7 ms·

I mean, what is consciousness, really? Is there really any qualitative difference? It feels like something that emerges out of complexity. Once models are able

I mean, what is consciousness, really? Is there really any qualitative difference? It feels like something that emerges out of complexity. Once models are able to update their weights real time and form "memories", does that make them conscious?

jstanley 1y ago
You can't tell if another being is conscious without being on the inside of it.
- layer8 1y ago
  When you are inside of it in that sense, how would you be able to tell that it isn’t conscious? Doesn’t “telling” imply consciousness?
xeonmc 1y ago
Perhaps one day a criterion will be found for the equivalent of Turing-completeness but for consciousness — any system which contains the necessary elements of introspective complexity, no matter how varied or outlandish or inefficient in its implementation, would invariably develop consciousness over its course. Kind of like the handwaved premise in 17776.
- andy99 1y ago
  I've read a (untestable) theory that consciousness is a property of matter, so everything has it, and we're just sort of the sum of the desires and feelings of our constituent matter. In that construct, a computer program would never be conscious because it's a simulation, it doesn't have the constituent consciousness property. I don't believe or not believe the consciousness-as-a-property-of-matter part but I do think programs can't be conscious because consciousness must sit outside of what they simulate.
  - hhh 1y ago
    why would it not be conscious in that construct? the bits exist physically just the same
    - bee_rider 1y ago
      The matter would have consciousness, but I guess the simulation would be of a different consciousness, made of processing. Although, our brains also are doing computation, and also seem to have consciousness. Are they linked? Why/why not… This is animism, right? It is a religious belief. Not really subject to testing.
    - andy99 1y ago
      I am conscious, I can act as a nand gate. If you set up a billion people and had them act as a computer (was that in 3 Body Problem?) it would not be conscious of what it was doing.
  - xeonmc 1y ago
    How about simulation programs that are impure, i.e. those which include I/O in its loop? After all, taking the Turing-completeness analogy further, while a machine that satisfies said criterion is capable of universal computation, actually performing a computation still requires an external input specified outside of the program itself. Perhaps it might turn out that stimuli residing outside of the simulated system is a necessary condition for non-incompleteness of consciousness, as a seed of relative non-determinism with respect to the program’s internal specification?
  - koolala 1y ago
    Computers are made of matter. The Earth would be conscious too? A consciousness could contain consciousnessess.
  - JadeNB 1y ago
    > In that construct, a computer program would never be conscious because it's a simulation, it doesn't have the constituent consciousness property. A computer program is the result of electrical and mechanical interactions that manifest in macroscopically observable effects. So are we. Why, if all matter is conscious, should the one count but not the other?
- ghurtado 1y ago
  > Perhaps one day a criterion will be found for the equivalent of Turing-completeness but for consciousness My money is on mankind perpetually transforming the definition to ensure only our species can fit within. We've been doing that long enough with higher order animals anyway.
  - aziaziazi 1y ago
    It's fascinating how visceral the reactions are when someone introduce a comparaisons between humans and other animals, that doesn’t start with the conclusion that humans are superiors anyway. There’s reflections done around the term Speciesism (and anti-speciesism) and most people today stands for speciesism. Interestingly the reflection is close to the debate on racism and anti-racism (where most people settled to anti racism to the point there isn’t much debate anymore), but race is only an informal classification that don’t hold much meaning in biological term, contrary to species.
andy99 1y ago
When I read comments like this (and I've read seemingly hundreds of them), I wonder if some other people aren't conscious / sentient? I don't know how anyone who experiences consciousness (as I experience it) could think that an algorithm could experience it.
- jstanley 1y ago
  I also read comments like that and wonder if other people aren't conscious. I don't know how anyone who experiences consciousness could be confused about what it means to be conscious, or (in other threads, not this one) could argue that consciousness is "an illusion". (Consciousness is not the illusion, it's the audience!). However I don't see why you don't think an algorithm could be conscious? Why do you think the processes that produce your own consciousness could not be computable?
  - andy99 1y ago
    I think the burden of proof is on showing that they are. Since we have no idea what consciousness is or how it works, I don't see how we could assume it clearly follows from anything.
    - jstanley 1y ago
      I'm not saying all algorithms are conscious. I'm saying I don't think it's obvious that algorithms can not be conscious.
  - shayway 1y ago
    > I don't know how anyone who experiences consciousness could be confused about what it means to be conscious, or (in other threads, not this one) could argue that consciousness is "an illusion". (Consciousness is not the illusion, it's the audience!). Do you mean to say there are objective criteria for consciousness? Could you expand on that?
    - parpfish 1y ago

jstanley 1y ago

You can't tell if another being is conscious without being on the inside of it.

layer8 1y ago
When you are inside of it in that sense, how would you be able to tell that it isn’t conscious? Doesn’t “telling” imply consciousness?

xeonmc 1y ago

Perhaps one day a criterion will be found for the equivalent of Turing-completeness but for consciousness — any system which contains the necessary elements of introspective complexity, no matter how varied or outlandish or inefficient in its implementation, would invariably develop consciousness over its course. Kind of like the handwaved premise in 17776.

andy99 1y ago
I've read a (untestable) theory that consciousness is a property of matter, so everything has it, and we're just sort of the sum of the desires and feelings of our constituent matter. In that construct, a computer program would never be conscious because it's a simulation, it doesn't have the constituent consciousness property. I don't believe or not believe the consciousness-as-a-property-of-matter part but I do think programs can't be conscious because consciousness must sit outside of what they simulate.
- hhh 1y ago
  why would it not be conscious in that construct? the bits exist physically just the same
  - bee_rider 1y ago
    The matter would have consciousness, but I guess the simulation would be of a different consciousness, made of processing. Although, our brains also are doing computation, and also seem to have consciousness. Are they linked? Why/why not… This is animism, right? It is a religious belief. Not really subject to testing.
  - andy99 1y ago
    I am conscious, I can act as a nand gate. If you set up a billion people and had them act as a computer (was that in 3 Body Problem?) it would not be conscious of what it was doing.
- xeonmc 1y ago
  How about simulation programs that are impure, i.e. those which include I/O in its loop? After all, taking the Turing-completeness analogy further, while a machine that satisfies said criterion is capable of universal computation, actually performing a computation still requires an external input specified outside of the program itself. Perhaps it might turn out that stimuli residing outside of the simulated system is a necessary condition for non-incompleteness of consciousness, as a seed of relative non-determinism with respect to the program’s internal specification?
- koolala 1y ago
  Computers are made of matter. The Earth would be conscious too? A consciousness could contain consciousnessess.
- JadeNB 1y ago
  > In that construct, a computer program would never be conscious because it's a simulation, it doesn't have the constituent consciousness property. A computer program is the result of electrical and mechanical interactions that manifest in macroscopically observable effects. So are we. Why, if all matter is conscious, should the one count but not the other?
ghurtado 1y ago
> Perhaps one day a criterion will be found for the equivalent of Turing-completeness but for consciousness My money is on mankind perpetually transforming the definition to ensure only our species can fit within. We've been doing that long enough with higher order animals anyway.
- aziaziazi 1y ago
  It's fascinating how visceral the reactions are when someone introduce a comparaisons between humans and other animals, that doesn’t start with the conclusion that humans are superiors anyway. There’s reflections done around the term Speciesism (and anti-speciesism) and most people today stands for speciesism. Interestingly the reflection is close to the debate on racism and anti-racism (where most people settled to anti racism to the point there isn’t much debate anymore), but race is only an informal classification that don’t hold much meaning in biological term, contrary to species.

andy99 1y ago

When I read comments like this (and I've read seemingly hundreds of them), I wonder if some other people aren't conscious / sentient? I don't know how anyone who experiences consciousness (as I experience it) could think that an algorithm could experience it.

jstanley 1y ago
I also read comments like that and wonder if other people aren't conscious. I don't know how anyone who experiences consciousness could be confused about what it means to be conscious, or (in other threads, not this one) could argue that consciousness is "an illusion". (Consciousness is not the illusion, it's the audience!). However I don't see why you don't think an algorithm could be conscious? Why do you think the processes that produce your own consciousness could not be computable?
- andy99 1y ago
  I think the burden of proof is on showing that they are. Since we have no idea what consciousness is or how it works, I don't see how we could assume it clearly follows from anything.
  - jstanley 1y ago
    I'm not saying all algorithms are conscious. I'm saying I don't think it's obvious that algorithms can not be conscious.
- shayway 1y ago
  > I don't know how anyone who experiences consciousness could be confused about what it means to be conscious, or (in other threads, not this one) could argue that consciousness is "an illusion". (Consciousness is not the illusion, it's the audience!). Do you mean to say there are objective criteria for consciousness? Could you expand on that?
  - parpfish 1y ago