This is a tired argument that is not worthy of all the long written articles about the impossibility of creating conscious machines. The universe itself appears to me to be some type of computer in a way. Physics cannot explain consciousness, and never will be able to. Particles, energy, whatever works in certain ways according to certain rules. The universe is not conscious, but yet it contains us, who are. I see no reason a sufficiently complex simulation cannot model the universe and contain consciousness within it. The argument that the brain is not a computer is immaterial; the universe is the computer; the brain is the data.
I'd be speaking out of my depth, but I think consciousness is experienced on a sort of information level, and that where ever it is found, some complex network will be found powering it. But that network could be virtual or physical.
I don't think the way we are currently producing LLMs creates consciousness; I just take a very dim view on the argument that computers are incapable of producing a simulation of consciousness; and further propose that such a simulation actually does produce consciousness in a very real sense.
andsoitis•3w ago
> creating conscious machines
But then later:
> producing a simulation of consciousness
Makes me wonder why you didn’t stick to “create”, but moved your argument to the inferior “simulate”.
swid•3w ago
I think you are just misinterpreting my use of the word simulation… I mean the computer is performing math which produces a simulation, but the consciousness still feels alive to itself; and is real.
A simulation of a bomb does not produce a blast, but a true simulation containing a consciousness does produce consciousness.
andsoitis•3w ago
> but a true simulation containing a consciousness does produce consciousness
that logic is circular. If you need consciousness ("containing a consciousness") in order to produce consciousness, it begs the question where the consciousness comes from.
swid•3w ago
You don’t need consciousness to produce it though. The universe is not conscious, but the rules of how it works allows for them. I believe the universe is essentially computable, and therefore Turing machines can also support consciousness. There would be some class of algorithms we can run which simulate enough of reality for entities within the program to feel alive.
andsoitis•3w ago
> the consciousness still feels alive to itself
Consciousness is the state of having experiences.
Self-awareness is the ability to recognize yourself as the subject of your experiences. In other words, consciousness is a dependency for self-awareness.
It is interesting to ponder what experiences a simulation could have and whether the simulator (human) needs to anticipate what kinds of experiences they want the simulation to be able to experience and build for that.
In organisms, we think that consciousness has arisen due to evolution by natural selection because it aids in the ability for the genetic code to reproduce (survive + multiply).
It isn't obvious why consciousness would spontaneously emerge in a simulation (what's the point?) as a simulation is digital and can spread without the need for consciousness.
swid•3w ago
If you had infinite compute and time could you not just simulate all of “earth” itself? I think the compute needed for that would be absurd and unreasonable to build, but such a simulation would obviously have natural selection going on inside of it.
If that is possible; then perhaps there are many simplified simulations that can still be large and fast enough to support evolution. Or we can leverage actual reality as well, to give digital life embodied experiences in the real world.
Thinking the simulation needs to spread is the wrong way to think about it. The universe does not need to multiply into more universes. If I replace simulation with universe in your final paragraph, the argument makes little sense to me. There can be competition within a simulation, and consciousness seems useful where competition and survival are somehow part of that.
swid•3w ago
I'd be speaking out of my depth, but I think consciousness is experienced on a sort of information level, and that where ever it is found, some complex network will be found powering it. But that network could be virtual or physical.
I don't think the way we are currently producing LLMs creates consciousness; I just take a very dim view on the argument that computers are incapable of producing a simulation of consciousness; and further propose that such a simulation actually does produce consciousness in a very real sense.
andsoitis•3w ago
But then later:
> producing a simulation of consciousness
Makes me wonder why you didn’t stick to “create”, but moved your argument to the inferior “simulate”.
swid•3w ago
A simulation of a bomb does not produce a blast, but a true simulation containing a consciousness does produce consciousness.
andsoitis•3w ago
that logic is circular. If you need consciousness ("containing a consciousness") in order to produce consciousness, it begs the question where the consciousness comes from.
swid•3w ago
andsoitis•3w ago
Consciousness is the state of having experiences.
Self-awareness is the ability to recognize yourself as the subject of your experiences. In other words, consciousness is a dependency for self-awareness.
It is interesting to ponder what experiences a simulation could have and whether the simulator (human) needs to anticipate what kinds of experiences they want the simulation to be able to experience and build for that.
In organisms, we think that consciousness has arisen due to evolution by natural selection because it aids in the ability for the genetic code to reproduce (survive + multiply).
It isn't obvious why consciousness would spontaneously emerge in a simulation (what's the point?) as a simulation is digital and can spread without the need for consciousness.
swid•3w ago
If that is possible; then perhaps there are many simplified simulations that can still be large and fast enough to support evolution. Or we can leverage actual reality as well, to give digital life embodied experiences in the real world.
Thinking the simulation needs to spread is the wrong way to think about it. The universe does not need to multiply into more universes. If I replace simulation with universe in your final paragraph, the argument makes little sense to me. There can be competition within a simulation, and consciousness seems useful where competition and survival are somehow part of that.