Sorted by New


The Solomonoff Prior is Malign

Wouldn't complexity of earth and conditioning on importance be irrelevant because it would still appear in consequentialists' distribution of strings and in specification of what kind of consequentialists we want? Therefore they will only have the advantage of anthropic update, that would go to zero in the limit of string's length, because choice of the language would correlate with string's content, and penalty for their universe + output channel.

This Territory Does Not Exist

That's because "subjective experience" and "reality" are the same thing - panpsychism solves the Hard Problem and provides some intuitions for what "reality" means.

Many-worlds versus discrete knowledge

If simplest physics contradicts epistemology, you should change epistemology - it would be nice to develop some weird quantum knowledge theory without fundamental discrete facts.

Neural Basis for Global Workspace Theory

If there’s no global workspace, and there’s just the thalamus doing sensory gating, and routing chunks of cortex to each other, I’d expect to see a lot more multi tasking ability.

What if there is global workspace, but it doesn't hold one value? On some level it has to be true anyway - perception is not one-dimensional. And it all depends on definition (granularity) of task - if we need to explain why global workspace can't be dominated by page with half math problems and half story, then we can use the same explanation for why the state of workspace learned to not usually be like that. I can see how interconnectedness of workspace means all parts of input vector influence all of the workspace's state, and so you can't easily process different inputs independently, but can't you process combined input? Isn't it what happens, when you first just see something, then hear "Tell me what you see", and the action is produced because of what you see and hear?

Neural Basis for Global Workspace Theory

Functionally, the global workspace is an area that disparate parts of the cortex can all compete to put a value on. This competition is winner-takes-all, and only one value can be on the network at a time. Once a value is on the network, the rest of the cortex is able to read the value, thus serving as a temporary “global state”, hence the name.

What does it even mean for a network to have a global value? What's the evidence for that selection of winner always happening in TIN? Because it seems unnecessary for an explanation of conscious processing and attention when we already have a feedback loop with thalamus. Like, we get a visual input, it propagates through TIN, makes thalamus switch attention from external sensations to mental imagery, which when mixed with the current state of TIN after some iterations produces an action. Subliminal stimuli just don't make it to the feedback loop and therefore don't influence things very much.

The "hard" problem of consciousness is the least interesting problem of consciousness

Make in my mind. Of course you can't change reality by shuffling concepts. But the idea is that all the ways consciousness works that are problematic are separate from other (easy) aspects of consciousness. So consciousness works how it worked before - you see clouds because something made you neurons activate in that pattern. You just recognise that confusing parts of consciousness (that I think all boil down to the zombie argument) are actually what we call "existence".

The "hard" problem of consciousness is the least interesting problem of consciousness

But the problems with existence don't become more severe because of merging of "existence" and "consciousness" concepts. On the contrary: before we didn't have any concrete idea of what it would mean to exist or not, but now we can at least use our intuitions about consciousness instead. And, on the other hand, all problematic aspects of consciousness (like surprising certainty about having it) are contained in existence.

Amusingly, I've just got from a flight where I put my backpack into my bag, so I could use it for luggage on the return flight^^.

The "hard" problem of consciousness is the least interesting problem of consciousness

Oh, and if by "why and how is everything conscious" you mean "why believe in panpsychism" and not "what causes consciousness in panpsychist view" then, first, it's less about how panpsychism solves The Hard Problem, and more about why accept this particular solution. So, moving goalposts and all that^^. I don't quite understand why would someone be so reluctant to accept any solution that is kinda physicalist and kinda non-epiphenomenal, considering people say that they don't even understand how solution would look in principle. But there are reasons why panpsychism is the only acceptable solution: if consciousness influences physical world, then it either requires new physics (including strong emergence), or it is present in everything. You can detect difference between different states of mind with just weak emergence, but only "cogito, ergo sum" doesn't also work in zombie world.

The "hard" problem of consciousness is the least interesting problem of consciousness

why and how do we have subjective experience, rather than experiencing nothing

Because we exist. "Because" not in the sense of casual dependency, but in the sense of equivalence. The point is that we have two concepts (existence and consciousness) that represent the same thing in reality. "Why they are the same" is equivalent to "why there is no additional "consciousness" thing" and that is just asking why reality is like it is. And it is not the same as saying "it's just the way world is, that we have subjective experience" right away - panpsychism additionally states that not only we have experience, and provides a place for consciousness in purely physical worldview.

And for "how" - well, it's the question of the nature of existence, because there is no place for mechanism between existence and consciousness - they are just the same thing. So, for example, different physical configurations mean different (but maybe indistinguishable by agent) experiences. And not sure if it counts as "how", but equivalence between consciousness and existence means every specific aspect of consciousness can be analysed by usual scientific methods - "experience of seeng blue" can be emergent, while consciousness itself is fundamental.

I mean, sure, "why everything exists" is an open question, so it may seem like pointless redefinition. But if we started with two problems and ended with one, then one of them is solved.

The "hard" problem of consciousness is the least interesting problem of consciousness

The Hard Problem is basically "what part of the equation for wavefunction of the universe says that we are not zombies". The answer of panpsychism is "the part where we say that it is real". When you imagining waking up made of cold silicon and not feeling anything, you imagining not existing.

Non-fundamental "self" is there just to solve decomposition problem - there is no isolation of qualia, just qualia of isolation. And it works because it is easier to argue that you can be wrong about some particular aspects of consciousness (like there being fundamentally distinct conscious "selfs", or the difference between your current experience of blue sky and your experience of the same blue sky in the past) than that you can be wrong about there being consciousness at all.

It doesn't answer what all the interesting differences between rocks and human brains are, but these differences are not "Hard" or mysterious - only the difference between zombies and us is "Hard". Interesting parts are just hard to answer because they depend on what you want to know. And if you want to know whether something have that basic spark of consciousness, then the answer is that everything has it.

Load More