4 ms·

> We lack a theory of consciousness [...] Nitpick: off course we don't really lack a theory of consciousness. It's just that Alan Turing choose to ignore all

> We lack a theory of consciousness [...] Nitpick: off course we don't really lack a theory of consciousness. It's just that Alan Turing choose to ignore all the existing prior discourse in humanities and philosophy.

pmontra 6mo ago
There are many theories of consciousness but nobody knows if one of them is correct and nobody can use one of them to build a conscious machine. Compare that to theories of physics. None of them is 100% correct but they give us the tools we are using to write these messages.
- tim333 6mo ago
  I've got a theory of consciousness, not a very complicated one, that could be used in a machine. Basically that it evolved as a practical way for animals to make decisions like whether to run from a predator. To do that info from the billions of neurons handling senses memories and the like filter down to something like a situation summary, which is basically what the animal is conscious of which then feeds to the decision making, thinking and remembering and neurons. It would be quite interesting if/when someone tries that to see how close it is or isn't to nature.
  - repelsteeltje 6mo ago
    So, your theory says it's about prediction, estimation, extrapolation? Like a Kalman filter? I'm thinking of the first episode of Alex Garland minisery Devs, where a somewhat brilliant Russian guy demos predicting the exact movements of a bacteria. That would be proof that the model works. And even it it were to mispredict, most of the time, it sounds plausible.
    - tim333 6mo ago
      To be honest I'm not that up on those terms but I figure given that life evolved the functionality must be something like what I mentioned. I'll have a read up.
tim333 6mo ago
Nitpick nitpick: If you look at Turing's paper https://courses.cs.umbc.edu/471/papers/turing.pdf https://courses.cs.umbc.edu/471/papers/turing.pdf and ^F for consciousness you'll find that's not entirely true.

pmontra 6mo ago

There are many theories of consciousness but nobody knows if one of them is correct and nobody can use one of them to build a conscious machine. Compare that to theories of physics. None of them is 100% correct but they give us the tools we are using to write these messages.

tim333 6mo ago
I've got a theory of consciousness, not a very complicated one, that could be used in a machine. Basically that it evolved as a practical way for animals to make decisions like whether to run from a predator. To do that info from the billions of neurons handling senses memories and the like filter down to something like a situation summary, which is basically what the animal is conscious of which then feeds to the decision making, thinking and remembering and neurons. It would be quite interesting if/when someone tries that to see how close it is or isn't to nature.
- repelsteeltje 6mo ago
  So, your theory says it's about prediction, estimation, extrapolation? Like a Kalman filter? I'm thinking of the first episode of Alex Garland minisery Devs, where a somewhat brilliant Russian guy demos predicting the exact movements of a bacteria. That would be proof that the model works. And even it it were to mispredict, most of the time, it sounds plausible.
  - tim333 6mo ago
    To be honest I'm not that up on those terms but I figure given that life evolved the functionality must be something like what I mentioned. I'll have a read up.

tim333 6mo ago

Nitpick nitpick: If you look at Turing's paper https://courses.cs.umbc.edu/471/papers/turing.pdf https://courses.cs.umbc.edu/471/papers/turing.pdf and ^F for consciousness you'll find that's not entirely true.