its conclusions. [1] [0] https://www.nature.com/articles/nrn.2016.44 https://www.nature.com/articles/nrn.2016.44 [1] https://ecologyisnotadirtyword.com/2021/02/24/lets-talk-about-standards-for-scholarly-opinion-articles/ https://ecologyisnotadirtyword.com/2021/02/24/lets-talk-abou...
chasd00 2y ago
You’re modded down for some reason but I haven’t thought of consciousness as a model that eventually becomes sophisticated enough to model itself. That could be an explanation for self awareness. …haven’t thought of that.
notfed 2y ago
See Scott Aaronson's rebuttal to IIT: https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=1799 https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=1799
grantcas 2y ago
[dead]

heyjamesknight 2y ago

Welp, that does it. Pack it up, Cognitive Scientists: we've solved the hard problem of consciousness right here on HN. What you're describing is what's been proposed by Giulio Tonini as "Integrated Information Theory" (IIT) [1]. I quite like the framework and the math behind it is beautiful. Unfortunately, it hasn't been supported well empirically. Re: AI, IIT actually gives basis for AI not being conscious. Not to mention that all conscious systems we can currently observe are dynamic/continuous, not discrete. The difference there is qualitative—there's no reason to assume that because a dynamic system is conscious that a discrete system approximating it is conscious too. [1: https://www.nature.com/articles/nrn.2016.44 https://www.nature.com/articles/nrn.2016.44]

wat10000 2y ago

It's a nice idea but there's no evidence for it. Not only is there no evidence, but nobody has any idea what such evidence would even look like. We can't even conceptualize an experiment that would support or refute this theory.

heyjamesknight 2y ago
That's not true, the authors of IIT [1] propose a number of experiments that would support or deny the underlying theory. To my knowledge, those experiments haven't shown much support. But there are aspects of it that are absolutely empirically falsifiable. [1: https://www.nature.com/articles/nrn.2016.44 https://www.nature.com/articles/nrn.2016.44]
- wat10000 2y ago
  I don't buy it. It might support the part of the theory that talks about how brains work. But the statement that this is qualia is different, and can't be proven or disproven. Let's say I believe that some person is actually a P-zombie, someone with no conscious experience but who behaves exactly like a normal person. Would these experiments be able to tell me if my belief is correct? I don't see how.
  - heyjamesknight 2y ago
    You're welcome to read the paper. Tonini's work is well-known within CogSci and its not quackery by any stretch.
    - wat10000 2y ago
      I skimmed it. There's one mention of "qualia" and I didn't spot anything to connect their theory with the actual experience of consciousness besides them saying they think so.
      - heyjamesknight 2y ago
        Better let Nature know their Peer Review committee screwed up then!
        skissane 2y ago
        > Better let Nature know their Peer Review committee screwed up then! The article you cite [0] is labelled as "opinion". The standards for peer review of opinion articles in scientific journals are a lot lower than those for ordinary research articles. While precise standards vary from journal to journal, for opinion articles peer reviewers often see their role as simply excluding egregious misinformation and blatant errors, as compared to research articles where their role is to make sure the article is presenting high quality evidence in support of its conclusions. [1] [0] https://www.nature.com/articles/nrn.2016.44 https://www.nature.com/articles/nrn.2016.44 [1] https://ecologyisnotadirtyword.com/2021/02/24/lets-talk-about-standards-for-scholarly-opinion-articles/ https://ecologyisnotadirtyword.com/2021/02/24/lets-talk-abou...

chasd00 2y ago

You’re modded down for some reason but I haven’t thought of consciousness as a model that eventually becomes sophisticated enough to model itself. That could be an explanation for self awareness. …haven’t thought of that.

notfed 2y ago

See Scott Aaronson's rebuttal to IIT: https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=1799 https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=1799

grantcas 2y ago

[dead]