4 ms·

Computable doesn't really make sense here IMO, as you say, consciousness is not the illusion, it's the audience, it's the thing receiving the output not just an

by gpm 1y ago

Computable doesn't really make sense here IMO, as you say, consciousness is not the illusion, it's the audience, it's the thing receiving the output not just an evaluation of a mathematical function. The better question is why couldn't a consciousness attach itself to (be the audience for) a computation. Since we really don't understand anything significant about it, questions like this are next to impossible to disprove. At the same time since we've never seen anything except human start talking about consciousness spontaneously* it seems like a reasonable guess to me that LLMs/the machines running them are not in fact conscious simply because of their dissimilarity and the lack of other evidence. * I note LLMs did not do so spontaneously, they did so because they were trained to mimic human output which does so. Because we fully understand the deterministic process by which they started talking about consciousness (a series of mathematical operations), them doing so was an inevitability regardless of whether they are conscious, and as such it is not evidence for their consciousness.

jstanley 1y ago
> it's the thing receiving the output not just an evaluation of a mathematical function. how do you know it's not just an evaluation of a mathematical function?
- gpm 1y ago
  The definition is wrong. A mathematical function is a set, possibly infinite, of pairs of abstract elements (commonly defined via sets) where no two pairs share the same first element. Nothing less, nothing more. Computation is the act of determining the abstract output (second element in the pair) for a given abstract input (first element in the pair). Nothing in those definitions is capable of expressing the concept of having perceptions (consciousness). That's not an abstract thing. This isn't to say the concrete thing doing the computation couldn't in principal be conscious, just that it doesn't definitionally make sense for the math itself to be conscious.
  - jstanley 1y ago
    I agree with everything you said up to "Nothing in those definitions is capable of expressing the concept of having perceptions (consciousness)". Do you think the universe is not computable? If you think the universe is computable, and you think that you exist in the universe, and you think that you are conscious, don't you think it follows that consciousness can exist within mathematical structures?
    - gpm 1y ago
      > Do you think the universe is not computable? Yes, definitionally not, the universe isn't an abstract object let alone one in the shape of a function. You might, in principle, be able to precisely predict the future of the universe given perfect information using a precise model of the universe. That model, a mathematical function, would be computable. It would be accurate to say that the model describes the universe, but not that the model is the universe. The thing about mathematical structures is that they are concepts, not things, I feel confident in saying that concepts aren't conscious.
      - jstanley 1y ago
        But you are inside the universe. The mathematical structure of the universe can contain all of your perceptions and to you they will "feel real". Indeed, to you they are real. If you had a perfectly accurate universe simulation, do you think the people inside the simulation would not be conscious? If they're not conscious, it's not a perfectly accurate simulation. And if it is possible to have a perfectly accurate simulation, then (like you said) all of the contents of the universe were "there" all along inside the giant mathematical structure. You don't need anyone to run the simulator! All of the contents of the universe, the apparent flow of time, our thoughts and feelings, our consciousness, all lives inside this incomprehensibly large mathematical structure. This is how I believe reality works. The universe exists inside mathematics the way 42 does. You don't need a calculator to show the number 42 in order for the number 42 to exist. Running the simulator can expose the contents of the universe to someone outside it, but everything on the inside is independent of the simulator. You might ask "why this reality and not any other?" and I would say they all exist equally well, we just happen to notice this one because we're inside this one.

by gpm 1y ago

jstanley 1y ago

> it's the thing receiving the output not just an evaluation of a mathematical function. how do you know it's not just an evaluation of a mathematical function?

gpm 1y ago
The definition is wrong. A mathematical function is a set, possibly infinite, of pairs of abstract elements (commonly defined via sets) where no two pairs share the same first element. Nothing less, nothing more. Computation is the act of determining the abstract output (second element in the pair) for a given abstract input (first element in the pair). Nothing in those definitions is capable of expressing the concept of having perceptions (consciousness). That's not an abstract thing. This isn't to say the concrete thing doing the computation couldn't in principal be conscious, just that it doesn't definitionally make sense for the math itself to be conscious.
- jstanley 1y ago
  I agree with everything you said up to "Nothing in those definitions is capable of expressing the concept of having perceptions (consciousness)". Do you think the universe is not computable? If you think the universe is computable, and you think that you exist in the universe, and you think that you are conscious, don't you think it follows that consciousness can exist within mathematical structures?
  - gpm 1y ago
    > Do you think the universe is not computable? Yes, definitionally not, the universe isn't an abstract object let alone one in the shape of a function. You might, in principle, be able to precisely predict the future of the universe given perfect information using a precise model of the universe. That model, a mathematical function, would be computable. It would be accurate to say that the model describes the universe, but not that the model is the universe. The thing about mathematical structures is that they are concepts, not things, I feel confident in saying that concepts aren't conscious.
    - jstanley 1y ago
      But you are inside the universe. The mathematical structure of the universe can contain all of your perceptions and to you they will "feel real". Indeed, to you they are real. If you had a perfectly accurate universe simulation, do you think the people inside the simulation would not be conscious? If they're not conscious, it's not a perfectly accurate simulation. And if it is possible to have a perfectly accurate simulation, then (like you said) all of the contents of the universe were "there" all along inside the giant mathematical structure. You don't need anyone to run the simulator! All of the contents of the universe, the apparent flow of time, our thoughts and feelings, our consciousness, all lives inside this incomprehensibly large mathematical structure. This is how I believe reality works. The universe exists inside mathematics the way 42 does. You don't need a calculator to show the number 42 in order for the number 42 to exist. Running the simulator can expose the contents of the universe to someone outside it, but everything on the inside is independent of the simulator. You might ask "why this reality and not any other?" and I would say they all exist equally well, we just happen to notice this one because we're inside this one.