You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Cyan comments on Friendly AI and the limits of computational epistemology - Less Wrong Discussion

18 Post author: Mitchell_Porter 08 August 2012 01:16PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (146)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Cyan 09 August 2012 02:21:06PM *  1 point [-]

I'm going to collect some premises that I think you affirm:

  • consciousness is something most or all humans have; likewise for the genes that encode this phenotype
  • consciousness is a quantum phenomenon
  • the input-output relation of the algorithm that the locus of consciousness implements can be simulated to arbitrary accuracy (with difficulty)
  • if the simulation isn't implemented with the right kind of quantum system, it won't be conscious

I have some questions about the implications of these assertions.

  • Do you think the high penetrance of consciousness is a result of founder effect + neutral drift or the result of selection (or something else)?
  • What do you think is the complexity class of the algorithm that the locus of consciousness implements?
  • If you answered "selection" to the first question, what factors do you think contributed to the selection of the phenotype that implements that algorithm in a way that induces consciousness as a "causal side-effect"?
Comment author: Mitchell_Porter 11 August 2012 03:25:43PM 0 points [-]

It's anthropically necessary that the ontology of our universe permits consciousness, but selection just operates on state machines, and I would guess that self-consciousness is adaptive because of its functional implications. So this is like looking for an evolutionary explanation of why magnetite can become magnetized. Magnetite may be in the brain of birds because it helps them to navigate, and it helps them to navigate because it can be magnetized; but the reason that this substance can be magnetized has to do with physics, not evolution. Similarly, the alleged quantum locus may be there because it has a state-machine structure permitting reflective cognition, and it has that state-machine structure because it's conscious; but it's conscious because of some anthropically necessitated ontological traits of our universe, not because of its useful functions. Evolution elsewhere may have produced unconscious intelligences with brains that only perform classical computations.

Comment author: Cyan 11 August 2012 04:38:39PM 0 points [-]

this is like looking for an evolutionary explanation of why magnetite can become magnetized... the alleged quantum locus... [is] conscious because of some anthropically necessitated ontological traits of our universe, not because of its useful functions

I think you have mistaken the thrust of my questions. I'm not asking for an evolutionary explanation of consciousness per se -- I'm trying to take your view as given and figure out what useful functions one ought to expect to be associated with the locus of consciousness.

Comment author: Mitchell_Porter 11 August 2012 04:47:22PM 0 points [-]

What does conscious cognition do that unconscious cognition doesn't do? The answer to that tells you what consciousness is doing (though not whether these activities are useful...).