4 ms·

We do have entry and exit conditions. We can disrupt it and study the dynamics of the disruption. We have a good sense of the many mechanisms at play that under

We do have entry and exit conditions. We can disrupt it and study the dynamics of the disruption. We have a good sense of the many mechanisms at play that undergird it. What we lack is a full map of the exact process from sensation to consciousness across all modalities. And I’m afraid when it comes to interception, we can’t unless we observe every one of the 36 trillion or so cells in a human body, as well as the 36 trillion or so symbiotic and commensal microbes, continuously, all the time. But I keep finding it astonishing that the claim that we know nothing about consciousness gets bandied about. We know a lot. We don’t have a grand unified theory. The lot we know is definitely split across many levels of evidence and hard to follow, let alone arrange. But this isn’t a black box. It’s a grey box, meeting an even more transparent box that is the LLM, where we do know what the guts are made of, and can interfere at every step in the chain of steps that constitute their dynamics. Comparing the two, we know there’s a level of similarity in that information gets broken down via a neural network. That similarity was sought. Since then though, neuroscientists have gone and shown that: 1. The other half of the cells in the brain, the glia, are at least as important as the neurons in cognition and consciousness 2. That interoceptive feedback and feelings are critical drivers of conscious experience 3. Evolutionarily, we know all cells can “learn”, and well before there were neurons or glia or brains, every cell evolved an internal clock that allows it to entrain to external solar and (depending on the species) lunar rhythms. 4. In the last few decades we’ve seen how synaptic activity is shaped and driven both by astrocytes and the circadian clock. All this is showing us that the abstraction from the 1950s that current neural networks are built on were incomplete. Whatever these components to do give rise to consciousness in biology (and we’re a long way from done solving this), we certainly wouldn’t imagine with all these modules and mechanisms missing, just maxing on one type of information flow in the brain would give you consciousness. I’d urge you to not keep insisting consciousness is a total mystery. It’s not, and even your AI model of choice will be able to point you to all the mechanistic evidence we have that whatever it is, it isn’t just neural nets.

lern_too_spel 2mo ago
Whether human consciousness exists on neural nets or otherwise doesn't disallow an ANN in a particular configuration from being conscious. You might as well argue that human consciousness requires biological neurons, so artificial consciousness can't exist.
- randomImmigrant 2mo ago
  Odd. Why don't the details of how consciousness arises in one system inform your judgment of whether it can exist in a different system that only has partial structural overlap? Seems wildly convenient. Where else in science can you show me such a comparable situation in how you define properties?
  - lern_too_spel 2mo ago
    > Why don't the details of how consciousness arises in one system inform your judgment of whether it can exist in a different system that only has partial structural overlap? A light bulb doesn't need to do fusion to make light. An airplane doesn't need to flap its wings to fly. An ANN doesn't need to use a brain's structure to think.
    - randomImmigrant 1mo ago
      You haven’t proven an LLM has thought. I can measure the spectral properties of light from both a bulb and the sun. I can measure the dynamics that go with thought in a human. I can measure some dynamics in an LLM. From all we know, there are huge differences, not least that you can literally turn off an LLM, whereas every process but death in biology shows continued activity even when the organism “looks” off, What you haven’t shown me is that what the LLM does when it is on is “thinking”. Given that the dynamics are different, the substrate is different, and one can be fully turned off and the other cannot, why are these two things the same?
      - lern_too_spel 1mo ago
        > You haven’t proven an LLM has thought Give me any problem that previously required human thinking. Any. That can be solved by LLMs. All you have to do is provide a single counterexample. > not least that you can literally turn off an LLM, whereas every process but death in biology shows continued activity even when the organism “looks” off, There is no reasonable definition of thinking that requires that it can't be paused. > why are these two things the same? I said they aren't the same, just as a bulb isn't the same as a star. An LLM can think, just as a human brain can think. A bulb can produce light, just as a star can produce light.
altcognito 2mo ago
None of this is an explanation of what consciousness is, either physically, logically or philosophically. (Maybe some physically) Fundamentally it comes down to an objective decision about what that is. If you say it is “feelings” based on inputs and feedback mechanisms from the brain, then we can do the philosophical discussion around that. “If the claim is that consciousness is limited to those with a specific type of cell behaving in a given way” thats just a coping mechanism hoping to use a mechanical definition to shield you from the reality that eventually all of these inputs, outputs and feedback mechanisms can be reliably reproduced in a different form.
- randomImmigrant 1mo ago
  I’m baffled: how does the fact that each cell has an internal clock that continues to tick even when you take away all external signals not impact what consciousness is logically? If the time order driving behavior is driven by an internal timekeeper, that is logically relevant to the behavior you’re interrogating. If, on the other hand, all component systems depended on an external clock, that logically points to a completely different dynamic process. As for the philosophy of it all… it’s true I make no comment on it. I’d rather look at the physical substrate and see what it does, and compare it to behavior, than try to fit a philosophy that originated before we had such high resolution knowledge of the system. They are blind to these facts, just because they were written up too early. I utterly reject this doesn’t show you anything logically about consciousness. If I can show you that the molecular dynamics of each cell organize to anticipate the dawn, and do so even in constant darkness (and all this is well established.. there was a Nobel for the field in 2017) how is that not logically distinct from a system that is outside of regular time, needs to check a clock to locate itself in time, and then do whatever dynamics it does to solve the problem at hand? As for calling this a coping mechanism… that’s a bit rich coming from someone who seems to have very little idea of the molecular and cellular biology but seems to want to hold to the belief that we’ve solved consciousness with LLMs. We can both fling that accusation about. Seems more productive to compare the physical dynamics and see what’s different and what’s similar, no?
  - altcognito 1mo ago

lern_too_spel 2mo ago

Whether human consciousness exists on neural nets or otherwise doesn't disallow an ANN in a particular configuration from being conscious. You might as well argue that human consciousness requires biological neurons, so artificial consciousness can't exist.

randomImmigrant 2mo ago
Odd. Why don't the details of how consciousness arises in one system inform your judgment of whether it can exist in a different system that only has partial structural overlap? Seems wildly convenient. Where else in science can you show me such a comparable situation in how you define properties?
- lern_too_spel 2mo ago
  > Why don't the details of how consciousness arises in one system inform your judgment of whether it can exist in a different system that only has partial structural overlap? A light bulb doesn't need to do fusion to make light. An airplane doesn't need to flap its wings to fly. An ANN doesn't need to use a brain's structure to think.
  - randomImmigrant 1mo ago
    You haven’t proven an LLM has thought. I can measure the spectral properties of light from both a bulb and the sun. I can measure the dynamics that go with thought in a human. I can measure some dynamics in an LLM. From all we know, there are huge differences, not least that you can literally turn off an LLM, whereas every process but death in biology shows continued activity even when the organism “looks” off, What you haven’t shown me is that what the LLM does when it is on is “thinking”. Given that the dynamics are different, the substrate is different, and one can be fully turned off and the other cannot, why are these two things the same?
    - lern_too_spel 1mo ago
      > You haven’t proven an LLM has thought Give me any problem that previously required human thinking. Any. That can be solved by LLMs. All you have to do is provide a single counterexample. > not least that you can literally turn off an LLM, whereas every process but death in biology shows continued activity even when the organism “looks” off, There is no reasonable definition of thinking that requires that it can't be paused. > why are these two things the same? I said they aren't the same, just as a bulb isn't the same as a star. An LLM can think, just as a human brain can think. A bulb can produce light, just as a star can produce light.

altcognito 2mo ago

None of this is an explanation of what consciousness is, either physically, logically or philosophically. (Maybe some physically) Fundamentally it comes down to an objective decision about what that is. If you say it is “feelings” based on inputs and feedback mechanisms from the brain, then we can do the philosophical discussion around that. “If the claim is that consciousness is limited to those with a specific type of cell behaving in a given way” thats just a coping mechanism hoping to use a mechanical definition to shield you from the reality that eventually all of these inputs, outputs and feedback mechanisms can be reliably reproduced in a different form.

randomImmigrant 1mo ago
I’m baffled: how does the fact that each cell has an internal clock that continues to tick even when you take away all external signals not impact what consciousness is logically? If the time order driving behavior is driven by an internal timekeeper, that is logically relevant to the behavior you’re interrogating. If, on the other hand, all component systems depended on an external clock, that logically points to a completely different dynamic process. As for the philosophy of it all… it’s true I make no comment on it. I’d rather look at the physical substrate and see what it does, and compare it to behavior, than try to fit a philosophy that originated before we had such high resolution knowledge of the system. They are blind to these facts, just because they were written up too early. I utterly reject this doesn’t show you anything logically about consciousness. If I can show you that the molecular dynamics of each cell organize to anticipate the dawn, and do so even in constant darkness (and all this is well established.. there was a Nobel for the field in 2017) how is that not logically distinct from a system that is outside of regular time, needs to check a clock to locate itself in time, and then do whatever dynamics it does to solve the problem at hand? As for calling this a coping mechanism… that’s a bit rich coming from someone who seems to have very little idea of the molecular and cellular biology but seems to want to hold to the belief that we’ve solved consciousness with LLMs. We can both fling that accusation about. Seems more productive to compare the physical dynamics and see what’s different and what’s similar, no?
- altcognito 1mo ago