= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Alejandro1 comments on By Which It May Be Judged - LessWrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (934)
I agree with you about how smart Chalmers is and that he does very good philosophical work. But I think you have a mistake in terminology when you say
It is an understandable mistake, because it is natural to take "the hard problem" as meaning just "understanding consciousness", and I agree that this is a hard problem in ordinary terms and that saying "there is a reduction/dissolution" is not enough. But Chalmers introduced the distinction between the "hard problem" and the "easy problems" by saying that understanding the functional aspects of the mind, the information processing, etc, are all "easy problems". So a functionalist/computationalist materialist, like most people on this site, cannot buy into the notion that there is a serious "hard problem" in Chalmers' sense. This notion is defined in a way that begs the question assuming that qualia are irreducible. We should say instead that solving the "easy problems" is at the same time much less trivial than Chalmers makes it seem, and enough to fully account for consciousness.
No it isn't. Here is what Chalmers says:
"It is undeniable that some organisms are subjects of experience. But the question of how it is that these systems are subjects of experience is perplexing. Why is it that when our cognitive systems engage in visual and auditory information-processing, we have visual or auditory experience: the quality of deep blue, the sensation of middle C? How can we explain why there is something it is like to entertain a mental image, or to experience an emotion? It is widely agreed that experience arises from a physical basis, but we have no good explanation of why and how it so arises. Why should physical processing give rise to a rich inner life at all? It seems objectively unreasonable that it should, and yet it does."
There is no statement of irreducubility there. There is a statement that we have "no good explanaion" and we don't.
However, see how he contrasts it with the "easy problems" (from Consciousness and its Place in Nature - pdf):
It seems clear that for Chalmers any description in terms of behavior and cognitive function is by definition not addressing the hard problem.
But that is not to say that qualia are irreducibole things, that is to say that mechanical explanations of qualia have not worked to date
What does this mean by "why"? What evolutionary advantage is there? Well, it enables imagination, which lets us survive a wider variety of dangers. What physical mechanism is there? That's an open problem in neurology, but they're making progress.
I've read this several times, and I don't see a hard philosophical problem.
It's definitely a how-it-happens "why" and not how-did-it-evolve "why"
There's more to qualia than free-floating representations. There is no reason to suppose an AI's internal maps have phenomenal feels, no way of testing that they do, and no way of engineering them in.
It's a hard scientific problem. How could you have a theory that tells you how the world seems to a bat on LSD? How can you write a SeeRed() function?
Presumably, the exact same way you'd write any other function.
In this case, all that matters is that instances of seeing red things correctly map to outputs expected when one sees red things as opposed to not seeing red things.
If the correct behavior is fully and coherently maintained / programmed, then you have no means of telling it apart from a human's "redness qualia". If prompted and sufficiently intelligent, this program will write philosophy papers about the redness it perceives, and wonder whence it came, unless it has access to its own source code and can see inside the black box of the SeeRed() function.
Of course, I'm arguing a bit by the premises here with "correct behavior" being "fully and coherently maintained". The space of inputs and outputs to take into account in order to make a program that would convince you of its possession of the redness qualia is too vast for us at the moment.
TL;DR: It all depends on what the SeeRed() function will be used for / how we want it to behave.
False. In this case what matters is the perception of a red colour that occurs between input and ouput. That is what the Hard Problem, the problem of qualia is about.
That doesn't mean there are no qualia (I have them so I know there are). That also doesn't mean qualia just serendiptously arrive whenever the correct mapping from inputs to outputs is in place. You have not written a SeeRed() or solved the HP. You have just assumed that what is very possible a zombie is good enough.
None of these were among my claims. For a program to reliably pass turing-like tests for seeing redness, a GLUT or zombielike would not cut it, you'd need some sort of internal system that generates certain inner properties and behaviors, one that would be effectively indistinguishable from qualia (this is my claim), and may very well be qualia (this is not my core claim, but it is something I find plausible).
Obviously I haven't solved the Hard Problem just by saying this. However, I do greatly dislike your apparent premise* that qualia can never be dissolved to patterns and physics and logic.
* If this isn't among your premises or claims, then it still does appear that way, but apologies in advance for the strawmanning.
Sorry that is most definitely "serendipitously arrive". You don't know how to engineer the Redness in explicilty, you are just assuming it must be there if everything else is in place.
The claimis more like "hasn't been", and you haven't shown me a SeeRed().
Is there a reason to suppose that anybody else's maps have phenomenal feels, a way of testing that they do, or a way of telling the difference? Why can't those ways be generalized to Intelligent entities in general?
Yes: naturalism. It would be naturalistcially anomalous if their brains worked very smilarly , but their phenomenology were completely different.
No. So what? Are you saying we are all p-zombies?
I don't know about Decius, but...
I am.
I'm also saying that it doesn't matter. The p-zombies are still conscious. They just don't have any added "conscious" XML tags as per some imaginary, crazy-assed unnecessary definition of "consciousness".
Tangential to that point: I think any morality system which relies on an external supernatural thinghy in order to make moral judgments or to assign any terminal value to something is broken and not worth considering.
I have no idea what you are gettign at. Please clarify.
That has no discernable relationship to anythign I have said. Have you confused me with someone else?
I'm not sure where I implied that I'm getting at anything. We're p-zombies, we have no additional consciousness, and it doesn't matter because we're still here doing things.
The tangent was just an aside remark to clarify my position, and wasn't to target anyone.
We may already agree on the consciousness issue, I haven't actually checked that.
I have no idea whay you mean by "additonal consciousness" -- although, since you are not "getting at anything" you perhaps mean nothing.
That seems a bold and contentious claim to me. OTOH, you say you are not "getting at anything". Who knows?
OK. "Getting at something" doens't mean criticising someone, it means making a point.
You appear to be making an unfortunate assumption that what Chalmers and Peterdjones are talking about is crazy-assed unnecessary XML tags, as opposed to, y'know, regular old consciousness.
I'm not sure where my conception of p-zombies went wrong, then. P-zombies are assumed by the premise, if my understanding is correct, to behave physically exactly the same, down to the quantum level (and beyond if any exists), but to simply not have something being referred to as "qualia". This seems to directly imply that the "qualia" is generated neither by the physical matter, nor by the manner in which it interacts.
Like Eliezer, I believe physics and logic are sufficient to describe eventually everything, and so qualia and consciousness must be made of this physical matter and the way it interacts. Therefore, since the p-zombies have the same matter and the same interactions, they have qualia and consciousness.
What, then, is a non-p-zombie? Well, something that has "something more" (implied: Than physics or logic) added into it. Since it's something exceptional that isn't part of anything else so far in the universe to my knowledge, calling it a "crazy-ass unnecessary XML tag" feels very worthy of its plausibility and comparative algorithmic complexity.
The point being that, under this conception of p-zombies and with my current (very strong) priors on the universe, non-p-zombies are either a silly mysterious question with no possible answer, or something supernatural on the same level of silly as atom-fiddling tiny green goblins and white-winged angels of Pure Mercy.
Huh...
That's a funny way of thinking about it.
But anyway, EY's zombies sequences was all about saying that if physics and math is everything, then p-zombies are a silly mysterious question. Because a p-zombie was supposed to be like a normal human to the atomic level, but without qualia. Which is absurd if, as we expect, qualia are within physics and math. Hence there are no p-zombies.
I guess the point is that saying there are no non-p-zombies as a result of this is totally confusing, because it totally looks like saying no-one has consciousness.
(Tangentially, it probably doesn't help that apparently half of the philosophical world use "qualia" to mean some supernatural XML tags, while the other half use the word to mean just the-way-things-feel, aka. consciousness. You seem to get a lot of arguments between those in each of those groups, with the former group arguing that qualia are nonsense, and the latter group rebutting that "obviously we have qualia, or are you all p-zombies?!" resulting in a generally unproductive debate.)
I'm saying that there is no difference between a p-zombie and the alternative.