this post was submitted on 23 Dec 2023
194 points (86.7% liked)
Technology
60219 readers
2799 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Well no one can prove they have a mind to anyone other than themselves.
And to extend that, there's obviously a way for electrical information processing to give rise to consciousness. And no one knows how that could be possible.
Meaning something like a true, alien AI would probably conclude that we are not conscious and instead are just very intelligent meat computers.
So, while there's no reason to believe that current AI models could result in consciousness, no one can prove the opposite either.
I think the argument currently boils down to, "we understand how AI models work, but we don't understand how our minds work. Therefore, ???, and so no consciousness for AI"
“No brain?”
“Oh, there’s a brain all right. It’s just that the brain is made out of meat! That’s what I’ve been trying to tell you.”
“So … what does the thinking?”
“You’re not understanding, are you? You’re refusing to deal with what I’m telling you. The brain does the thinking. The meat.”
“Thinking meat! You’re asking me to believe in thinking meat!”*
Mammalian intelligence is based on repurposing spatial mapping circuitry but that's not consciousness itself, that is, the Miller Number: 7+-2 things we can keep in conscious at the same time. That sense of time of space has a very specific quality to its qualias, they're all, well, spacious. That thing as "just the room, no map in it" is also part of the Buddhist Jhanas ("boundless empty space"), but there's plenty of stuff going on in the mind that isn't part of that -- say, the pure impression of "bright" when your SO dares open the window blinds does not have a navigational "bright from the window which is in that direction" to it, that's an additional layer, a where, on top of the primitive what.
My best inference is that the function of consciousness is to flexibly make connections between different parts of the whole, and that on the level of learning / writing memory instead of automatic response: It is, in fact, possible to avoid running into a lamppost without being conscious of it, been there, done that, the let's call it motor cortex first acting and then making me conscious, as if to say "have I been a good boy?". That is it's actually a quite passive process, being thrown left and right by systems wanting to do some connection, and shouldn't be equated with will at all.
That's semantics. My major objection to that kind of definition is that it knows no bound and distinction: Where do you stop assuming consciousness? Electrons are reacting to, influencing, and interacting with other electrons, is that also a form of consciousness? One could say so, but then everything is conscious which is the same thing as saying as nothing is conscious because without anything to delineate, terms are meaningless. I prefer language such as that what you call "body and eye consciousness" has agentive properties, that it can learn, that it generally wants to cooperate and be of service to the whole, such things. Lumping it up with consciousness risks confusing interpretations of messages of the thing (which is all we're ever conscious of) for the thing itself.
What was happening then is that I was using the way from home to the supermarket to think about code, with ample trust in mind so that I did not fear the lamppost. What good would have keeping my consciousness on the external world have done? The body/eye did not need integrative oversight, while my modelling mind very much could use a helping hand. Imposing it on the former and denying it to the latter would've been inflicting violence on myself.
Be careful to not moralise around "distraction". Bluntly said when your teacher chided you for day-dreaming you probably weren't distracted you were thinking about something more pertinent to your immediate development than calculus. Where discipline in directing consciousness comes into play is keeping your mind free from neurosis, within parameters in which you use your faculties according to their nature, as well as self-conditioning, e.g. if you're addicted to potato chips, make sure that a) you don't deny yourself potato chips and b) eat. every. potato. chip. with. full. consciousness. That's to connect the act of eating up those chips to all the negative opinions you have about your behaviour, instead of it being only connected to something maladaptive. Scientifically proven and neurologically explained that and how that works, btw. In that sense "distraction" is "false, incomplete, sense of comfort".
The first five are basically one, in the sense that a blind or deaf person is not fundamentally less of a human than the rest of us. The model also misses some stuff, e.g. mere touch doesn't include proprioception or sense of balance and if you read it as if it did ("body sense") then why distinguish touch from e.g. sense of taste. Seventh I'd say is a subsystem (and so pervasive that the Stoics allow for both preferred and unpreferred indifferents -- yes you can prefer pudding over gruel or the other way round just don't think it's a virtue), eighth is a stage of development, what you get when everything aligns well. The impression of a well-lubed machine.
I generally have no real idea of where to put the line. This stuff here might help, anything less than a T3 system can't have experience of mind (they can't learn to learn, which requires feeding back information about the changes in mind (for lack of better term) into the mind), OTOH that doesn't mean that all T3 systems are actually integrating different sources, or balancing them: If you only ever were conscious of one aspect, there could be no conflict or interaction with another aspect, and thus consciousness would serve no role (and not evolve in the first place). It's a matter of a required number of subsystems needing coordinating, and that coordinating itself having a necessary level of adaptiveness, be T3. Also I can authoritatively say that the human mind is not made to think about that kind of stuff. It's all maps and models, direct knowledge fails I'm not sure the territory can even understand the question. Look, a squirrel!
In principle subsystems that aren't awareness can also be T3 systems, I suspect that at least from the motor cortex, mine does seem to have gotten more effective at learning from moment to moment, meaning it learned how to learn better and that's T3. At least I think it's not just me learning to not micro-manage it as much, it's very hard to be sure about any of this, too many intersecting possibilities.
From the cybernetic/information theory side we don't really know how these kinds of systems work in the first place, we're barely getting started understanding T2 systems. All the AI tech we have is basically ways to breed fruit flies to fly left or right when seeing certain patterns, with enough computing power thrown at it to look impressive. We already had that kind of tech in the 50s (first implementations 54 for genetic algorithms, 57 for the perceptron), of course less impressive.
Directly attached to the muscles there's tension sensors and a simple feedback controller, in essence you can set a set-point like with a thermostat and the feedback loop will keep the muscle at a certain length. Those are then wired up into groups (not rarely overlapping ones) using further feedback loops, that's roughly speaking the Chinese muscle-tendon lines, turning "lengthen/shorten this muscle" into "open up your hand, the elbow joint, and front of the shoulder", a higher-level movement that's generally speaking bio-mechanically sound (see six harmony movement), using advantageous levers etc. It's all not terribly complicated but is perfectly capable of holding a posture stable against (not too major) interference, it can balance you perfectly on one leg with closed eyes (if you manage to not micro-manage) with an unchanging set of set-points, the actual learning magic happens in the motor cortex (learning how to set the right set-points to achieve a certain posture or succession of postures (ie. complex movement)), which also projects the body's map into the rest of the brain.
It's what Anarchists call hierarchical realism: We all know the multitude of failure points and issues hierarchical organisations have but often the first reaction people have when being told about any horizontal organisational structure is "that can never work, there needs to be someone in charge" as opposed to "that looks interesting, what are the specific points that we need to be aware of to make this not collapse" -- as if someone was in charge at the grill party last weekend, as if all of the horizontal organisation we're embedded in day to day wasn't actually real, as if order would imply hierarchy.
If you're looking for a systems science textbook there's Mobus and Kalton, "Principles of Systems Science", written for a general audience -- academic, yes, but they're not front-loading it with maths so it's suitable for liberal arts students (SCNR).
Back in the days the genome was called "the ancestors" and revered for all the useful information it hands us. It's usually quite abstract, it can after all not anticipate our concrete circumstances. Evolution also isn't random (at least if you ask physiologists): If left to mere chemistry there'd be a disastrously high error rate in DNA transcription, corrective proteins bring that down to practically zero, and then after that is done randomness is re-introduced, apparently in a rather strategic way, to direct adaptiveness: If a bird doesn't get enough nectar it probably doesn't make sense to mess around with mitochondrial DNA, what you want to evolve is the beak shape. Evolution seems to be erm evolved enough to be that strategic, maybe not in all aspects, but in the really important ones (important for fitness, that is).
Hey I'm glad meeting a mind that isn't stuck on either side. Too many esoteric tea-bag swingers on the one side and armchair theorists on the other.
Here's a complexity theory paper talking about anarchy.
Maybe more fruitfully and approachable, from the Anarchist perspective: Anark has a bit about cybernetic underpinnings of Anarchism included here, thats's part 2 in a series also going into the group/individual theoretical divide in anarchist theory, the first one goes into the nature of the beast and the third one into how to kill it.
Again Anark, less theoretical but instead going over how and why the Russian and Chinese revolutions failed there's his the state is counter-revolutionary series, also available as text. But oh boy is everything he ever does long.