It's not like this viewpoint isn't known, it's just not accepted because it makes no sense. Consciousness really is unexplainable by what we know of the physical world, it's constancy is just odd. When were talking about the most advanced organ in the history of the universe, is it really a leap to consider that new physics would be involved?
> Consciousness really is unexplainable by what we know of the physical world, it's constancy is just odd.
Consciousness is just you adapting to the world. You need consciousness in order to live in the world, with all its complexity and dangers. The brain has nothing magical about it, it is made of the same kind of atoms as anything else. What is happening is just perception, judgement and action in a loop, each supported by neural networks. Every moment, a full perception-judgement-action loop plays itself. It generates a stream of experience and emotion (which is just the value or reward intuited in certain situations and actions). This internal stream of perceptions and judgements is consciousness.
Amazing that every sentence you wrote is objectively wrong. I'm bored so lets go through them:
1. Consciousness is just you adapting to the world
Since when did adaptation require consciousness? We're not even sure most animals are conscious, but they adapt to their conditions just fine.
2. You need consciousness in order to live in the world, with all its complexity and dangers.
Where does this need come from? A self driving car could navigate the world without being conscious at all.
3. The brain has nothing magical about it, it is made of the same kind of atoms as anything else.
Didn't say it was magical, but saying it's made of atoms moves this conversation along by zero percent. It's like saying computers are just a bunch of transistors, disregarding the millions of lines of code required for it to even just take my key inputs as I type out this pointless comment, and turn them into glyphs on the screen.
4. What is happening is just perception, judgement and action in a loop, each supported by neural networks.
Where has this come from? We don't even know what goes on inside one neuron, let alone the billions of networks.
5. Every moment, a full perception-judgement-action loop plays itself.
So what happens if I close my eyes and cover my ears? Now I am unable to perceive the world around me, and break the 'loop'. It's not like I shut down. I don't think you've thought this through.
6. It generates a stream of experience and emotion (which is just the value or reward intuited in certain situations and actions).
Yes certain chemicals are released in the brain depending on your actions, but of course it's all chemicals; it's a biological system.
7. This internal stream of perceptions and judgements is consciousness.
No, this is just a function of part of the brain, which we can be aware of through consciousness.
All in all, there is completely no depth to your explanation at all. The fact we haven't got a definite blueprint for the brain, does really mean it is currently beyond our understanding. Neuroscientists have died of old age trying to figure out the secrets of the brain, and it's because they were looking a bit more in-depth that it's just a bunch of atoms.
> Amazing that every sentence you wrote is objectively wrong.
As I mentioned in my original post, most people, like yourself, will reject these very non-intuitive conclusions, probably indefinitely.
Regardless, I'll point out that many of your counter-arguments to the parent comment are wrong (not saying I agree with all of his description, either).
> A self driving car could navigate the world without being conscious at all.
How do you define conscious? 'Feeling' just like you do? I think many modern AI's could be said to experience a different, simple form of consciousness as they process inputs. Granted, it's not useful unless you have an AI that is also more generally self-aware and communicates with us. But regardless, your hyperbolic example equated driving a car on streets with "living in the world," which you were replying to (which is an objectively ridiculous comparison).
> We don't even know what goes on inside one neuron, let alone the billions of networks.
Considering what NN-based deep learning has accomplished with relatively small numbers of simulated neurons with relatively simple models, I think it's safe to say that a single neuron is not as complex and mysterious as you may think.
> No, this is just a function of part of the brain, which we can be aware of through consciousness.
This is your idea of an objective truth? This is your opinion, which, someday, we may be able to prove is objectively wrong.
> How do you define conscious? 'Feeling' just like you do? I think many modern AI's could be said to experience a different, simple form of consciousness as they process inputs.
What an odd comment. So because we performed some clever math to make some basic neural nets, our AI is now experiencing a form of consciousness? This is just better algorithms that are more capable of fooling you, still running on the same microprocessor as before. Consciousness is described as a state of constant awareness, not of performing the act of perception itself.
> I think it's safe to say that a single neuron is not as complex and mysterious as you may think.
Not sure if trolling or not? You should look up protein folding and protein machines at some point, basically there is a LOT going on at the nano scale that we still don't fully understand. Additionally tell any neuroscientist that the brains neural networks are the same as our computer version of NNs and you'll be laughed out the room.
And perception is a function of the brain yes, how is that an opinion? Your arguments really make no sense.
> What an odd comment. So because we performed some clever math to make some basic neural nets, our AI is now experiencing a form of consciousness?
Yes, you keep re-hashing this point which makes it clear that you still (and probably always will) believe that consciousness is something 'more' -- something mystical and unexplainable -- because it's so difficult and non-intuitive to wrap your head around (as it is for most people).
> Not sure if trolling or not? You should look up protein folding and protein machines at some point, basically there is a LOT going on at the nano scale that we still don't fully understand. Additionally tell any neuroscientist that the brains neural networks are the same as our computer version of NNs and you'll be laughed out the room.
Who said our models are the same? You're missing the point. Re-read the paragraph you're replying to, and look what we've accomplished with just dozens of simplified neurons. The point is that the details beneath our high level understanding of neurons (basically just spiking and activation) are likely not important to consciousness. Just like a high school physics student can usefully understand the mechanics of rubber balls without fully grasping the chemistry at the atomic level.
> And perception is a function of the brain yes, how is that an opinion? Your arguments really make no sense.
Here's the context, to remind you:
> Amazing that every sentence you wrote is objectively wrong.
>> 7. This internal stream of perceptions and judgements is consciousness.
> No, this is just a function of part of the brain, which we can be aware of through consciousness.
Just want to feel like you won an argument today? No need to turn this into a troll battle -- I'm actually trying to explain my viewpoint to you, if you're interested.
You are arguing that by performing the algorithms for perception, one is conscious. I am arguing that algorithms alone aren't enough, and that yes conscious is still some unexplained physics that takes the results of those perception algorithms in our brains and generates our awareness and experience from them.
I am not trying to win any argument, but it does annoy me when people argue with incomplete information and try to trivialize consciousness, because of what you know about some basic neural nets in computer science. Look at this video released last month, where scientists show a model for just 3 neurons [1], which they think is super important to consciousness. Only 3 neurons out of billions. There is just so much we still don't know.
> You are arguing that by performing the algorithms for perception, one is conscious.
Pretty close -- my argument is that for an entity to be intelligent, self-aware, and perceptive, it must also believe itself to be conscious, in the sense that it believes it has "experiences." Furthermore, and most importantly, if an entity believes it is conscious, it is conscious.
> I am arguing that algorithms alone aren't enough, and that yes conscious is still some unexplained physics that takes the results of those perception algorithms in our brains and generates our awareness and experience from them.
There's so much undiscovered truth about physics that it's always possible there are important, still completely unknown properties of physics that play specific roles in consciousness. However, that's mostly speculation (like the article) and there's no real evidence for it, whereas it's becoming increasingly intuitive to some AI researchers and myself that such a 'Holy Grail of Physics' yet-to-be-discovered property does not seem to be necessary.
Many AI experts presume that by scaling and adding complexity to models that are pretty similar to today's AI models, we can achieve general intelligence. I think that this logically requires the intelligent agent to believe itself to be conscious, and therefore be just as conscious as any human, albeit in a different way. The combination of intelligence and self-awareness are logically incompatible with a lack of consciousness.
Your post is useful to me. It shows me what I am going against. I need to refine my ideas, that's why I am debating them.
The difference between people and cars is that people are self replicators, cars need people to create them. So people HAVE to fend for themselves, cars don't. Self replicators have needs - energy, nutrients, cooperation with other agents - and fulfilling these needs require complex actions in a dynamic environment - a role taken by the nervous system.
When I say that consciousness is the thing that protects the body, I say it thinking about evolution, competition and cooperation with other agents for survival and reproduction. Without the ability to adapt, we can't fend for ourselves, and nothing else will protect us, unlike cars.
When you go up from unicellular organisms to mammals, life becomes much more complex and the "ability to adapt" has to become much more powerful, but even cells sense their environment and adapt to situations, even exchange chemical signals between them (communicate), cooperate, fight and so on. So they have a sliver of consciousness.
At some point we will fully automate the creation process. Meaning robots will be able to build robots. I'm still not seeing the need for consciousness here, this is just more advanced mechanical motions and cleverer math.
Just because cells adapt doesn't mean they are conscious. They are a bag of chemicals that react to thermal changes and kinetic energy. We have observed that protein nanomachines simply react to changes in their immediate environment [1]. There is no thought process or consciousness required, they are just static machines that take in inputs and perform the same process each time.
I think you are conflating the human survival instinct with a need to be conscious. But this is just an inevitable result of evolution; surviving longer means you have more chance of reproducing.
"Consciousness really is unexplainable by what we know of the physical world"
maybe. or perhaps it simply has a mystical privilege. there do seem to be a fair number of terms and concepts (like 'qualia') that hold sway over some people's discussion, but themselves seem questionable.
Qualia and the hard problem are just dualism disguised. Dualism is rife with contradictions and has been largely abandoned, but now it's trying to gain acceptance again under new names. The idea that there is something special about internal states of brains, that can't be explained away, puts mental states on a special place, apart from everything else - a dualism.
