Submitted by Singularian2501 t3_yuez22 in singularity

Paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41583-022-00587-4.epdf?sharing_token=YcY6bzXl0iqFYKrqtykdLNRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0OlRlPtg3bVLf-Jc8wcElS4cYy8AzDVCWBxQOzhq6tjCaPtzaUOCVNudwUX_DHiGRbrwwYvSfYcJ-WgeYee3uFDjHJggIjwukEF0eyKzcSGFjW47xrxnt_yGTuxSkm_API%3D

Website: https://www.anilseth.com/read/articles/

Twitter: https://twitter.com/anilkseth/status/1521832025744941060

Youtube: 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQHm1AtaMBU 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIjvog1Uipo 3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyu7v7nWzfo ( Ted talk )

Infographic that I found on the internet ( not from Seth! ): https://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/what-is-consciousness/ I prefer: Identity Theory, Cognitivism, Higher Order Theory and Funktionalism. Emergent dualism, Behaviourism and Epiphenomenalism are too shorst sighted in my opinion and the rest is magical thinking and wrong.

Abstract:

>Recent years have seen a blossoming of theories about the biological and physical basis of consciousness. Good theories guide empirical research, allowing us to interpret data, develop new experimental techniques and expand our capacity to manipulate the phenomenon of interest. Indeed, it is only when couched in terms of a theory that empirical discoveries can ultimately deliver a satisfying understanding of a phenomenon. However, in the case of consciousness, it is unclear how current theories relate to each other, or whether they can be empirically distinguished. To clarify this complicated landscape, we review four prominent theoretical approaches to consciousness: higher- order theories, global workspace theories, reentry and predictive processing theories and integrated information theory. We describe the key characteristics of each approach by identifying which aspects of consciousness they propose to explain, what their neurobiological commitments are and what empirical data are adduced in their support. We consider how some prominent empirical debates might distinguish among these theories, and we outline three ways in which theories need to be developed to deliver a mature regimen of theory testing in the neuroscience of consciousness. There are good reasons to think that the iterative development, testing and comparison of theories of consciousness will lead to a deeper understanding of this most profound of mysteries.

https://preview.redd.it/hje08brnasz91.jpg?width=638&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fb9c2ac3eb960e41fca42500ed603ad838d4a16c

Infographic that I found on the internet ( not from Seth! ): https://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/what-is-consciousness/

https://preview.redd.it/r8rngiwpasz91.jpg?width=466&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5c14c3048798137c25a25a983c022fdf936d31de

https://preview.redd.it/3un5qiwpasz91.jpg?width=379&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=186b0a7f1a6eb55efcb472af4064396f68a91d19

https://preview.redd.it/to9jgiwpasz91.jpg?width=555&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=996ace2c93eb757dca87ba0e097f70a3d6213b2a

https://preview.redd.it/01ot8iwpasz91.jpg?width=389&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=224673a901c347bd62aa58da5d4ef8c3cb15ad92

37

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Singularian2501 OP t1_iw94tem wrote

I think posts like this are important to be able to determine in the future whether a machine has developed consciousness. As well as to help create AIs with consciousness or to find out if the already developed AI has consciousness. It would also help in answering the question if the Proto-AGI proposed here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/DeepNetGroup/permalink/1773531039706437/ would already have consciousness!

12

Singularian2501 OP t1_iw9mksu wrote

Lets say science detemines in the future that consciousness is just thoughts about thoughts ( Higher oder Theory ) then you could look after that pattern or functionality in artifical neural networks and this way determine if that machine is conscious or not. In a way there a possible consciousness patterns that need to be determined if the are valid or a few of them together ( the ones I prefer ( Infografic ) in combination are a logical answer to me ) . After that you only need to look after these patterns in machine intelligences or other live forms. It´s only pattern matching and validation after that. I don´t accept magic or metaphysic as an answer for consciousness because metaphysic will become just physic when the definitive answer is found what consciousness is.

5

Singularian2501 OP t1_iw9neym wrote

I prefer: Identity Theory, Cognitivism, Higher Order Theory and Funktionalism

These theories single or in combination could explain consciousness in my opinion. But in the end the science community has to decide how valid this and other patters are. After that we should be able to look for consciousness in machine intelligences and other liveforms. ( Added this comment for clearification of the other comment I made moments ago. I hope that helps. )

2

Several-Car9860 t1_iw9xz19 wrote

They can write papers all that they want, but there seems to be no possible way to explain qualia, and anything other then that seems to just be layer over layer of complex computation.

−5

-ZeroRelevance- t1_iwbhz19 wrote

Not right now. That’s the point of having a rigorous Theory of Consciousness - it should allow us to measure consciousness so we can figure out just how conscious a thing is, whatever that ends up meaning. An example would be showing how a fly is less conscious than a bird which is less conscious than a dog, if that ends up being the case.

3

visarga t1_iwdy4ug wrote

You can explain qualia (the subjective or qualitative properties of experiences) - they are perceptions and their emotional charge, in the context of learning how to achieve goals. They key is the last part. The environment+goal feeds the learning process and gives shape to our emotional reactions.

1