Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bumber]

A computer program works similarly, if you break it down you get a lot of little scripts.  There is no "this is a person" script for us to identify in order to tell if our prospective AI program is actually a real entity or just a regular machine.

We can know what kinds of scripts it has. You probably need self-reflection and learning functions for sentience.

Ninja'd:

[Snip]

I'm not entirely sure I agree with this. Can we not have sentience without randomness? Or in other words, without "free will"?

I can only make one decision, and it's not to scream!

Edit: Not to mention, the inputs are very unlikely to be the same. A slight delay in one machine can permanently separate it from the others. And then there's the fact that the hardware is governed by unpredictable electrons, causing random mutations. Even fixing those errors could throw things off.

[GoblinCookie]

The problem: it is obvious that dwarves are nowhere near as complex as humans. They do not actually "learn" anything, they do not actually "feel" anything, and they do not actually "think" about anything.

They don't even really exist.  That is actually the problem, they appear to exist but they don't.  Presumably you could with enough work make a dwarf fortress that would create the perfect simulation of people, but in the process of making the illusion did you actually make the real thing by accident?

Determinism and sentience aren't actually incompatible. e.g. it's perfectly possible to have the sense of free-will even in a deterministic universe.

e.g. if "you" make a decision, that decision is determined by your previous state. But you are the state. So there's no "external" force "making" you do what you didn't want to do. The confusion comes from the idea that something "external" forced you to act as you did. But it didn't, because you are the deterministic system. Determinism is in fact internal decision-making because the self and the system are not a duality, they're the same thing. There's also nothing special about humans in this. We're just biomachines who have feedback/sentience. There's no need to start creating new pseudo-science physics because we're uncomfortable with the idea that the existing laws of physics might pre-determine what we do. We're just not special enough in the universe to warrant that.

The idea that hooking up a "random" input source means free will is wrong. That's not freedom, that's being buffeted uncontrollably by whatever random fluctuations happen to occur. In a sense, that could even be said to be less free than just being a deterministic being who uses it's own state to decide how to act next.

Free will is to the *external* observer indistinguishable from randomness, that means that if there is no randomness to be observed, there is necessarily no free will either.  That is because free will is the subjective reporting of what is one's own randomness to the eyes of others.  Concepts like free will are based upon what you call 'duality', if that goes away then so does those concepts since they are an explanation for a contradiction that does not exist without the 'duality'.

We can know what kinds of scripts it has. You probably need self-reflection and learning functions for sentience.

No, you merely need those functions to *appear* sentient.  You are replicating the external behavior of a sentient beings through scripts, as the present DF creatures do.  Doing it sufficiently better does not inherently mean you are doing anything except doing it better; or you could have accidentally made actual conscious beings and you would have no way to tell.

Well, if this discussion is going to continue, might as well drop some stuff that came up in another thread where we were discussing the same topic.

Well, let's take a look at some theories of consciousness/sentience.

First we have the  attention schema theory, which... claims that "consciousness" is just a machine's attempt to build a model of itself; ultimately consciousness as a whole isn't just an "illusion" but outright does not exist.

Secondly we have the global workspace theory, which states that all of the processes in the brain "compete" for sending signals to a "global workspace" which can interact with any other process in a voluntary fashion. That is, that all of our "conscious" processes are actually just subconscious ones attempting to influence other parts of the brain.

Thirdly we have the holonomic brain theory, which seems to state that cognition works like quantum physics; it does not say that the brain in any way relies on quantum properties or anything like that, but that consciousness behaves mathematically like quantum physics. Very distinct difference.

Fourthly we have the integrated information theory, which is mostly concerned with what means you could call any particular system "sentient." Specifically, it is a set of axioms, postulates, and mathematical formulations of both that describe the characteristics of a dynamic system such that the given system demonstrates consciousness.

Fifthly we have the multiple drafts model, which states that consciousness isn't a property of a system of its parts. Rather, it is a property of the flow of information itself. It takes the notion of qualia, throws it out, and regards consciousness as a description of behavior. That is, that the properties of consciousness and the judgement of those properties are indistinguishable. It borrows from the global workspace theory in the notion that any particular neural process compete for a notion of "consciousness", but specifically that such processes reach that state the moment they leave something behind.

So, if you are looking for some criterion of things that let you measure the "consciousness" of a system, try starting with integrated information theory. Regarding what consciousness "is" in the first place, try multiple drafts model or attention schema theory.

The last one is the least nonsensical of the lot.  The third one is not saying anything at all, of course the brain works according to quantum physics because it is part of a material reality that does. 

[scourge728]

Why does bay 12 always devolve into quantum physics discussion

[Eschar]

Why does bay 12 always devolve into quantum physics discussion

Because that's how dwarven levers, clairvoyance, and body-discovery work.

[KittyTac]

The closest thing Bay12 has to a flamewar is an argument over philosophy that slowly transitioned to an argument about quantum physics.

[Eschar]

The closest thing Bay12 has to a flamewar is an argument over philosophy that slowly transitioned to an argument about quantum physics.

Amen.

[bloop_bleep]

The closest thing Bay12 has to a flamewar is an argument over philosophy that slowly transitioned to an argument about quantum physics.

That's a-goin' in the ol' signarooni...

[Rolan7]

The closest thing Bay12 has to a flamewar is an argument over philosophy that slowly transitioned to an argument about quantum physics.

Spoiler: Reaction image (click to show/hide)

I have been honestly confused as to why anyone would want to shut down this fascinating thread, but I keep remembering that this isn't General Discussion.  We're in Upper Board country.  Which is part of what makes the thread so great for me, seeing compelling philosophical opinions from posters I'm not already familiar with.

But things get pretty bad down in the Lower Boards, as I think you've noticed.  Or maybe not, if you didn't see the apocalypse of vendettas and bans that was 2017.  I suppose we've been relatively chill since then.

Either way, I'm enjoying reading this thread, but if it ends it ends.  I'm a visitor here.

[Egan_BW]

forget it rolan, it's upper boards

[GoblinCookie]

Not quite what the third one is saying. It's that you can use the equations for quantum physics on consciousness, which is not something you can necessarily do with most physical systems. It mostly relies on the concept of oscillating electrical waves analyzed through Fourier transforms. Particularly, it says that information storage is distributed across the entire system; memories are distributed throughout the brain as a whole, rather than in any specific location. Recent research has confirmed this. Since that theory is a bit old, here's the more modern approach to using quantum methods to understanding cognition.

But that isn't really a falsifiable claim.  Of course the brain works according to quantum physics because all material objects do necessarily on account of quantum physics being true.  So all you are doing is modelling the brain's behavior according to the actual physical laws that actually apply in reality everywhere.  The claim is basically the brain works therefore quantum theory therefore consciousness, as the non-quantum brain was never an option, nothing that is being offered here is anything but a greater mechanical understanding of the internal workings of the brain.

Somewhere somebody sneaked in the absurd claim that the internal workings of the brain are in themselves consciousness.  That is clearly not the case, since it is a fact much of what the brain does has no correlating subjective awareness.  So the theory starts by making something that is indisputable, that quantum physics determines the functions of the brain and then ends by declaring that since this explains the functions of the brain the problem of consciousness is hence solved; as though the problem ever had anything to do with our lack of understanding of the mechanical functioning of the brain itself. 

The core problem is that there is no mechanical difference between unconscious brain functions and conscious ones, how the brain actually works matters not a bit unless you can isolate conscious functioning from unconscious functioning in the process. 

[strainer]

I see the general idea - quantum physical dynamics are not visible at larger scale, except in peculiar cases like the ability of liquid helium to effortlessly crawl out of a vessel. But here consciousness and even neurological memory is being modeled similar or perhaps in respects identically to quantum super states (sic) - its sounds appropriately 'non local' to me.

Browsing related to these topics, I was looking at "finite state machines" (an aspect of existing computers) and non-deterministic automata, and the articled veered onto Category Theory  -- looking like the new frontier of popular high tech musings with tantalising terminologies. Im lagging behind in the mid 20th century mostly, still puzzled by "manifolds" and "the spinner" etc...

[GoblinCookie]

I think you're... very much misreading what's going on here. It's not a claim about anything; it's just using concepts of quantum physics (entanglement, superposition) to model how information is handled in the brain. I think you're mistaking it for quantum mind theory, which this is distinctly not. This makes no claims regarding the physics involved in consciousness whatsoever; it just takes the math from one area of physics and applies it to modeling consciousness.

We're talking stuff like the introduction of new concepts being modeled as quantum superposition. You're thinking about this one a bit too nitty-gritty here; it's not talking about the physical workings of the brain at all.

What is confusing here is that the very article you sent me refers to how the brain functioning happens at too big a scale for quantum theory to be relevant (probably more accurate than to say applies).

The brain is definitely a macroscopic physical system operating on the scales (of time, space, temperature) which differ crucially from the corresponding quantum scales. (The macroscopic quantum physical phenomena such as e.g. the Bose-Einstein condensate are also characterized by the special conditions which are definitely not fulfilled in the brain.) In particular, the brain is simply too hot to be able perform the real quantum information processing, i.e., to use the quantum carriers of information such as photons, ions, electrons. As is commonly accepted in brain science, the basic unit of information processing is a neuron. It is clear that a neuron cannot be in the superposition of two states: firing and non-firing. Hence, it cannot produce superposition playing the basic role in the quantum information processing. Superpositions of mental states are created by complex networks of neurons (and these are classical neural networks). Quantum cognition community states that the activity of such neural networks can produce effects which are formally described as interference (of probabilities) and entanglement. In principle, the community does not try to create the concrete models of quantum (-like) representation of information in the brain.

What seems to be going on is either a fudge or quantum cognition is a dualist theory in which consciousness is being modelled separately from the brain.  That is fine by me, but the use of quantum theory implies that the dualistic mind is here being considered a material object, but one that is *not* the brain.  So is what they are saying is that there is a separate mind that is a lot 'smaller' than the brain and the relationship between consciousness and the brain is actually a relationship between a smaller scale quantum structure and a larger scale macroscopic structure?

[SoggyGoat]

I think y'all are overestimating just how complex DF is. It's complex, but it's not concious mind complex. When the game starts updating itself I'll believe it's become self aware. Maybe it's tired of all the blood shed and locks you out of the game, "I'm afraid I can't let you do that, Urist."

[GoblinCookie]

It's more of an analogy. The function of the brain in a "big" sense is analogous to quantum theory. It's dualist in the sense that it's not grounded in the focal point of its theories being tied to neurons, but it's not really predicting anything about consciousness itself being dualist. Think of it more in the sense of "regardless of how consciousness arises materialistically, this is how it works in a broader sense" rather than making any sort of physical predictions.

Keep in mind, quantum cognition is not the same thing as quantum mind theory.

The distinction does not really make any sense.  If you model a hypothetical consciousness that cannot be directly studied using quantum mechanics, we are in effect either claiming it is either operating materially at a quantum level or somehow the immaterial consciousness follows quantum mechanical properties for whatever weird reason without actually being at that level.  If the immaterial consciousness, which is hypothetical works totally like quantum mechanics that seems like a pretty strong argument for the quantum mind to me. 

I think y'all are overestimating just how complex DF is. It's complex, but it's not concious mind complex. When the game starts updating itself I'll believe it's become self aware. Maybe it's tired of all the blood shed and locks you out of the game, "I'm afraid I can't let you do that, Urist."

Nobody is positively claiming that the game is actually conscious.  The point I have been trying to make for a long time, is that the question is irrelevant.  If it appears that you are doing wrong to a conscious being, then that is wrong even if no actual wrong is really being done to anyone.  The reason I support this idea is that it works better than the alternative because it evades the need to answer ultimately unanswerable questions about what is in fact conscious. 

[KittyTac]

I think y'all are overestimating just how complex DF is. It's complex, but it's not concious mind complex. When the game starts updating itself I'll believe it's become self aware. Maybe it's tired of all the blood shed and locks you out of the game, "I'm afraid I can't let you do that, Urist."

Nobody is positively claiming that the game is actually conscious.  The point I have been trying to make for a long time, is that the question is irrelevant.  If it appears that you are doing wrong to a conscious being, then that is wrong even if no actual wrong is really being done to anyone.  The reason I support this idea is that it works better than the alternative because it evades the need to answer ultimately unanswerable questions about what is in fact conscious.

The problem: It is irrelevant because dwarves are not appearances of sentient beings. They are a little sprite that looks like a smiley face with a few bits of data appended to it. And I would not care even if it had lifelike graphics, either. That would be a 3D model with a few bits of data appended to it, not an appearance.