[erikerikson]

> humans are not machine

Aren't we? Casual chains upon our matter produce emergent behaviors using the same physics and chemistry that our mechanistic creations rely upon.

Certainly those behaviors and results do not produce the same repeatable, predictable results as our clockworks but that is the whole point of the field of AI (as opposed to the marketing corruption/term that is currently in vogue, so GAI if you prefer), to produce system and algorithm structures designed with architecture and patterns more like our own.

Perhaps you believe in the ghost in the machine hypothesis? The magical soul that is more than the emergent evolving pattern produced across time by DNA replicators? That this undefinable, unmeasurable spirit makes us forever different?

[aftoprokrustes]

This is an hypothesis. Of course, it is obvious that a lot of what human/animals are and do can be explained or described by physical processes. But there is the "hard problem of consciousness", to which no one has a satisfying answer.

I feel sarcasm in your last paragraph, but it feels rather dishonest, in the sense that you voluntarily use rather crude and ridiculous formulations, as if it was the only alternative. But there is some arrogance in thinking that we, smart as we are, finally got the final answer about one of the hardest questions in philosophy and metaphysics. Materialism is not proven: it is a basic methodological assumption of modern science - meaning that we do not have the tools to either prove or disprove it. Newton, Gödel and lots of other renowed scientists are knowed to have opposed materialism. Let's accept that the question is open.

On this topic, I always recommend reading the report of the Galileo Commission, which is a manifesto by a wide range of scientists and philosophers to reduce the stigma associated with even questioning this fundamental dogma.

[fasterik]

Just because there are two hypotheses doesn't mean that we should assign them equal probability. Why should we believe that we will need to modify the laws of physics to explain consciousness when they already do a remarkably good job of predicting and explaining everything else we know about chemistry and biology? If someone has an alternative theory of consciousness that goes beyond the standard model of particle physics, the burden of proof is on them to produce the equations that explain how this new substance or force interacts with the known fields of the standard model. Of course we should never put 0 probability on anything, but I know where I would put my money given the empirical track record of our current theories.

[aftoprokrustes]

I actually think it is a bit more subtle than that. I am here really focusing on consciousness as a subjective experience, which seems to be of an entirely different nature than physical processes. We have a lot of examples of emergent properties of complex systems, but as far as I can tell all of them stay in the same "realm": the emergent properties of an ant colony, for instance, are physical, resulting from physical interactions.

With the subjective experience as an emergent property, things such as a society, a country, an economy could become conscious, in the sense of having a _subjective_ experience of their own existence as entities separate from the rest of the world. If we accept the "consciousness as an emergent property", we _have_ to accept that possibility. Which, to me, is not less wild or unlikely than, say, the "theory" of a field of consciousness "received" or "captured" by physical systems with certain properties, the same way a radio can receive radio programs. There are additional reasons to want to consider alternative explanations, but going into them would rrquire much more space - if interested, I would point to the report of the Galileo Commission.

So it does not change anything to physics, really: materialism is pretty much the best methodology to unpack the laws of physics: whatever you observe, see if you can find more elementary physical processes that explain it.

I am just a bit irritated by bold statements which assume that we know for certain that consciousness is an emergent property of physical processes. We do not, and the reason why this is such an accepted fact is more sociological than scientific - Newton and others decided to focus solely on physical processes as a methodological tool, and over centuries, the undeniable success of the approach in making discoveries _and_ building practical tools gave it an ontological status it did not have initially (Newton was for instance a very convinced Christian). Which makes me keen to remind that, because in the current scientific culture it is shameful to even ask the question.

[fasterik]

I'm not inside the scientific community so I can't verify the degree to which it's a shameful question. My guess is that it has a lot more to do with simple heuristics than dogmatism. A researcher has finite time and resources. They need to decide what to work on based on the likelihood that they can make progress on certain well-defined problems. We already have a centuries-long track record of making progress by studying things in terms of physical and chemical processes. That doesn't mean this approach can solve every problem, but there's not much else we can do until a new Einstein comes along and proposes an alternative that's compelling enough. I believe there are a lot of young scientists who would be willing to jump on a new paradigm if it was obviously leading to novel insights and breakthroughs, but that hasn't happened. It's not because these ideas are being suppressed, it's because nobody has put them forward in a rigorous and convincing manner.

[Vegenoid]

I can't say I find the Galileo Commission to be particularly compelling. It is authored by people who are inclined toward non-materialism, and I get the sense that they care more about consciousness existing beyond the physical brain than discovering what is true. This isn't to wholly dismiss it, there is good work and smart people behind it, but I think it has a pretty heavy agenda.

And, this may be petty, but the self-comparison to the maligned Galileo is rather off-putting.

[erikerikson]

Incidentally, you may enjoy Promethea[0] and its thesis that ideas are more real than any physical thing.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promethea

[erikerikson]

You've written your response thoughtfully, thank you.

Of course my description is of a hypothesis rather than ground truth.

It turns out that there isn't consensus over whether "The Hard Problem Of Consciousness" is actually a problem[0] but I need to admit I didn't know that before reading your comment. You may have been too kind in your assumption of my competence level on the subject. As adjunct, my writing was about my own currently highest probability expectations rather than a mature reporting of the state of the field of experts. It did not seem worth (then or now) writing to such a standard on a public discussion forum, even this one.

My last paragraph wasn't written with sarcasm (sorry to have given easy opportunity to read that in it) but it was a bit rushed, clumsily written, and unimaginative. Poorly written as it was, my curiosity was sincere (its been some time since I engaged with the state of the art) as was some of my dismissal. I have found it common that people have a belief in the uniqueness of humans as a platform for intelligence that frequently has its roots in sentiment and/or unexamined beliefs. Of course there are individuals whose thoughts meet a much higher bar. It is also the case that faith as a basis of belief does not invalidate the belief.

There is so much we don't know. We only recently explained how aspirin works[1]. That didn't stop it from working well during our long period of usage prior to our understanding. I'm comfortable with that an its analog here, that I don't understand consciousness and its mechanisms completely. I seem to experience it and it seems to result from what is, despite my incomplete knowledge of what that "what is" comprises. However, there is an imbalance of evidence for the material hypothesis and it seems plausible that emergent dynamics are sufficient to explain.

So... Yes, materialism is not proven and yet I currently hold it as the explanation that makes at least a partial contribution to the more complete truth. Further, that it is the explanation with the greatest volume of evidence and support. I suspect that it is sufficient for the emergence of intelligence and even consciousness in ourselves and as such sufficient for (through the same mechanisms) the emergence of intelligence and consciousness in our artificial constructs. Note that I also suspect we are still some distance from that inflection point.

Thank you for the reference to the Galileo Commission. I had not heard of it and am always happy to consider new perspectives and challenge those which I have held.

[0] https://survey2020.philpeople.org/ [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14592543/