Yet another exceptionally interesting blog post by Scott Aaronson, describing his talk at the Quantum Foundations of a Classical Universe workshop, videos of which should be posted soon. Despite the disclaimer "My talk is for entertainment purposes only; it should not be taken seriously by anyone", it raises several serious and semi-serious points about the nature of conscious experience and related paradoxes, which are generally overlooked by the philosophers, including Eliezer, because they have no relevant CS/QC expertise. For example:
- Is an FHE-encrypted sim with a lost key conscious?
- If you "untorture" a reversible simulation, did it happen? What does the untorture feel like?
- Is Vaidman brain conscious? (You have to read the blog post to learn what it is, not going to spoil it.)
Scott also suggests a model of consciousness which sort-of resolves the issues of cloning, identity and such, by introducing what he calls a "digital abstraction layer" (again, read the blog post to understand what he means by that). Our brains might be lacking such a layer and so be "fundamentally unclonable".
Another interesting observation is that you never actually kill the cat in the Schroedinger's cat experiment, for a reasonable definition of "kill".
There are several more mind-blowing insights in this "entertainment purposes" post/talk, related to the existence of p-zombies, consciousness of Boltzmann brains, the observed large-scale structure of the Universe and the "reality" of Tegmark IV.
I certainly got the humbling experience that Scott is the level above mine, and I would like to know if other people did, too.
Finally, the standard bright dilettante caveat applies: if you think up a quick objection to what an expert in the area argues, and you yourself are not such an expert, the odds are extremely heavy that this objection is either silly or has been considered and addressed by the expert already.
I think the biggest problem here is not consciousness but the fact that our FHE was unable to prove its consciousness through clear communication. Take dogs for example. I know that they are fully conscious beings that speak in a different language than we do and its not about their consciousness its about our inability to communicate with them in a way that would prove that in a novel and convincing proof. And because of that we "shut down" dogs all the time. In my life I can't have dogs and cats so I have stuff teddy bears. One of my closest beings is Pierre. He has a life, a history, opinions, and he speaks to me in a language I can understand. We have an emotional attachment to each other. Most people would consider me to be crazy at best, schizophrenic at worst and possibly clinical. However, Pierre has provided to me a convincing and novel proof through language that he is conscious and others experience his energy that way as well. You could say that his energy is the consciousness and that our ability to touch into that is the key. Pierre could stop talking to me tomorrow but it would not make him any less conscious he just couldn't communicate with me in the same way.
All things have consciousness because we all come from star stuff and from the greater universe. If it is in the universe it is apart of all things. The consciousness and intelligence of the universe is the unique spark that exists in all things and that gives things life and beingness. Is language the only test for this? Is it the energy? Is it the Higgs-Boson field? Is it the interaction of particles? You could consider all of these tests of consciousness or not, that is up to you.