6 ms·

> My stance is it's (obviously and only a fool would think otherwise) never going to be conscious because consciousness is a physical process based on particula

> My stance is it's (obviously and only a fool would think otherwise) never going to be conscious because consciousness is a physical process based on particular material interactions, like everything else we've ever encountered. Seems like you have that backwards. If consciousness is from a nonphysical process, like a soul that's only given to humans, then it follows that you can't build consciousness with physical machines. If it's purely physical, it could be built.

chipsrafferty 1y ago
It would conceivably be possible to have a lot of physical states. That doesn't mean that they are actually possible from our current state and rewrite rules. So it's not actually a given that it can be built just because it's physical. Your very idea is also predicated on the idea that it's possible for a real object to exist that isn't physical, and I think most modern philosophers reject the idea of a spiritual particle.
- nearbuy 1y ago
  I'm not saying that souls or non-physical things exist, nor that everything physical is feasible for us to build. I was replying to the opinion that AI is never going to be conscious because consciousness is a physical process. I just don't see how that follows.
WhyOhWhyQ 1y ago
In your experience does every kind of physical interaction behave the same as every other kind? If I paint a wooden block red and white does it behave like a bar magnet? No. And that's because particular material interactions are responsible for a large magnetic effect.
- nearbuy 1y ago
  I still don't know what you're getting at. I think you're either positing that there is some yet undiscovered force or particle in physics that gives rise to consciousness (e.g. some kind of soul particle), or you think the particles within our current understanding of physics are sufficient, in which case consciousness could be built.
  - WhyOhWhyQ 1y ago
    Obviously consciousness can be built. I'm getting at the obvious point that physical processes depend on specific arrangements of materials. I can build a computer in an infinite number of ways. Here's one: Write the full machine state on a big sheet of paper in pencil. When you're done, write the next one (this will take a while). The machine you're simulating is running an all powerful "AGI". It is preposterous to believe this is conscious though. The simpler belief than the idea that just any intelligent process is conscious is that consciousness is some kind of physical process that happens in particular conditions.
    - nearbuy 1y ago
      Okay. I think at the core you're positing that consciousness does arise somehow from regular physical particles and the forces that attract and repel them, but that consciousness doesn't arise merely from some kind of computation or information processing. I understand why computation doesn't intuitively seem the same as having a subjective conscious experience. But why is it any more intuitive that a bunch of protons, neutrons and electrons pushing and pulling on each other give rise to consciousness, but somehow do it by doing something other than computation?
      - WhyOhWhyQ 1y ago
        It is because computation is an interpretation imposed on a physical system from the outside, but that is distinct from my experience of consciousness; your interpretation of my consciousness is irrelevant. If I impose a computational interpretation onto inert material after the fact, did that material possess the consciousness? Suppose I overlay a projection of the calculation of an AGI onto a circuit board, is that projection equally conscious to if that circuit board did the computation in the usual way? Said differently, suppose we take a large computer and simulate a sequence of random byte strings. At each tick we contrive a substring and form a new sequence out of these substrings such that the combined sequence of substrings simulates an AGI. Was consciousness present in the original sequence. Is it even necessary to do any computation at all to create the consciousness then since any intelligent sequence can be interpreted out of anything? No, that is absurd. The reasonable view is that computation is irrelevant and what is relevant is some special physical process.

chipsrafferty 1y ago

It would conceivably be possible to have a lot of physical states. That doesn't mean that they are actually possible from our current state and rewrite rules. So it's not actually a given that it can be built just because it's physical. Your very idea is also predicated on the idea that it's possible for a real object to exist that isn't physical, and I think most modern philosophers reject the idea of a spiritual particle.

nearbuy 1y ago
I'm not saying that souls or non-physical things exist, nor that everything physical is feasible for us to build. I was replying to the opinion that AI is never going to be conscious because consciousness is a physical process. I just don't see how that follows.

WhyOhWhyQ 1y ago

In your experience does every kind of physical interaction behave the same as every other kind? If I paint a wooden block red and white does it behave like a bar magnet? No. And that's because particular material interactions are responsible for a large magnetic effect.

nearbuy 1y ago
I still don't know what you're getting at. I think you're either positing that there is some yet undiscovered force or particle in physics that gives rise to consciousness (e.g. some kind of soul particle), or you think the particles within our current understanding of physics are sufficient, in which case consciousness could be built.
- WhyOhWhyQ 1y ago
  Obviously consciousness can be built. I'm getting at the obvious point that physical processes depend on specific arrangements of materials. I can build a computer in an infinite number of ways. Here's one: Write the full machine state on a big sheet of paper in pencil. When you're done, write the next one (this will take a while). The machine you're simulating is running an all powerful "AGI". It is preposterous to believe this is conscious though. The simpler belief than the idea that just any intelligent process is conscious is that consciousness is some kind of physical process that happens in particular conditions.
  - nearbuy 1y ago
    Okay. I think at the core you're positing that consciousness does arise somehow from regular physical particles and the forces that attract and repel them, but that consciousness doesn't arise merely from some kind of computation or information processing. I understand why computation doesn't intuitively seem the same as having a subjective conscious experience. But why is it any more intuitive that a bunch of protons, neutrons and electrons pushing and pulling on each other give rise to consciousness, but somehow do it by doing something other than computation?
    - WhyOhWhyQ 1y ago
      It is because computation is an interpretation imposed on a physical system from the outside, but that is distinct from my experience of consciousness; your interpretation of my consciousness is irrelevant. If I impose a computational interpretation onto inert material after the fact, did that material possess the consciousness? Suppose I overlay a projection of the calculation of an AGI onto a circuit board, is that projection equally conscious to if that circuit board did the computation in the usual way? Said differently, suppose we take a large computer and simulate a sequence of random byte strings. At each tick we contrive a substring and form a new sequence out of these substrings such that the combined sequence of substrings simulates an AGI. Was consciousness present in the original sequence. Is it even necessary to do any computation at all to create the consciousness then since any intelligent sequence can be interpreted out of anything? No, that is absurd. The reasonable view is that computation is irrelevant and what is relevant is some special physical process.