4 ms·

Consciousness is not a result, it cannot be computed. It is a process, and we don't know how it interacts with computation. There are only two things I can real

Consciousness is not a result, it cannot be computed. It is a process, and we don't know how it interacts with computation. There are only two things I can really say about consciousness, and both are speculation: I think it isn't observable, and I think it is not a computation. For the first point, I can see no mechanism by which consciousness could affect the world so there is no way to observe it. For the second, imagine a man in a vast desert filled only with a grid of rocks that have two sides, a dark and light side and he has a small book which gives him instructions on how to flip these rocks. It seems unlikely that the rocks are sentient, yet certain configurations of rocks and books could produce the thought computation of the human mind. When does the sentience happen? If the man flips only a single rock according to those rules, would the computer be conscious? I doubt it. Does the consciousness exist between the flips of rock when he walks to the next stone? The idea that computation creates consciousness seems plainly untenable to me.

prmph 2y ago
Indeed, I also think consciousness cannot be reduced to computation. Here is one more thing to consider. All consciousness we can currently observe is embodied; all humans have a body and identity. We can interact with separate people corresponding to separate consciousnesses. But if computation is producing consciousness, how is its identity determined? Is the identity of the consciousness based on the set of chips doing the computation? It is based on the algorithms used (i.e., running the same algorithm anywhere animates the same consciousness)? In your example, if we say that consciousness somehow arises from the computation the man performs itself, then a question arises: what exactly is conscious in this situation? And what are the boundaries of that consciousness? Is the set of rocks as a whole? Is it the computation they are performing itself? Does the consciousness has a demarcation in space and time? There are no satisfying answers to these questions if we assume mere computation can produce consciousness.
- chromanoid 2y ago
  Just wanted to point out that I absolutely share your view here. I would like to add that the concept of virtualization and the required representation of computation makes substrate-independent consciousness rather absurd. To me the only explanation for consciousness I find appealing is panprotopsychism.
- int_19h 2y ago
  There are indeed no good answers, but that doesn't imply that the premise is wrong - it can just as well be that we assume that notions like "identity" are fundamental when it is in fact a property that we ascribe based on factors not directly related to consciousness (i.e. things like bodies), simply because our day-to-day experience always includes those factors and places them front and center. Even with humans there are cases where this breaks down to some extent. E.g. in the case of multiple personality disorder, how many distinct streams of consciousness are there, and should we consider them distinct identities?
tim333 2y ago
I think to argue usefully about consciousness you've got to be able to define what you mean by it. If you use in the sense of a boxer is knocked unconscious as he's not aware of anything much versus conscious where he knows what's going on and can react and punch back, then AI systems can also be aware or not and react or not. If you say it's all about the feelings and machines can't feel that way then it gets rather vague and hard to reason about. I mean they don't have much in the way of feelings now but I don't see why they shouldn't in the future. I personally feel both those aspects of consciousness are not woo but the results mechanisms built by evolution for functional purposes. I'm not sure how they could have got their otherwise unless you are going to reject evolution and go for divine intervention or some such.
- James_K 2y ago
  Consider a universe purely dictated by the mathematical laws of physics. It would be indistinguishable from our own to an observer, but such a universe would effectively be a fixed 4D structure, a statue incapable of experience. You have experience, yes? You think therefore you are. There exists something beyond maths and physics, experiencing the our universe, and you are that thing. How could such an entity develop from physical processes?
  - int_19h 2y ago
    > such a universe would effectively be a fixed 4D structure, a statue incapable of experience This claim requires proof. When I consider such a universe, it is obvious to me that such a universe would contain entities capable of experiencing it.
    - James_K 2y ago
      Why? We know that there are things which can experience but not be conscious, for instance simple robots. Do you think it would be impossible to have a universe full of people with no souls, who simply react to inputs like a robot? I think such a thing could exist and would be indistinguishable from out own.
halfcat 2y ago
> no mechanism by which consciousness could affect the world Where would the placebo effect fit in this thought experiment? > a grid of rocks that have two sides, a dark and light side and he has a small book Where did the book come from?
grantcas 2y ago
[dead]

prmph 2y ago

Indeed, I also think consciousness cannot be reduced to computation. Here is one more thing to consider. All consciousness we can currently observe is embodied; all humans have a body and identity. We can interact with separate people corresponding to separate consciousnesses. But if computation is producing consciousness, how is its identity determined? Is the identity of the consciousness based on the set of chips doing the computation? It is based on the algorithms used (i.e., running the same algorithm anywhere animates the same consciousness)? In your example, if we say that consciousness somehow arises from the computation the man performs itself, then a question arises: what exactly is conscious in this situation? And what are the boundaries of that consciousness? Is the set of rocks as a whole? Is it the computation they are performing itself? Does the consciousness has a demarcation in space and time? There are no satisfying answers to these questions if we assume mere computation can produce consciousness.

chromanoid 2y ago
Just wanted to point out that I absolutely share your view here. I would like to add that the concept of virtualization and the required representation of computation makes substrate-independent consciousness rather absurd. To me the only explanation for consciousness I find appealing is panprotopsychism.
int_19h 2y ago
There are indeed no good answers, but that doesn't imply that the premise is wrong - it can just as well be that we assume that notions like "identity" are fundamental when it is in fact a property that we ascribe based on factors not directly related to consciousness (i.e. things like bodies), simply because our day-to-day experience always includes those factors and places them front and center. Even with humans there are cases where this breaks down to some extent. E.g. in the case of multiple personality disorder, how many distinct streams of consciousness are there, and should we consider them distinct identities?

tim333 2y ago

I think to argue usefully about consciousness you've got to be able to define what you mean by it. If you use in the sense of a boxer is knocked unconscious as he's not aware of anything much versus conscious where he knows what's going on and can react and punch back, then AI systems can also be aware or not and react or not. If you say it's all about the feelings and machines can't feel that way then it gets rather vague and hard to reason about. I mean they don't have much in the way of feelings now but I don't see why they shouldn't in the future. I personally feel both those aspects of consciousness are not woo but the results mechanisms built by evolution for functional purposes. I'm not sure how they could have got their otherwise unless you are going to reject evolution and go for divine intervention or some such.

James_K 2y ago
Consider a universe purely dictated by the mathematical laws of physics. It would be indistinguishable from our own to an observer, but such a universe would effectively be a fixed 4D structure, a statue incapable of experience. You have experience, yes? You think therefore you are. There exists something beyond maths and physics, experiencing the our universe, and you are that thing. How could such an entity develop from physical processes?
- int_19h 2y ago
  > such a universe would effectively be a fixed 4D structure, a statue incapable of experience This claim requires proof. When I consider such a universe, it is obvious to me that such a universe would contain entities capable of experiencing it.
  - James_K 2y ago
    Why? We know that there are things which can experience but not be conscious, for instance simple robots. Do you think it would be impossible to have a universe full of people with no souls, who simply react to inputs like a robot? I think such a thing could exist and would be indistinguishable from out own.

halfcat 2y ago

> no mechanism by which consciousness could affect the world Where would the placebo effect fit in this thought experiment? > a grid of rocks that have two sides, a dark and light side and he has a small book Where did the book come from?

grantcas 2y ago

[dead]