But the Chinese room argument is very flawed, at least if we assume that consciousness does in fact arise in the brain and not through some supernatural phenomenon.
Suppose we know the exact algorithm that gives rise to consciousness. The Chinese room argument states that if a person carries out the algorithm by hand, the person does not become consciousness. Checkmate atheists.
This is flawed because it is not the axons, synapses, neurotransmitters or voltage potentials within the brain that are conscious. Instead, it appears that consciousness arises when these computations are carried out in concert. Thus consciousness is not a physical object itself, it is an evolving pattern resulting from the continuous looping of the algorithm.
Furthermore, consciousness and intelligence are not the same thing. Intelligence is the ability to make predictions, even if it’s just a single-neuron on/off gate connected to a single sensory cell. Consciousness is likely the experience of being able to make predictions about our own behavior, a meta-intelligence resulting from an abundance of neurons and interconnections. There is likely no clear cutoff boundary of neural complexity where consciousness arises, below which no consciousness can exist. But it’s probably useful to imagine such a boundary.
Basically, what if thinking creatures are simply auto-correct on steroids (as Linus Tordvals put it). What’s unreasonable about treating intelligence as a matter of statistics, especially given that it’s such a powerful tool to model every other aspect of our universe?
Well that’s not my interpretation. Consciousness arises from understanding. True understanding. Not stimulus in- behavior out.
Consciousness is not a simple exchange or matching task. Which is what the Chinese room illustrates.
There is more to it.
The Chinese room is modern LLMs.
Human brains are altered by every stimulus. Physically they are constantly changing at the neuron level.
The way inhibitory neurons work … It does not work in a way that (at present) can be predicted very accurately beyond a single or small number of neurons.
As I like to say. Every moment the brain is updated biologically. Biological changes. Connections weakened, strengthened, created, destroyed.
This happens constantly.
You can’t use statistics to predict these kind of events.
Although the neuro definition of “consciousness” is debated. It is generally considered “awareness”.
It’s something that is a product of many processes in the brain.
And we haven’t even touched on brain occillations and how they impact cognitive functions. Brain occillations are heavily tied to consciousness/awareness. They synch up processes and regulate frequency of neuron firing.
They gatekeep stimuli effects as well.
The brain is so unbelievably complicated. Research on ERPs are the best we have for predicting some specific brain spikes of cognitive activities.
You may find the research on it to be less than where you think it is.
Neuroscience knowledge is far below what most people think it is at (I blame click bait articles).
However it’s still an interesting area so here is the wiki.
The thing is that we do not really know what consciousness is or how it arises. So I think we need to be careful when we decide how it does not arise, or what “true” consciousness is.
I think it is likely that consciousness emerges on the aggregate macro-level from processes that are simple on the micro-level. Such phenomena do lend themselves to be described or indeed understood best with statistics.
In particular, I think it’s a mistake to assume that consciousness can only arise by mimicking the exact functioning of a human brain. (Noting here that there is debate on whether other animals can be considered conscious with no clear cutoff or criteria). However I think that the criteria that you mentioned (continuous rewiring of neurons, oscillations of activity et.c.) could easily be added to an ML model, and I think those exact things will be added to ML models down the line.
-I think it is likely that consciousness emerges on the aggregate macro-level from processes that are simple on the micro-level. Such phenomena do lend themselves to be described or indeed understood best with statistics.
How’s that?
If it’s not defined and we have no way to measure the activity that would allow us to even create a model, how could statistics be used?
I don’t forsee the tech needed to record an entire brain’s electrical information including it’s constantly changing state, every neuron, and every connection, (all architecture), including it’s myelination, while the human is alive - happening any time in the foreseeable future.
Not only that. Then interpreting any statistical prediction in a real output of behavior or “experience”.
Not everything can be measured. An inability to measure something does not mean it’s not real and rooted in the material world.
We know enough to know that consciousness/awareness or any other definition you want to give it, and mental processing occurs in the brain.
We can’t measure it at a whole brain level . But we know that’s where it’s happening and that it’s a product of biological phenomena.
I’m sorry if this sounds rude but LLMs are not self updating systems. They are nothing like human processing. They don’t loop in the ways biology does. They don’t constantly change. They have fixed algorithms.
They can’t be. When parameters are too open with prediction models they just become nonsense.
This has been demonstrated many times.
Also consciousness in animals is supported by lots of research in neuroscience.
Even in the tiny flatworm.
It’s not unique in humans. And it appears to exist in animals.
The complexity would obviously vary based on biological limitations. But it appears to be, at least in part, a product of sensory processing.
Which is often why you find it being referred to as ,“awareness” or “self awareness”.
Awareness of self is necessary for any organism to distinguish itself from its environment and act accordingly. To be able to predict outcomes and act accordingly. To even know what can be consumed or mated with. Awareness of environment creates approach and avoidance emotions/behaviors.
Of course this is one of many theories regarding what consciousness is. But this one seems like a pretty solid description and explains why it would exist in animals.
But the Chinese room argument is very flawed, at least if we assume that consciousness does in fact arise in the brain and not through some supernatural phenomenon.
Suppose we know the exact algorithm that gives rise to consciousness. The Chinese room argument states that if a person carries out the algorithm by hand, the person does not become consciousness. Checkmate atheists.
This is flawed because it is not the axons, synapses, neurotransmitters or voltage potentials within the brain that are conscious. Instead, it appears that consciousness arises when these computations are carried out in concert. Thus consciousness is not a physical object itself, it is an evolving pattern resulting from the continuous looping of the algorithm.
Furthermore, consciousness and intelligence are not the same thing. Intelligence is the ability to make predictions, even if it’s just a single-neuron on/off gate connected to a single sensory cell. Consciousness is likely the experience of being able to make predictions about our own behavior, a meta-intelligence resulting from an abundance of neurons and interconnections. There is likely no clear cutoff boundary of neural complexity where consciousness arises, below which no consciousness can exist. But it’s probably useful to imagine such a boundary.
Basically, what if thinking creatures are simply auto-correct on steroids (as Linus Tordvals put it). What’s unreasonable about treating intelligence as a matter of statistics, especially given that it’s such a powerful tool to model every other aspect of our universe?
Well that’s not my interpretation. Consciousness arises from understanding. True understanding. Not stimulus in- behavior out.
Consciousness is not a simple exchange or matching task. Which is what the Chinese room illustrates.
There is more to it.
The Chinese room is modern LLMs.
Human brains are altered by every stimulus. Physically they are constantly changing at the neuron level.
The way inhibitory neurons work … It does not work in a way that (at present) can be predicted very accurately beyond a single or small number of neurons.
As I like to say. Every moment the brain is updated biologically. Biological changes. Connections weakened, strengthened, created, destroyed.
This happens constantly.
You can’t use statistics to predict these kind of events.
Although the neuro definition of “consciousness” is debated. It is generally considered “awareness”.
It’s something that is a product of many processes in the brain.
And we haven’t even touched on brain occillations and how they impact cognitive functions. Brain occillations are heavily tied to consciousness/awareness. They synch up processes and regulate frequency of neuron firing.
They gatekeep stimuli effects as well.
The brain is so unbelievably complicated. Research on ERPs are the best we have for predicting some specific brain spikes of cognitive activities.
You may find the research on it to be less than where you think it is.
Neuroscience knowledge is far below what most people think it is at (I blame click bait articles).
However it’s still an interesting area so here is the wiki.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event-related_potential
The thing is that we do not really know what consciousness is or how it arises. So I think we need to be careful when we decide how it does not arise, or what “true” consciousness is.
I think it is likely that consciousness emerges on the aggregate macro-level from processes that are simple on the micro-level. Such phenomena do lend themselves to be described or indeed understood best with statistics.
In particular, I think it’s a mistake to assume that consciousness can only arise by mimicking the exact functioning of a human brain. (Noting here that there is debate on whether other animals can be considered conscious with no clear cutoff or criteria). However I think that the criteria that you mentioned (continuous rewiring of neurons, oscillations of activity et.c.) could easily be added to an ML model, and I think those exact things will be added to ML models down the line.
-I think it is likely that consciousness emerges on the aggregate macro-level from processes that are simple on the micro-level. Such phenomena do lend themselves to be described or indeed understood best with statistics.
How’s that?
If it’s not defined and we have no way to measure the activity that would allow us to even create a model, how could statistics be used?
I don’t forsee the tech needed to record an entire brain’s electrical information including it’s constantly changing state, every neuron, and every connection, (all architecture), including it’s myelination, while the human is alive - happening any time in the foreseeable future.
Not only that. Then interpreting any statistical prediction in a real output of behavior or “experience”.
Not everything can be measured. An inability to measure something does not mean it’s not real and rooted in the material world.
We know enough to know that consciousness/awareness or any other definition you want to give it, and mental processing occurs in the brain.
We can’t measure it at a whole brain level . But we know that’s where it’s happening and that it’s a product of biological phenomena.
I’m sorry if this sounds rude but LLMs are not self updating systems. They are nothing like human processing. They don’t loop in the ways biology does. They don’t constantly change. They have fixed algorithms.
They can’t be. When parameters are too open with prediction models they just become nonsense.
This has been demonstrated many times.
Also consciousness in animals is supported by lots of research in neuroscience.
Even in the tiny flatworm.
It’s not unique in humans. And it appears to exist in animals.
The complexity would obviously vary based on biological limitations. But it appears to be, at least in part, a product of sensory processing.
Which is often why you find it being referred to as ,“awareness” or “self awareness”.
Awareness of self is necessary for any organism to distinguish itself from its environment and act accordingly. To be able to predict outcomes and act accordingly. To even know what can be consumed or mated with. Awareness of environment creates approach and avoidance emotions/behaviors.
Of course this is one of many theories regarding what consciousness is. But this one seems like a pretty solid description and explains why it would exist in animals.