4 ms·

I'm sorry, you believe the physics of this universe could be simulated but still accept that the p-zombie argument is valid? So in p-zombie land, there's an Xce

by Bakkot 14y ago

I'm sorry, you believe the physics of this universe could be simulated but still accept that the p-zombie argument is valid? So in p-zombie land, there's an Xcelerate making claims about being conscious for exactly the same reasons you are (ie physics), but only you are actually correct? Moreover, you're correct entirely by accident, because your reasons for making your claim to consciousness (ie physics) have nothing to do with the actual fact of your consciousness? I just can't take that seriously.

s_baby 14y ago
It's called the "hard problem" of consciousness. In theory, you can map causation from particle-wave interactions to experiential states but that doesn't provide an explanatory ontology. It's a matter of having a valid data type. No data type captures qualities.
- Xcelerate 14y ago
  Are you using big words just for the sake of appearing knowledgable? "Causation from particle-wave interactions". What do you mean by this? If you're referring to determinism, that's already been ruled out by HUP (unless you support superdeterminism, although few scientists do; t'Hooft is a notable exception). Valid data type? When did the discussion switch to type systems? I'm sorry, you'll need to clarify what you are trying to convey.
  - s_baby 14y ago
    >Are you using big words just for the sake of appearing knowledgable? I'm sorry your highness. I didn't realize I'm speaking to an authority here. >Causation from particle-wave interactions". What do you mean by this? I mean saying firing of neural circuitry X correlates to experience of Y. Given the right tools you might be able to do that and create a valid mapping of causation. >Valid data type? When did the discussion switch to type systems? What you can't do is capture experience in formal language. We'd like to symbolically capture the experience of "seeing blue" for example but no data type maps onto qualities beyond nominal signifiers of our own personal experience.
- Bakkot 14y ago
  Yup. But this certainly isn't unique to consciousness: In theory the axioms of Turing machines can prove that our best-candidate BusyBeaver(6) runs for around 10^36534 steps, but that doesn't provide an explanatory ontology. But you don't need to invoke magic for the theory to be true.
  - s_baby 14y ago
    Your point is taken but I don't think OP meant sentients is literally magic but that it is essentially a blackbox system to our constructs.
Xcelerate 14y ago
I'm sorry you feel that way. We just happen to disagree then. What constitutes science? You must be able to predict events from a theory and you must be able to reproduce them. But there's a third, implied tenet that most people forget about: anyone performing the experiment must come to a consensus on the results of the experiment. For me, "experience" is easy -- it's the most "real" thing in my reality. Vision, hearing, taste, smell? Those could all be faked some day with advanced enough neural manipulation. Let me attempt to clarify. Suppose you have a hypothetical person who sees an apple floating everywhere in front of him. He tells everyone that he sees this apple, but everyone else says "No, you're crazy. There is no apple there." So he takes a photograph of the apple. He prints it out and says "Look! Right here in this photograph is the apple!" Again, everyone says "I see no apple." He can consistently, predictably, see this apple. He decides to even paint exactly what he sees. And when he looks at his painting, he sees an apple, but everyone else sees empty sky. Is this person crazy? Well, if science is determined by consensus (which it is), then yes, the majority of people would say that he is crazy. But now instead of just this one guy with an apple, let's say that everyone sees a piece of fruit in front of them. But it's a different type of fruit for each person. And they all try to tell each other that there is clearly, obviously, unmistakably a fruit floating right there in front of them, but everyone thinks everyone else is crazy because they can't see other people's fruit -- only their own. So eventually, they decide to just forget about the fruit. Maybe it's not actually real if everyone else can't see it? (Would a person in a computer simulation see this fruit?) And so, despite everyone obviously having their own fruit hanging right in front of them, they have all decided to say that there is instead no such thing as floating fruit, since no one can come to a consensus about everyone else's fruit existing. So there you go. That's how I view consciousness. Although I should tweak that slightly -- "consciousness" perhaps isn't the right word. Consciousness can be manipulated with drugs and sedatives. What I am really referring to is the act of "experiencing" something.
- saurik 14y ago
  (Did you make up the fruit metaphor, or was that one I should have heard before? I ask because I felt it was downright epic.)
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

by Bakkot 14y ago

s_baby 14y ago

It's called the "hard problem" of consciousness. In theory, you can map causation from particle-wave interactions to experiential states but that doesn't provide an explanatory ontology. It's a matter of having a valid data type. No data type captures qualities.

Xcelerate 14y ago
Are you using big words just for the sake of appearing knowledgable? "Causation from particle-wave interactions". What do you mean by this? If you're referring to determinism, that's already been ruled out by HUP (unless you support superdeterminism, although few scientists do; t'Hooft is a notable exception). Valid data type? When did the discussion switch to type systems? I'm sorry, you'll need to clarify what you are trying to convey.
- s_baby 14y ago
  >Are you using big words just for the sake of appearing knowledgable? I'm sorry your highness. I didn't realize I'm speaking to an authority here. >Causation from particle-wave interactions". What do you mean by this? I mean saying firing of neural circuitry X correlates to experience of Y. Given the right tools you might be able to do that and create a valid mapping of causation. >Valid data type? When did the discussion switch to type systems? What you can't do is capture experience in formal language. We'd like to symbolically capture the experience of "seeing blue" for example but no data type maps onto qualities beyond nominal signifiers of our own personal experience.
Bakkot 14y ago
Yup. But this certainly isn't unique to consciousness: In theory the axioms of Turing machines can prove that our best-candidate BusyBeaver(6) runs for around 10^36534 steps, but that doesn't provide an explanatory ontology. But you don't need to invoke magic for the theory to be true.
- s_baby 14y ago
  Your point is taken but I don't think OP meant sentients is literally magic but that it is essentially a blackbox system to our constructs.

Xcelerate 14y ago

I'm sorry you feel that way. We just happen to disagree then. What constitutes science? You must be able to predict events from a theory and you must be able to reproduce them. But there's a third, implied tenet that most people forget about: anyone performing the experiment must come to a consensus on the results of the experiment. For me, "experience" is easy -- it's the most "real" thing in my reality. Vision, hearing, taste, smell? Those could all be faked some day with advanced enough neural manipulation. Let me attempt to clarify. Suppose you have a hypothetical person who sees an apple floating everywhere in front of him. He tells everyone that he sees this apple, but everyone else says "No, you're crazy. There is no apple there." So he takes a photograph of the apple. He prints it out and says "Look! Right here in this photograph is the apple!" Again, everyone says "I see no apple." He can consistently, predictably, see this apple. He decides to even paint exactly what he sees. And when he looks at his painting, he sees an apple, but everyone else sees empty sky. Is this person crazy? Well, if science is determined by consensus (which it is), then yes, the majority of people would say that he is crazy. But now instead of just this one guy with an apple, let's say that everyone sees a piece of fruit in front of them. But it's a different type of fruit for each person. And they all try to tell each other that there is clearly, obviously, unmistakably a fruit floating right there in front of them, but everyone thinks everyone else is crazy because they can't see other people's fruit -- only their own. So eventually, they decide to just forget about the fruit. Maybe it's not actually real if everyone else can't see it? (Would a person in a computer simulation see this fruit?) And so, despite everyone obviously having their own fruit hanging right in front of them, they have all decided to say that there is instead no such thing as floating fruit, since no one can come to a consensus about everyone else's fruit existing. So there you go. That's how I view consciousness. Although I should tweak that slightly -- "consciousness" perhaps isn't the right word. Consciousness can be manipulated with drugs and sedatives. What I am really referring to is the act of "experiencing" something.

saurik 14y ago
(Did you make up the fruit metaphor, or was that one I should have heard before? I ask because I felt it was downright epic.)

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]