[HN Gopher] What is it like to have a brain? Ways of looking at ... ___________________________________________________________________ What is it like to have a brain? Ways of looking at consciousness Author : Hooke Score : 80 points Date : 2022-10-11 20:48 UTC (3 days ago) (HTM) web link (lareviewofbooks.org) (TXT) w3m dump (lareviewofbooks.org) | seydor wrote: | It's time to upgrade this folk philosophy of mind and its | obsession with ever-elusive "consciousness" with theories of | intelligence build on neuroscientific, cellular and developmental | underpinnings. | meroes wrote: | intelligence is not the target I take it. The target is self- | experience/qualia | seydor wrote: | intelligence creates and experiences all that | agumonkey wrote: | Most of the time "intelligence" lags behind experience, I | doubt it's a superset. | lifefeed wrote: | Aeon just had a great article on the consciousness, "Seeing and | somethingness" https://aeon.co/essays/how-blindsight-answers-the- | hard-probl... | | It argues that consciousness evolved out of sensation, where we | developed an "inner self" to predict how sensations would affect | us, and it's that inner self that became our conscious. | | Don't miss out on the comments section, the author answers a lot | of question in there. | jiggywiggy wrote: | These theories just dont' even try to prove that the brain | creates consciousness. They just assume it's the case. | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | Like Dennett's book "Consciousness Explained", the Aeon article | falls into the category of explaining what we are conscious | _of_ , not how it is possible to be conscious of anything at | all. It does not really tackle Chalmers "hard problem of | consciousness", despite the subtitle. | gjm11 wrote: | I would be interested in your response to the following | thought experiment: | | After years of heroic work and ingenious insights, along with | a lot of technological progress, we "solve" the "easy" | problem of consciousness in the following (I admit | implausibly in any foreseeable future) strong sense: | | (Note: I'm going into quite a lot of detail because I think | that when people say things like "understanding how the | machinery of consciousness works would not tell us anything | about how it is possible to be truly conscious of anything at | all" they are commonly underestimating what it would actually | mean to understand how the machinery of consciousness works.) | | 1. There is a scanning device. You can strap yourself into | this for half an hour, during which time it shows you images, | plays you sounds, asks you to think particular kinds of | thoughts, etc., all the while watching all your neurons, how | they connect, which ones fire when under what circumstances, | etc. It tries to model your peripheral as well as central | nervous system, so it has a pretty good model of how all the | bits of your body connect to your brain, and of how those | bits of body actually operate. | | 2. There is a simulator. It can, in something approximating | real time, pretty much duplicate the operation of a brain | that has been scanned using the scanning device. It also has | enough simulation of the body the brain's part of that it can | e.g. provide the simulated brain with fairly realistic | sensory inputs, and respond fairly realistically to its motor | outputs. There's a UI that lets you see and hear what the | simulated person is doing. | | 3. Researchers have figured out pretty much everything about | the architecture of the brain, and it turns out to be | reasonably modular, and they've built into the simulator a UI | for looking at the structure, so that you can take a running | simulation and explore it top-down or bottom-up or middle- | out, either from the point of view of brain structure or that | of cognition, perception, etc. | | 4. So, for instance, you can do the following. Inside the | simulation, arrange for something fairly striking to happen | to the simulated person. E.g., they're having a conversation | with a friend, and the friend suddenly kicks them painfully | in the shin. Some time passes and then (still, for the | avoidance of doubt, in the simulation) they are asked about | that experience, and they say (as the "real" person would) | things like "I felt a sharp pain in my leg, and I felt | surprised and also a bit betrayed. I trust that person less | now." And you can watch the simulation at whatever level of | abstraction you like, and observe the brain mechanisms that | make all that happen. E.g., when they get kicked you can see | the flow of neuron-activation from the place that's kicked, | up the spinal cord, into the brain; the system can tell you " | _these_ neurons are active whenever the subject feels | physical pain, and sometimes when they feel emotional | distress, and sometimes when they remember being in pain " | and " _this_ cascade of visual processing is identifying the | face in front of them as that of Joe Blorfle, and you can see | here how _these_ neurons associated with Joe Blorfle are | firing while the conversation is happening, and when the pain | happens you can see how _these_ connections between the Joe | Blorfle neurons and the pain neurons get strengthened a bit, | and later on when the subject is asked about Joe Blorfle and | the Joe Blorfle neurons fire, so do the pain ones. And you | can see _this_ big chunk of neural machinery here is making | records of what happened so that the subject can remember it | later; here 's how the order in which things happen is | represented, and here's how memories get linked up to the | people and things and experiences involved, etc. And when | he's asked about Joe Blorfle, you can see _these_ bits of | language-processing brain tissue are active. These bits here | are taking input from the ears and identifying syllable | boundaries, and these bits are identifying good candidates | for the syllable being heard right now, and these other bits | are linking together nearby syllables looking for plausible | words, with plausibility being influenced by what notions the | subject is attending to, and these other bits are putting | together something that turns out to be rather like a parse | tree, and, and, and ... ". | | 5. That is: the linkage -- at least in terms of actual | physical goings-on within the brain -- between being kicked | in the shin by Joe Blorfle on Thursday, and expressing | resentment when asked about Joe Blorfle on Saturday, is being | accurately simulated, and the structure of what's being | simulated is understood well enough that you can see its | "moving parts" at higher or lower levels of abstraction. | | OK, so that's the scenario. I reiterate that it would be | wildly optimistic to expect anything like this any time soon, | but so far as I know nothing in it is impossible in | principle. | | Question 1: Do you agree that something along these lines is | possible in principle? | | [EDITED to add:] For the avoidance of doubt, of course it | might well turn out that some of the analysis has to be done | in terms not of particular neural "circuits" but e.g. of | particular patterns of neural activation. (Consider a | computer running a chess-playing program. You can't point to | any part of its hardware and say "that bit is computing king | safety", but you _can_ explain what processes it goes through | that compute king safety and how they relate to the hardware | and its states. Similar things may happen in the brain. Or | very different things that likewise mean that particular bits | of computation aren 't always done by specific bits of brain | "hardware".) | | Question 2: If it happened, would you think there is still a | "hard problem" left unsolved? | | Question 3: If you think there _would_ still be a "hard | problem" left unsolved, is that because you think someone in | this scenario could imagine all the machinery revealed by the | simulator operating perfectly without any actual qualia? | | (My answers, for reference: I think this is possible in | principle. I think there would be no "hard problem" left, | which makes me disinclined to believe that even now there is | a "hard problem" that's as completely separate from the | "easy" problem of "just" explaining how everything works as | e.g. Chalmers suggests. I think that anyone who thinks they | can imagine all the processes that give rise to (e.g.) a | philosopher saying "I know how it feels for me to experience | being kicked in the shin, and I think no mere simulation | could truly capture that", in full detail, without any qualia | being present, is simply fooling themselves, in the same way | as I would be fooling myself if I said "I can imagine my | computer doing all the things it does, exactly as it does, | without any actual electrons being present".) | petemir wrote: | One thing that surprised me about 'A Thousand Brains: A New | Theory of Intelligence' by Jeff Hawkins was how many | different types of computer simulations currently exist for | approximations and parts to your experiment's steps. | layer8 wrote: | People fundamentally disagree about whether there is anything | besides the "of". My personal introspection tells mere there | is only "of", because what I perceive as my consciousness, | is, by virtue of being a perception, in the end just an "of" | itself. There is some sort of recursivity involved in the | whole construct of consciousness, which makes it hard to get | a grasp on. In some sense, consciousness is just that, being | the perceptor and the perceptee at the same time. This | recursitivity or fixedpointness will probably be key to a | precise understanding of the whole shebang. | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | The argument you're making is just eliding the "hard | problem". | | We can trivially imagine an electronic circuit that | registers different current levels when exposed to red or | blue light. Nobody (that I'm aware of) suggests that there | is an experience within the electronic circuit, despite the | fact that it "senses" different frequencies in the | electromagnetic spectrum. The circuit is qualia-free. | | You, on the other hand, are qualia-full. Whether the | experience you have when a red object is in front of you | derives purely from your optical sensory apparatus, or if | it derives from a self-reflective awareness that your brain | is dealing with "red" really makes no difference to the | central point: _you have an experience_. | | We have no explanation for how there can be | experiences/qualia, and possibly, because they are either | extremely or completely subjective, we may never any means | of studying their existence. | zozbot234 wrote: | The thing about experiences/qualia is that they aren't | just subjective, but momentary. Any sense of permanence, | continuing identity or indeed of experiences being | "about" something in particular is ultimately linked to | our memory, which is not part of the "hard problem" | itself; it fits solidly within the structure of causal | relations we usually call "reality", or just "the | physical universe". So the hard problem is hard, but it's | also very tightly constrained; it "only" has to explain | tiny fragments of subjective experience that float in and | out of existence. | namero999 wrote: | Recalling a memory or thinking about the future or | whatever, are still and always experiences in the now. | You are not getting out of it. | zasdffaa wrote: | We had a heatwave this summer in the UK, weeks of it. I | loved every moment. Thus I refute your 'momentary'. I've | also had decades of pain and while it might sink lower in | your perceptions, it's always there while you're awake. | rogerclark wrote: | This argument is not "eliding" the hard problem. This | argument is saying that Chalmers' hard problem does not | actually exist. | | We have many explanations for what people describe as | "the hard problem". But nobody who believes in "the hard | problem" accepts these explanations, which have been | given for decades by philosophers like Dennett. | | There is no way to reconcile your view, that there IS a | hard problem and that no progress has been made toward | solving it, with our view, that there is no such problem, | and that it does not need solving. | layer8 wrote: | The circuit you're describing registers the external | light impulses, but it doesn't experience its own | registering of those impulses. | | What I'm imagining is that the registering mechanism | would itself have sensors placed on its wires that | measure the currency levels on those wires, and have the | measurements of those sensors as additional inputs into | the cognition automaton. And then have sensors on the | gates and wires of that automaton, which again feed as | additional inputs into that same automaton. Add memory | and timing delays. And then multiply all that some | million times to get to the level of complexity of our | inner mind, of our sensory and movement apparatus, and of | our mental models. | | When introspecting myself, I don't see or feel or think | anything that couldn't be explained by such a setup. The | different textures (qualia, if you will) of what I | perceive in my mind have a certain complexity, but that | is merely quantitative and structural, not qualitative. | | I therefore simply do not agree that there is a hard | problem of consciousness to begin with, in the usually | given sense. I don't agree that there is a qualitative | difference between the perception of "qualia" and other | perceptions. "Qualia" are just a perception of | representations and processes happening in my brain. I | see no puzzling mystery that would require solving. | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | No, this totally missing the point again. | | It is not a question of what the sensor detects. It is a | question of how it is possible for there to be an | experience when sensing occurs. | | Your introspection is simply pointing out the likely | nature of what you experience, and I actually agree | (tentatively) with the idea that most of our conscious | experience is rooted in a self-reflecting system. But | none of that has any bearing on how there can be ay | experience at all. | layer8 wrote: | What you call "experience" for me is just sensing of | internal information processing, of internal | representation. This may need some dedicated | introspection to fully realize. You're making a | distinction which I believe is a mirage. It's just a | special attributation we make in our minds to those inner | perceptions. If you look closely, it vanishes. | | Think about it: How do you know that you have what you | call an "experience"? It's because you perceive it in a | particular way. So, at some point, this "experience" | quality is an _input_ to your cognitive process, and you | match it to some mental models you have about such | inputs. I adjusted my mental model to think of those | "qualia" perceptions as sensing parts of the internal | workings of my brain. It's a side-effect of all the | processing that is going on, if you will. | goodthenandnow wrote: | > Nobody (that I'm aware of) suggests that there is an | experience within the electronic circuit | | There is a theory, Integrated Information Theory (IIT) | [0], which argues exactly that [1]. | | [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_information | _theory | | [1]: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.2307/254707 | 07#_i2 | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | I'm familiar with IIT. I don't believe it suggests that a | photosensor has qualia. | lordnacho wrote: | Isn't the parent and related answers pointing towards the | idea that there's a level of complexity above which you | need to be to see those qualia? A single little circuit | might not be the one that is conscious, but a bunch of | them connected together might exhibit patterns that we | could call experience? | | Maybe the analogy is that a single DNA molecule is not a | living thing but that molecule along with a bunch of | others is? | | Seems like the problem arises in pinning down what level | of complexity is required. | zasdffaa wrote: | We don't know what qualia _are_ so it 's an acceptable | possibility to me (unprovable, mind) that such a circuit | may 'experience' something. It would be unutterably basic | if it happened, nonetheless I'm ok with that. | | There's also a view that consciousness is intrinsic to | everything (ah, here you go | https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does- | consciousnes...) which is a cheap, cheesy and IMO totally | unacceptable way to 'explain' consciousness and I reject | that as an _explanation_ , but it doesn't make it | actually wrong. | | Edit: missed your last line "We have explanation for how | there can be experiences/qualia" - I'm surprised, you can | explain it, got any links? | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | Sure, pan-qualism/pan-psychism may well turn out to be a | respectable postion. | | [ fixed the missing "no" in the GP ] | namero999 wrote: | Panpsychism is untenable because it trades the hard | problem of consciousness for the composition problem. The | only consistent and coherent game in town is analytical | idealism. | zasdffaa wrote: | It might be a piss-poor explanation, because it doesn't | explain anything, it presumes its conclusion, but that | doesn't make it wrong. | | And if you throw in phrases like "composition problem" | and "analytical idealism" the fer fuck's sake provide | some simple explanation or something. | TaupeRanger wrote: | Just as handwavy as any other explanation of consciousness. I | can make an electronic device that runs a Python program that | predicts how input affects the device. That doesn't make the | device conscious. | sdht0 wrote: | A sufficiently advanced such Python program will probably | actually be conscious. | [deleted] | namero999 wrote: | Of course not. And sorry if I've missed the sarcasm :) | gjm11 wrote: | For anyone who's wondering why the strange title: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being_and_Nothingness | [deleted] | oldstrangers wrote: | Just blindly bought this book because I think consciousness is | one of the most fascinating unexplained aspects of our universe. | 53r3PB9769ba wrote: | Maybe I'm a p-zombie then, because I just don't get it. | | I've spent hours upon hours thinking about thinking and | observing my own thought processes and I don't see anything | that couldn't be explained scientifically. | namero999 wrote: | One must explain how the jump from quantities to qualities | works. | notfed wrote: | For starters: | | - Why is there something rather than nothing? | | - Does a universe with no one in it to observe it count as | something or nothing? | | Then, imagine we're building an AI and want to know whether | it's reached our level or not: | | - How can we determine whether the AI experiences qualia the | same (or similar) way we do, and isn't lying? | | - Where to draw the line between conscious being and | computer? | flockonus wrote: | I wish I got the appreciation.. would you be able to describe | what is fascinating about it? | namero999 wrote: | It's the ultimate riddle. | cscurmudgeon wrote: | Here is a good overview of the problem (and the controversy): | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousnes. | .. | steve_john wrote: | This is a reminder that, in the end, House's book is not about | consciousness -- it is about a set of ways for looking at it. | agumonkey wrote: | Maybe we have two system, an imaginary layer and an accepted | reality layer, dreams happen in the first one, experience in the | other one. Mania happens when first former leaks in the latter. | andirk wrote: | "How rare and beautiful it is to even exist." --some song lyric | ryeights wrote: | Can't believe / How strange it is to be anything at all. | uoaei wrote: | Consciousness vs awareness vs sentience are terms that really | need some society-scale effort to nail down what we mean by one | or another. The conversation circles round and round because many | folks talk past each other or interpret discussions in ways that | the writer didn't intend. (I'm not saying the answer is available | today if only we solve this dialectical issue.) | | Philosophers of consciousness define "consciousness" as | "phenomenological experience" in the barest, most unqualified | sense, ie, the experience of "yellow" when photons of wavelength | ~580nm strike a visual sensory organ of some kind of cognitive | system. | | Note that the above does not automatically imply that the | experience is _understood_ or even _recognized_. A lot of | armchair philosophers and intellectual hobbyists conflate the | term "consciousness" with the notion of having some kind of | mental model through which to comprehend the experience (what I | call "awareness"), or an understanding of the dichotomy between | self vs environment (what I call "sentience", ie, "self- | awareness"). | | Acting through anthropocentrism, it is easy to assume that the | three are inextricable, but I don't think that perspective is the | way forward toward understanding of consciousness per se. | nickmain wrote: | "Metacognition" is a better term for what many refer to as | consciousness. | gbro3n wrote: | What I rarely see / hear articulated well enough, and am not | even sure that I can, are questions around why _I_ have | consciousness. I understand the reasons why a body might | develop meta cognition, and how it's advantageous for a being | to be aware of it's thoughts. But none of this explains why my | body is attached to _this_ consciousness and not another. | 'Experience' is the key term I feel when the phenomenal aspect | of consciousness is discussed, but I feel many don't understand | this view point and attempt to explain it away as something | reducable or inevitable. | layer8 wrote: | If you accept that certain bodies have metacognition, then | this arguably predicts that each body's metacognition will | perceive itself (the metacognition) and the body as two | separate but connected entities. That is, your own perception | that "you" are separate from your body would be predicted by | the theory. That is, this _perception_ would be predicted by | the theory. But it is a mere perception, because the | metacognition "machine" (within the brain) is physically part | of the body, and hence inherently bound to it, even if its | own internal perception differs from that. | comfypotato wrote: | You sound like you'd be into the idea of "qualia" if you're not | already aware. | dqpb wrote: | > need some society-scale effort to nail down | | I think a good approach would be for people to build things | that exhibit consciousness according to whatever their model is | and claim "this is conscious". Then let people debate whether | it is or not. | uoaei wrote: | There is the notion of panpsychism: that consciousness | defined in the basic sense is extant everywhere, all the | time, in many varied forms and scopes. By the definitions | above, awareness would be restricted to those systems which | could reasonably be considered "cognitive", and sentience | would belong only to those who can conceptualize "cogito ergo | sum". | csours wrote: | I wonder how this compares with 'The Society of the Mind' | comfypotato wrote: | Right off the bat it seemed like it was saying experts have | changed their tone recently. Saying "we're further from | understanding consciousness than we thought we were". It never | goes on to elaborate this point. | | Great book review. If I had more time, I would snap up the book | immediately. The review left me wondering if the book elaborates | on the above ^^^. I might make the time to read it. | Hemospectrum wrote: | > Right off the bat | | This might not be a deliberate reference to Nagel (as mentioned | in the article) but at least it's thematically appropriate. | comfypotato wrote: | Perhaps. Or a strategy of the author to keep me reading until | the end (it worked!) | nsxwolf wrote: | I am glad, because for years the prevailing attitude was that | there's nothing special or interesting about consciousness at | all, that it doesn't really exist, it's an illusion, etc. | | I don't think we'll ever be able to fully explain it in | scientific terms, because not everything is in the realm of | scientific knowledge. | notfed wrote: | What scares me is that some leading AI researchers hold this | view (that consciousness in general is nothing special) and | it makes them come across as unempathetic, as if all | conscious beings---meat or AI---are simply computers and in | turn pain is just some kind of computation and therefore that | it's silly to even discuss taking precautions to prevent any | kind of AI suffering. | opportune wrote: | That's because consciousness is not well-defined and might | as well be woo. The verbiage around it is the same as a | "soul" | | Define it rigorously and show a physical basis and you | might have something to work with. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-10-14 23:00 UTC)