• 0 Posts
  • 45 Comments
Joined 1 month ago
cake
Cake day: November 7th, 2025

help-circle










  • 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.










  • 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?