Scientist by training, coder by previous session,philosopher by inclination, musician against public demand.
Team Piepgrass: “Worried that typical commenters at LW care way less than I expected about good epistemic practice. Hoping I’m wrong.”
TAG
Karma: 1,321
First, computationalism doesn’t automatically imply that, without other assumptions, and indeed there are situations where you can’t clone data perfectly,
Thats a rather small nit. The vast majority of computationalists are talking about classical computation.
Indeed, I was basically trying to say that computationalism is so general that it cannot predict any result that doesn’t follow from pure logic/tautologies,
That’s not much of a boast: pure logic can’t solve metaphysical problems about consciousness, time, space, identity, and so on. That’s why they are still problems. There’s a simple logical theory of identity, but it doesn’t answer the metaphysical problems, what I have called the synchronic and diachronic problems.
Secondly, one could semi-reasonably argue that the inability to clone physical states is an artifact of our technological immaturity, and that in the far-future, it will be way easier to clone physical states to a level of fidelity that is way closer to the level of copyability of computer programs.
Physicalism doesn’t answer the problems. You need some extra information about how similar or different physical things are in order to answer questions about whether they are the same or different individuals. At least, if you want to avoid the implications of raw physicalism—along the lines of “if one atom changes, you’re a different person”. An abstraction would be useful—but it needs to be the right one.
Third, I gave a somewhat more specific theory of identity in my linked answer, and it’s compatible with both computationalism and physicalism as presented, I just prefer the computationalist account for the general case and the physicaliskt answer for specialized questions.
You seem to be saying that consciousness is nothing but having a self model, and whatever the self believes about itself is the last word...that there are no inconvenient objective facts that could trump a self assessment (“No you’re not the original Duncan Idaho, you’re ghola number 476. You think you’re the one and only Duncan because you’re brain state is a clone of the original Duncan’s”). That makes things rather easy. But the rationalist approach to the problem of identity generally relies on bullet biting about whatever solution is appealing—if computationalism is is correct, you can be cloned, and the you really are on two places at once.
My main non-trivial claim here is that the sense of a phenomenal experience/awareness fundamentally comes down to the fact that the brain needs to control the body, and vice-versa, so you need a self-model of yourself, which becomes a big part of why we say we have consciousness, because we are referring to our self models when we do that.
Well, how? If you could predict qualia from self control, you’d have a solution—not a dissolution—to the HP.
Another reason why the hard problem seems hard is that way too many philosophers are disinclined to gather any data on the phenomenon of interest at all, because they don’t have backgrounds in neuroscience, and instead want to purely define consciousness without reference to any empirical reality.
Granting that “empirical” means “outer empirical” …. not including introspection.
I don’t think there is much evidence for the “purely”. Chalmers doesn’t disbelieve in the easy problem aspects of conscious.
We’re talking about “physical processes”
We are talking about functionalism—it’s in the title. I am contrasting physical processes with abstract functions.
In ordinary parlance, the function of a physical thing is itself a physical effect...toasters toast, kettles boil, planes fly.
In the philosophy of mind, a function is an abstraction, more like the mathematical sense of a function. In maths, a function takes some inputs and or produces some outputs. Well known examples are familiar arithmetic operations like addition, multiplication , squaring, and so on. But the inputs and outputs are not concrete physical realities. In computation,the inputs and outputs of a functional unit, such as a NAND gate, always have some concrete value, some specific voltage, but not always the same one. Indeed, general Turing complete computers don’t even have to be electrical—they can be implemented in clockwork, hydraulics, photonics, etc.
This is the basis for the idea that a compute programme can be the same as a mind, despite being made of different matter—it implements the same.abstract functions. The abstraction of the abstract, philosopy-of-mind concept of a function is part of its usefulness.
Searle is famous critic of computationalism, and his substitute for it is a biological essentialism in which the generation of consciousness is a brain function—in the concrete sense of function.It’s true that something whose concrete function is to generate consciousness will generate consciousness..but it’s vacuously, trivially true.
The point is that the functions which this physical process is implementing are what’s required for consciousness not the actual physical properties themselves.
If you mean that abstract, computational functions are known to be sufficient to give rise to all.asoexs of consciousness including qualia, that is what I am contesting.
I think I’m more optimistic than you that a moderately accurate functional isomorph of the brain could be built which preserves consciousness (largely due to the reasons I mentioned in my previous comment around robustness.
I’m less optimistic because of my.arguments.
But putting this aside for a second, would you agree that if all the relevant functions could be implemented in silicon then a functional isomorph would be conscious?
No, not necessarily. That , in the “not necessary” form—is what I’ve been arguing all along. I also don’t think that consciousnes had a single meaning , or that there is a agreement about what it means, or that it is a simple binary.
The controversial point is whether consciousness in the hard problem sense—phenomenal consciousness, qualia—will be reproduced with reproduction of function. It’s not controversial that easy problem consciousness—capacities and behaviour—will be reproduced by functional reproduction. I don t know which you believe, because you are only talking about consciousness not otherwise specified.
If you do mean that a functional duplicate will necessarily have phenomenal consciousness, and you are arguing the point, not just holding it as an opinion, you have a heavy burden:-
You need to show some theory of how computation generates conscious experience. Or you need to show why the concrete physical implementation couldn’t possibly make a difference.
@rife
Yes, I’m specifically focused on the behaviour of an honest self-report
Well,. you’re not rejecting phenomenal consciousness wholesale.
fine-grained information becomes irrelevant implementation details. If the neuron still fires, or doesn’t, smaller noise doesn’t matter. The only reason I point this out is specifically as it applies to the behaviour of a self-report (which we will circle back to in a moment). If it doesn’t materially effect the output so powerfully that it alters that final outcome, then it is not responsible for outward behaviour.
But outward behaviour is not what I am talking about. The question is whether functional duplication preserves (full) consciousness. And, as I have said, physicalism is not just about fine grained details. There’s also the basic fact of running on the metal
I’m saying that we have ruled out that a functional duplicate could lack conscious experience because: we have established conscious experience as part of the causal chain
“In humans”. Even if it’s always the case that qualia are causal in humans, it doesn’t follow that reports of qualia in any entity whatsoever are caused by qualia. Yudkowsky’s argument is no help here, because he doesn’t require reports of consciousness to be *directly” caused by consciousness—a computational zombies reports would be caused , not by it’s own consciousness, but by the programming and data created by humans.
to be able to feel something and then output a description through voice or typing that is based on that feeling. If conscious experience was part of that causal chain, and the causal chain consists purely of neuron firings, then conscious experience is contained in that functionality.
Neural firings are specific physical behaviour, not abstract function. Computationalism is about abstract function
I don’t find this position compelling for several reasons:
First, if consciousness really required extremely precise physical conditions—so precise that we’d need atom-by-atom level duplication to preserve it, we’d expect it to be very fragile.
Don’t assume that then. Minimally, non computation physicalism only requires that the physical substrate makes some sort of difference. Maybe approximate physical resemblance results in approximate qualia.
Yet consciousness is actually remarkably robust: it persists through significant brain damage, chemical alterations (drugs and hallucinogens) and even as neurons die and are replaced.
You seem to be assuming a maximally coarse-grained either-conscious-or-not model.
If you allow for fine grained differences in functioning and behaviour , all those things produce fine grained differences. There would be no point in administering anaesthesia if it made no difference to consciousness. Likewise ,there would be no point in repairing brain injuries. Are you thinking of consciousness as a synonym for personhood?
We also see consciousness in different species with very different neural architectures.
We don’t see that they have the same kind of level of consciousness.
Given this robustness, it seems more natural to assume that consciousness is about maintaining what the state is doing (implementing feedback loops, self-models, integrating information etc.) rather than their exact physical state.
Stability is nothing like a sufficient explabation of consciousness, particularly the hard problem of conscious experience...even if it is necessary.But it isn’t necessary either , as the cycle of sleep and waking tells all of us every day.
Second, consider what happens during sleep or under anaesthesia. The physical properties of our brains remain largely unchanged, yet consciousness is dramatically altered or absent.
Obviously the electrical and chemical activity changes. You are narrowing “physical” to “connectome”. Physcalism is compatible with the idea that specific kinds of physical.acriviry are crucial.
Immediately after death (before decay sets in), most physical properties of the brain are still present, yet consciousness is gone. This suggests consciousness tracks what the brain is doing (its functions)
No, physical behaviour isn’t function. Function is abstract, physical behaviour is concrete. Flight simulators functionally duplicate flight without flying. If function were not abstract, functionalism would not lead to substrate independence. You can build a model of ion channels and synaptic clefts, but the modelled sodium ions aren’t actual sodium ion, and if the universe cares about activity being implemented by actual sodium ions, your model isn’t going to be conscious
Rather than what it physically is. The physical structure has not changed but the functional patterns have changed or ceased.
Physical activity is physical.
I acknowledge that functionalism struggles with the hard problem of consciousness—it’s difficult to explain how subjective experience could emerge from abstract computational processes. However, non-computationalist physicalism faces exactly the same challenge. Simply identifying a physical property common to all conscious systems doesn’t explain why that property gives rise to subjective experience.
I never said it did. I said it had more resources. It’s badly off, but not as badly off.
Yet, we generally accept behavioural evidence (including sophisticated reasoning about consciousness) as evidence of consciousness in humans.
If we can see that someone is a human, we know that they gave a high degree of biological similarity. So webl have behavioural similarity, and biological similarity, and it’s not obvious how much lifting each is doing.
Functionalism doesn’t require giving up on qualia, but only acknowledging physics. If neuron firing behavior is preserved, the exact same outcome is preserved,
Well, the externally visible outcome is.
If I say “It’s difficult to describe what it feels like to taste wine, or even what it feels like to read the label, but it’s definitely like something”—There are two options—either -it’s perpetual coincidence that my experience of attempting to translate the feeling of qualia into words always aligns with words that actually come out of my mouth or it is not Since perpetual coincidence is statistically impossible, then we know that experience had some type of causal effect.
In humans.
So far that tells us that epiphenomenalism is wrong, not that functionalism is right.
The binary conclusion of whether a neuron fires or not encapsulates any lower level details, from the quantum scale to the micro-biological scale
What does “encapsulates”means? Are you saying that fine grained information gets lost? Note that the basic fact of running on the metal is not lost.
—this means that the causal effect experience has is somehow contained in the actual firing patterns.
Yes. That doesn’t mean the experience is, because a computational Zombie will produce the same outputs even if it lacks consciousness, uncoincidentally.
A computational duplicate of a believer in consciousness and qualia will continue to state that it has them , whether it does or not, because its a computational duplicate , so it produces the same output in response to the same input
We have already eliminated the possibility of happenstance or some parallel non-causal experience,
You haven’t eliminated the possibility of a functional duplicate still being a functional duplicate if it lacks conscious experience.
Basically
Epiphenenomenalism
Coincidence
Functionalism
Aren’t the only options.
Imagine that we could successfully implement a functional isomorph of the human brain in silicon. A proponent of 2) would need to explain why this functional isomorph of the human brain which has all the same functional properties as an actual brain does not, in fact, have consciousness.
Physicalism can do that easily,.because it implies that there can be something special about running running unsimulated , on bare metal.
Computationalism, even very fine grained computationalism, isn’t a direct consequence of physicalism. Physicalism has it that an exact atom-by-atom duplicate of a person will be a person and not a zombie, because there is no nonphysical element to go missing. That’s the argument against p-zombies. But if actually takes an atom-by-atom duplication to achieve human functioning, then the computational theory of mind will be false, because CTM implies that the same algorithm running on different hardware will be sufficient. Physicalism doesn’t imply computationalism, and arguments against p-zombies don’t imply the non existence of c-zombies—unconscious duplicates that are identical computationally, but not physically.
So it is possible,given physicalism , for qualia to depend on the real physics , the physical level of granularity, not on the higher level of granularity that is computation.
Anil Seth where he tries to pin down the properties X which biological systems may require for consciousness https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/tz6an. His argument suggests that extremely complex biological systems may implement functions which are non-Turing computable
It presupposes computationalism to assume that the only possible defeater for a computational theory is the wrong kind of computation.
My contention in this post is that if they’re able to reason about their internal experience and qualia in a sophisticated manner then this is at least circumstantial evidence that they’re not missing the “important function.”
There’s no evidence that they are not stochastic-parrotting , since their training data wasn’t pruned of statements about consciousness.
If the claim of consciouness is based on LLMs introspecting their own qualia and report on them , there’s no clinching evidence they are doing so at all. You’ve got the fact computational functionalism isn’t necessarily true, the fact that TT type investigations don’t pin down function, and the fact that there is another potential explanation diverge results.
Whether computationalism functionalism is true or not depends on the nature of consciousness as well as the nature of computation.
While embracing computational functionalism and rejecting supernatural or dualist views of mind
As before, they also reject non -computationalist physicalism, eg. biological essentialism whether they realise it or not.
It seems to privilege biology without clear justification. If a silicon system can implement the same information processing as a biological system, what principled reason is there to deny it could be conscious?
The reason would be that there is more to consciousness than information processing...the idea that experience is more than information processing not-otherwise-specified, that drinking the wine is different to reading the label.
It struggles to explain why biological implementation specifically would be necessary for consciousness. What about biological neurons makes them uniquely capable of generating conscious experience?
Their specific physics. Computation is an abstraction from physics, so physics is richer than computation. Physics is richer than computation, so it has more resources available to explain conscious experience. Computation has no resources to explain conscious experience—there just isn’t any computational theory of experience.
It appears to violate the principle of substrate independence that underlies much of computational theory.
Substrate independence is an implication of computationalism, not something that’s independently known to be true. Arguments from substrate independence are therefore question begging.
Of course, there is minor substrate independence, in that brains which have biological differences able to realise similar capacities and mental states. That could be explained by a coarse graining or abstraction other than computationalism. A standard argument against computationalism, not mentioned here is that it allows to much substrate independence and multiple realisability—blockheads and so on.
It potentially leads to arbitrary distinctions. If only biological systems can be conscious, what about hybrid systems? Systems with some artificial neurons? Where exactly is the line?
Consciousness doesn’t have to be a binary. We experience variations in our conscious experience every day.
However, this objection becomes less decisive under functionalism. If consciousness is about implementing certain functional patterns, then the way these patterns were acquired (through evolution, learning, or training) shouldn’t matter. What matters is that the system can actually perform the relevant functions
But that can’t be inferred from responses alone, since, in general, more than one function can generate the same output for a given input.
It’s not clear what would constitute the difference between “genuine” experience and sophisticated functional implementation of experience-like processing
You mean there is difference to an outside observer, or to the subject themself?
The same objection could potentially apply to human consciousness—how do we know other humans aren’t philosophical zombies
It’s implausible given physicalism, so giving up computationalism in favour of physicalism doesn’t mean embracing p-zombies.
If we accept functionalism, the distinction between “real” consciousness and a perfect functional simulation of consciousness becomes increasingly hard to maintain.
It’s hard to see how you can accept functionalism without giving up qualia, and easy to see how zombies are imponderable once you have given up qualia. Whether you think qualia are necessary for consciousness is the most important crux here.
We de-empahsized QM in the post
You did a bit more than de-emphasize it in the title!
Also:
Like latitude and longitude, chances are helpful coordinates on our mental map, not fundamental properties of reality.
“Are”?
**Insofar as we assign positive probability to such theories, we should not rule out chance as being part of the world in a fundamental way. **Indeed, we tried to point out in the post that the de Finetti theorem doesn’t rule out chances, it just shows we don’t need them in order to apply our standard statistical reasoning. In many contexts—such as the first two bullet points in the comment to which I am replying—I think that the de Finetti result gives us strong evidence that we shouldn’t reify chance.
The perennial source of confusion here is the assumption that the question is whether chance/probability is in the map or the territory… but the question sidelines the “both” option. If there were
strong evidence of mutual exclusion, of an XOR rather than IOR premise, the question would be appropriate. But there isn’t.If there is no evidence of an XOR, no amount of evidence in favour of subjective probability is evidence against objective probability, and objective probability needs to be argued for (or against), on independent grounds. Since there is strong evidence for subjective probability, the choices are subjective+objective versus subjective only, not subjective versus objective.
(This goes right back to “probability is in the mind”)
Occams razor isn’t much help. If you assume determinism as the obvious default, objective uncertainty looks like an additional assumption...but if you assume randomness as the obvious default, then any deteministic or quasi deteministic law seems like an additional thing
In general, my understanding is that in many worlds you need to add some kind of rationality principle or constraint to an agent in the theory so that you get out the Born rule probabilities, either via self-locating uncertainty (as the previous comment suggested) or via a kind of decision theoretic argument.
There’s a purely mathematical argument for the Born rule. The tricky thing is explaining why observations have a classical basis—why observers who are entangled with a superposed system don’t go into superposition with themselves. There are multiple aspects to the measurement problem...the existence or otherwise if a fundamental measurement process, the justification the Born rule, the reason for the emergence of sharp pointer states, and reason for the appearance of a classical basis. Everett theory does rather badly on the last two.
If the authors claim that adding randomness in the territory in classical mechanics requires making it more complex, they should also notice that for quantum mechanics, removing the probability from the territory for QM (like Bohmian mechanics) tends to make the the theories more complex.
OK, but people here tend to prefer many worlds to Bohmian mechanics.. it isn’t clear that MWI is more complex … but it also isn’t clear that it is a actually simpler than the alternatives …as it’s stated to be in the rationalsphere.
Computationalism is a bad theory of synchronic non-identity (in the sense of “why am I a unique individual, even though I have an identical twin”), because computations are so easy to clone—computational states are more cloneable than physical states.
Computationalism might be a better theory of diachronic identity (in the sense of “why am I still the same person, even though I have physically changed”), since it’s abstract, and so avoids the “one atom has changed” problem of naive physicalism. Other abstractions are available, though. “Having the same memories” is a traditional one unadulterated computation.
Its still a bad theory of consciousness-qua-awareness (phenomenal consciousness , qualia, hard problem stuff) because, being an abstraction, it has fewer resources than physicalism to explain phenomenal experience. There is no computational theory of qualia whatsoever, no algorithm for seeRed().
It’s still an ok explanation of consciousness-qua-function (easy problem stuff), but not obviously the best.
Most importantly: it’s still the case that, if you answer one of these four questions, you don’t get answers to the other three automatically.
I believe computationalism is a very general way to look at effectively everything,
Computation is an abstraction, and its not guaranteed to be the best.
This also answers andeslodes’s point around physicalism, as the physicalist ontology is recoverable as a special case of the computationalist ontology
A perfect map has the same structure as the territory, but still is not the territory. The on-the-metalness is lacking. Flight simulators don’t fly. You can grow potatoes in a map, not even a 1:1 one.
...also hears that the largest map considered really useful would be six inches to the mile; although his country had learnt map-making from his host Nation, it had carried it much further, having gone through maps that are six feet to the mile, then six yards to the mile, next a hundred yards to the mile—finally, a mile to the mile (the farmers said that if such a map was to be spread out, it would block out the sun and crops would fail, so the project was abandoned).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvie_and_Bruno
my biggest view on what consciousness actually is, in that it’s essentially a special case of modeling the world, where in order to give your own body at one time alive, you need to have a model of the body and brain, and that’s what consciousness basically is, a model of ourselves
So..it’s nothing to do with qualia/phenomenality/HP stuff? Can’t self modelling and phenomenality be separate questions?
Others say chance is a physical property – a “propensity” of systems to produce certain outcomes. But this feels suspiciously like adding a mysterious force to our physics.[4] When we look closely at physical systems (leaving quantum mechanics aside for now), they often seem deterministic: if you could flip a coin exactly the same way twice, it would land the same way both times.
Don’t sideline QM: it’s highly relevant. If there are propensities, real probabilities, then they are not mysterious, they are just the way reality works. They might be unnecessary to explain many of our practices of ordinary probablistic reasoning, but that doesn’t make them mysterious in themselves.
If you can give a map-based account of probablistic reasoning, that’s fine as far as it goes …but it doesn’t go as far as proving there are no propensities
This approach aligns perfectly with the rationalist emphasis on “the map is not the territory.”
Whatever that means , it doesn’t mean that maps can never correspond to territories. In-the-map does not imply not-in-the-territory. “Can be thought about in a certain way” does not imply “has be thought about in a certain way”.
Like latitude and longitude, chances are helpful coordinates on our mental map, not fundamental properties of reality. When we say there’s a 70% chance of rain, we’re not making claims about mysterious properties in the world.
But you could be partially making claims about the world,since propensities are logically possible...even though there is a layer of subjective ,lack-of-knowkedge-based uncertainty on top.
(And the fact that there is so much ambiguity between in-the-map probability and in-the-territory probability itself explains why there is so much confusion about QM).
Well, you can regard QM as deterministic, so long as you are willing to embrace nonlocality..but you don’t have to.
Although it is worth noting that many theories of quantum mechanics— in particular, Everettian and Bohmian quantum mechanics—are perfectly deterministic.
...only means you can.
The existence of real probabilities is still an open question, and still not closed by noticing that there is a version of probability/possibility/chance in the mind/map …because that doesn’t mean there is isn’t also a version in the territory/reality.
Bayesianism in particular doesn’t mean probability is in the mind in a sense exclusive of being in the territory.
Consider performing a Bayesian experiment in a universe with propensities. You start off with a prior of 0.5 , on indifference, that your photons will be spin up. You perform a run of a experiments,and 50% of them are spin up. So your posterior is also 0.5...which is also in the in-the-territory probability.
Credences need to be about something, but they don’t need to be about propensities. A Bayesian can prove that they have the right credences by winning bets, which is quite possible in a deterministic universe.
ethical, political and religious differences (which i’d mostly not place in the category of ‘priors’, e.g. at least ‘ethics’ is totally separate from priors aka beliefs about what is)
That’s rather what I am saying. Although I would include “what is” as opposed to “what appears to be”. There may well be fact/value gap, but there’s also an appearance/reality gap. The epistemology you get from evolutionary argument only goes as far as the apparent. You are not going to die if you have interpreted the underlying nature or reality of a dangerous thing incorrectly -- you should drink water even if you think it’s a fundamental element, you should avoid marshes even if you think fever is caused by bad smells.
are explained by different reasons (some also evolutionary, e.g. i guess it increased survival for not all humans to be the same), so this question is mostly orthogonal / not contradicting that human starting beliefs came from evolution.
But that isn’t the point of the OP. The point of the OP is to address an epistemological problem, to show that our priors have some validity, because the evolutionary process that produced them would tend to produce truth seeking ones. It’s epistemically pointless to say that we have some arbitrary starting point of no known validity—as the already-in-motion argument in fact does
I don’t understand the next three lines in your comment.
The point is that an evolutionary process depends on feedback from what is directly observable and workable (“a process tuned to achieving directly observable practical results”)...and that has limitations. It’s not useless, but it doesn’t solve every epistemological problem. (Ie. “non-obvious theoretical truth”).
Truth and usefulness, reality and appearance are different
The usefulness cluster of concepts includes the ability to make predictions, as well as create technology. The truth cluster of concepts involves identification of the causes of perceptions, and offering explanations, not just predictions. The usefulness cluster corresponds to scientific instrumentalism , the truth cluster to scientific instrumentalism. The truth cluster corresponds to epistemological rationalism, the usefulness cluster to instrumental rationalism. Truth is correspondence to reality , which is not identical to the ability to make predictions. One can predict that the sun will rise, without knowing what the Sun really is. “Curve fitting” science is adequate to make predictions. Trial and error is adequate to come up with useful technologies. But other means are needed to find the underlying reality. One can’t achieve convergence by “just using evidence” because the questions of what evidence is, and how to interpret it depends on one’s episteme.
A) If priors are formed by an evolutionary process common to all humans, why do they differ so much? Why are there deep ethical, political and religious divides?
B) how can a process tuned to achieving directly observable practical results allow different agents to converge on non-obvious theoretical truth?
These questions answer each other, to a large extent. B—they cant, A—that’s where the divides come from. Values aren’t dictated by facts, and neither are interpretations-of-facts.
The already-in-motion argument is even weaker than the evolutionary argument, because it says nothing about the validity of the episteme you already have...and nothing about the uniformity/divergence between individuals , either
Observations overwhelming priors needs to account for the divergence as well. But , of course, real agents aren’t ideal Bayesians...in particular , they dont have access to every possible hypothesis , and if you’ve never even thought of a hypothesis, the evidence can’t support it in practice. It’s as if the unimagined hypotheses—the overwhelming majority -- have 0 credence.
you can only care about what you fully understand
I think I need an operational definition of “care about” to process this
If you define “care about” as “put resources into trying to achieve” , there’s plenty of evidence that people care about things that can’t fully define, and don’t fully understand, not least the truth-seeking that happens here.
You can only get from the premise “we can only know our own maps” to the conclusion “we can only care about our own maps” via the minor premise “you can only care about what you fully understand ”. That premise is clearly wrong: one can care about unknown reality, just as one can care about the result of a football match that hasn’t happened yet. A lot of people do care about reality directionally.
Embedded agents are in the territory. How helpful that is depends on the territory
you can model the territory under consideration well enough to make the map-territory distinction illusory.
Well,no. A perfect map is still a map. The map territory distinction dies not lie in imperfect representation alone.
To specify the Universe, you only have to specify enough information to pick it out from the landscape of all possible Universes
Of course not. You have to specify the landscape itself, otherwise it’s like saying “page 273 of [unspecified book]” .
According to string theory (which is a Universal theory in the sense that it is Turing-complete)
As far as I can see, that is only true in that ST allows Turing machines to exist physically. That’s not the kind s of Turing completeness you want. You want to know that String Theory is itself Turing computable, not requiring hypercomputation. Or whatever is actually the ultimate physical theory. Because K complexity doesn’t work other wise. And the computability of physics is far from a given:-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computability_in_Analysis_and_Physics
Note that the fact that a theory might consist of a small number differential equations is quite irrelevant, because any one equation could be uncomputable.
They are not the same things though. Quantum mechanical measure isn’t actually a head count, like classical measure. The theory doesn’t say that—it’s an extraneous assumption. It might be convenient if it worked that way, but that would be assuming your conclusion.
QM measure isn’t probability—the probability of something occurring or not—because all possible branches occur in MWI.
Another part of the problem stems from the fact that what other people experience is relevant to them, whereas for a probability calculation, I only need to be able to statistically predict my own observations. Using QM to predict my own observations, I can ignore the question of whether something has a ten percent chance of happening in the one and only world, or a certainty of happening in one tenth of possible worlds. However, these are not necessarily equivalent ethically.
@Dagon
This comes down to a HUGE unknown—what features of reality need to be replicated in another medium in order to result in sufficiently-close results
That’s at least two unknowns: what needs to be replicated in order to get the objective functioning; and what needs to be replicated to get the subjective awarness as well.
Which is all just to say—isn’t it much more likely that the problem has been solved, and there are people who are highly confident in the solution because they have verified all the steps that led them there, and they know with high confidence which features need to be replicated to preserve consciousness...
And how do they that, in terms of the second problem? The final stage would need to be confirmation of subjective awareness. We don’t have instruments for that, and it’s no good just asking the sim, since a functional duplicate is likely to answer yes, even if it’s a zombie.
And that’s why it it can be argued that consciousness is a uniqueness difficult problem, beyond the “non-existent proof”
because “find the correct solution” and “convince people of a solution” are mostly independent problems,
That’s not just a theoretical possibility People , eg. Dennett,keep claiming to have explained consciousness, and other people keep being unconvinced because they notice they have skipped the hard part.
“That’s just saying he hasn’t explained some invisible essence of consciousness , equivalent to élan vital”.
“Qualia aren’t invisible, they are the most obvious thing there is to the person that has them”.
Physicalist epiphenomenalism is the only philosophy that is compatible with the autonomy of matter and my experience of consciousness, so it has not competitors as a cosmovision
No, identity theory and illusionism are competitors. And epiphenenomenalism is dualism, not physicalism. As I have pointed out before.
And one of Wallace’s axioms, which he calls ‘branching indifference’, essentially says that it doesn’t matter how many branches there are, since macroscopic differences are all that we care about for decisions..
The macroscopically different branches and their weights?
Focussing on the weight isn’t obviously correct , ethically. You cant assume that the answer to “what do I expect to see” will work the same as the answer to “what should I do”. Is-ought gap and all that.
Its tempting to think that you can apply a standard decision theory in terms of expected value to Many Worlds, since it is a matter of multiplying subjective value by probability. It seems reasonable to assess the moral weight of someone else’s experiences and existence from their point of view. (Edit: also, our experiences seem fully real to us, although we are unlikely to be in a high measure world) That is the intuition behind the common rationalist/utilitarian/EA view that human lives don’t decline in moral worth with distance. So why should they decline with lower quantum mechanical measure?
There is quandary here: sticking to the usual “adds up to normality” principle,as an apriori axiom means discounting the ethical importance of low-measure worlds in order to keep your favourite decision theory operating in the usual single-universe way...even if you are in a multiverse. But sticking to the equally usual universalist axiom, that you dont get to discount someone’s moral worth on the basis of factors that aren’t intrinsic to them, means you should not discount..and that the usual decision theory does not apply.
Basically, there is a tension between four things Rationalists are inclined to believe in:-
-
Some kind of MWI is true.
-
Some kind of utilitarian and universalist ethics is true.
-
Subjective things like suffering are ethically relevant. It’s not all about number of kittens
-
It’s all business as normal...it all adds up to normality.. fundamental ontological differences should not affect your decision theory.
-
According the many-worlds interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics, the universe is constantly splitting into a staggeringly large number of decoherent branches containing galaxies, civilizations, and people exactly like you and me
There is more than one many worlds interpretation. The version stated above is not known to be true.
There is an approach to MWI based on coherent superpositions, and a version based on decoherence. These are (for all practical purposes) incompatible. Coherent splitting gives you the very large numbers of “worlds”..except that they are not worlds, conceptually.
Many worlders are pointing at something in the physics and saying “that’s a world”....but whether it qualifies as a world is a separate question , and a separate kind of question, from whether it is really there in the physics. One would expect a world, or universe, to be large, stable, non-interacting, objective and so on . A successful MWI needs to jump three hurdles: mathematical correctness, conceptual correctness, and empirical correctness.
Decoherent branches are expected to be large, stable, non interacting, objective and irreversible...everything that would be intuitively expected of a “world”. But there is no empirical evidence for them , nor are they obviously supported by the core mathematics of quantum mechanics, the Schrödinger equation. Coherent superpositions are small scale , down to single particles, observer dependent, reversible, and continue to interact (strictly speaking , interfere) after “splitting”.
(Note that Wallace has given up on the objectivity of decoherent branches. That’s another indication that MWI is not a single theory).
There isn’t the slightest evidence that irrevocable splitting, splitting into decoherent branches occurs at every microscopic event—that would be combining the frequency of coherent style splitting with the finality of decoherent splitting. We dont know much about decoherence , but we know it is a multi-particle process that takes time, so decoherent splitting, if there is such a thing, must be rarer than the frequency of single particle interactions. ( And so decoherence isn’t simple ). As well as the conceptual incoherence, there is In fact plenty of evidence—eg. the existence of quantum computing—that it doesnt work that way
Also see
I’m not going to argue for this view as that was done very well by Eliezer in his Quantum Physics.
Which view? Everetts view? DeWitts view? Deutsch’s Zeh’s view? Wallace’s view? Saunders view?
I feel like branches being in fact an uncountable continuum is essentially a given
Decoherent branches being being countable, uncountable, or anything else is not given, since there is no established theory of of decoherence.
It’s a given that some observables have continuous spectra..but what’s that got to do with splitting? A observed state that isn’t sharp (in some basis) can get entangled with an apparatus, which then goes into a non-sharp state, and so on. And the whole shebang never splits , or becomes classically sharp.
I mean that the amount of universes that is created will be created anyway, just as a consequence of time passing. So it doesn’t matter anyway. If your actions e.g. cause misery in 20% of those worlds, then the fraction is all that matters; the worlds will exist anyway, and the total amount is not something you’re affecting or controlling.
That’s a special case of “no moral responsibility under determinism”. which might be true , but it’s very different from “utilitarianism works fine under MWI”.
**Enough of the physics confusions—onto the ethics confusions!”″
As well as confusion over the correct version of many worlds, there is of course confusion about which theory of ethics is correct.
There’s broadly three areas where MWI has ethical implications. One is concerned with determinism, freedom of choice, and moral responsibility. One is over the fact that MW means low probability events have to happen every time—as opposed to single universe physics, where they usually don’t. The other is over whether they are discounted in moral significance for being low in quantum mechanical measure or probability
MWI and Free Will
MWI allows probabilities of world states to change over time, but doesn’t allow them to be changed, in a sense amounting to libertarian free will. Agents are just part of the universal wave function, not anything outside the system, or operating by different rules.MWI is, as it’s proponents claim, a deterministic theory, and it only differs from single world determinism in that possible actions can’t be refrained from, and possible futures can’t be avoided. Alternative possibilities are realities, in other words.
MWI, Moral Responsibility, and Refraining.
A standard argument holds that causal determinism excludes libertarian free will by removing alternative possibilities. Without alternative possibilities, you could but have done other than you did, and , the argument goes, you cannot be held responsible for what you had no choice but to do.
Many world strongly implies that you make all possible decisions: according to David Deutsch’s argument that means it allows alternative possibilities, and so removes the objection from moral responsibility despite being a basically deterministic theory.
However, deontology assumed that performing a required act involves restraining from alternatives.. and that it is possible to retain from forbidden acts. Neither is possible under many worlds. Many worlds creates the possibility, indeed the necessity, of doing otherwise, but removes the possibility of refraining from an act. Even though many worlds allows Alternative Possibilities, unfortunately for Deutschs argument, that other aspects create a similar objection on the basis of moral responsibility: why would you hold someone morally responsible for an act if they could not refrain from it?
MWI, Probability, and Utilitarian Ethics
Its tempting to think that you can apply a standard decision theory in terms of expected value to Many Worlds, since it is a matter of multiplying subjective value by probability. One wrinkle is that QM measure isn’t probability—the probability of something occurring or not—because all possible branches occur in MWI. Another is that it is reasonable to assess the moral weight of someone else’s experiences and existence from their point of view. That is the intuition behind the common rationalist/utilitarian/EA view that human lives don’t decline in moral worth with distance. So why should they decline with lower quantum mechanical measure? There is quandary here: sticking to the usual “adds up to normality” principle,as an apriori axiom means discounting the ethical importance of low-measure worlds in order to keep your favourite decision theory operating in the usual single-universe way, even if you are in a multiverse. But sticking to the equally usual universalist axiom, that that you dont get to discount someone’s moral worth on the basis of factors that aren’t intrinsic to them, means you should not
Measure is not probability.
Mathematically, Quantum mechanical measure—amplitude—isn’t ordinary probability, which is why you need the Born rule.The point of the Born rule is to get a set of ordinary probabilities, which you can then test frequentistically, over a run of experiments. Ontologcally, it also not probability, because it does not represent the likelihood of one happening instead of another. And it has its own role, unlike that if ordinary probability, which is explaining how much contribution to a coherent superposition each component state makes (although what that means in the case of irrevocably decohered branches is unclear)
Whether you are supposed to care about them ethically is very unclear, since it is not clear how utilitarian style ethics would apply, even if you could make sense of the probabilities. But you are not supposed to care about them for the purposes of doing science, since they can no longer make any difference to your branch. MWI works like a collapse theory in practice.
The Ethical Weight or Low Measure Worlds
MWI creates the puzzle that low probability outcomes still happen, and have to be taken into account ethically. Many rationalists assume that they simply matter less, because that is the only way to restore anything like a normal view of ethical action—but one should not assume something merely because it is convenient.
It can be argued that most decision theoretic calculations come out the same under different interpretations of QM...but altruistic ethics is different. In standard decision theory, you can tell directly how much utility you are getting; but in altruistic ethics , you are not measuring your suffering/happiness, you are assessing someone else’s...and in the many worlds setting, that means solving the problem of how they are affected by their measure. It is not clear how low measure worlds should be considered in utilitarian ethics. It’s tempting to ethically discount low measure worlds in some way, because that most closely approximates conventional single world utilitarianism. The alternative might force one to the conclusion that overall good outcomes are impossible to attain , so long as one cannot reduce the measures of worlds full of suffering zero. However, one should not jump to the conclusion that something is true just because it is convenient. And of course, MWI is a scientific theory so it doesn’t comes with built in ethics
One part of the problem is that QM measure isn’t probability, because all possible branches occur in MWI. Another stems from the fact that what other people experience is relevant to them, wheareas for a probability calculation, I only need to be able to statistically predict my own observations.. Using QM to predict my own observations, I can ignore the question of whether something has a ten percent chance of happening in the one and only world, or a certainty of happening in one tenth of possible worlds. However, these are not necessarily.equivalent ethically.
Suppose they low measure worlds are discounted ethically. If people in low measure worlds experience their suffering fully, then a 1%, of creating a hell-world would be equivalent in suffering to a 100% chance, and discount is unjustified. But if people in low measure worlds are like philosophical zombies, with little or no phenomenal consciousness, so that their sensations are faint or nonexistent, the moral hazard is much lower, and the discount is justified. A point against discounting is that our experiences seem fully real to us, although we are unlikely to be in a high measure world
A similar, but slightly less obvious argument applies to causing death. Causing the “death” of a complete zombie is presumably as morally culpable as causing the death of a character in a video game...which, by common consent, is not problem at all. So… causing the death of a 50% zombie would be only half as bad as killing a real person...maybe.
Classical Measure isn’t Quantum Mechanical Measure
A large classical universe is analogous to Many Worlds in that the same structures—the same people and planets—repeat over long distances. It’s even possible to define a measure, by counting repetitions up to a certain level of similarity. And one has the option if thinking about Quantum Mechanical measure that way,as a “head count”....but one is not forced to do so. On one hand, it features normality, on the other hand It is not “following the maths” ,because there’s nothing in the formalism to suggest summing a number of identical low measure states is the only way to get a high measure one. So, again, it’s an extraneous assumption, and circular reasoning .
Ethical Calculus is not Decision Theory
Of course, MWI doesn’t directly answer the question about consciousness and zombiehood .You can have objective information about observations, and if your probability calculus is wrong , you will get wrong results and know that you are getting wrong results. That is the negative feedback that allows physics to be less wrong. And you can have subjective information about your own mental states, and if your personal calculus is wrong , you will get wrong results and know that you are getting wrong results. That is the negative feedback that allows personal decision theory to be less wrong.
Altruistic ethics is different. You don’t have either kind of direct evidence, because you are concerned with other people’s subjective sensations , not objective evidence , or your own subjectivity. Questions about ethics are downstream of questions about qualia, and qualia are subjective, and because they are subjective, there is no reason to expect them to behave like third person observations.
“But it all adds up to normality!”
If “it all” means every conjecture you can come up with, no It doesn’t. Most conjectures are wrong. The point of empirical testing is to pick out the right ones—the ones that make correct predictions, save appearances, add up to normality That’s a difficult process, not something you get for free.
So “it all adds up to normality” is not some universal truth And ethical theories relating to someone else’s feelings are difficult to test, especially if someone else is in the far future, or an unobservable branch of the multiverse. Testability isn’t an automatic given either.
There are no major ethical implications at all...Wallace makes a similar claim in his book: “But do [the many worlds in MWI] matter to ordinary, banal thought, action and language? Friendship is still friendship. Boredom is still boredom. Sex is still sex
That’s very narrow circle ethics, if it’s ethics at all—he just likes a bunch of things that impact him directly And it’s rather obvious that small circle ethical theories have the least interaction with large universe physical theories. So it likely he hasn’t even considered the question of altruistic ethics in many worlds, and is therefore coming to the conclusion that it all adds up to normality rather cheaply. It’s his ethical outlook that is the structural element , not his take on MWI.
Every quantum event splits the multiverse, so my measure should decline by 20 orders of magnitude every second.
There isn’t the slightest evidence that irrevocable splitting, splitting into decoherent branches occurs at every microscopic event—that would be combining the frequency of coherentism style splitting with the finality of decoherent splitting. As well as the conceptual incoherence, there is In fact plenty of evidence—eg. the existence of quantum computing—that it doesnt work that way
“David Deutsch, one of the founders of quantum computing in the 1980s, certainly thinks that it would. Though to be fair, Deutsch thinks the impact would “merely” be psychological – since for him, quantum mechanics has already proved the existence of parallel uni- verses! Deutsch is fond of asking questions like the following: if Shor’s algorithm succeeds in factoring a 3000-digit integer, then where was the number factored? Where did the computational resources needed to factor the number come from, if not from some sort of “multiverse” exponentially bigger than the universe we see? To my mind, Deutsch seems to be tacitly assuming here that factoring is not in BPP – but no matter; for purposes of argument, we can certainly grant him that assumption. It should surprise no one that Deutsch’s views about this are far from universally accepted. Many who agree about the possibil- ity of building quantum computers, and the formalism needed to describe them, nevertheless disagree that the formalism is best inter- preted in terms of “parallel universes.” To Deutsch, these people are simply intellectual wusses – like the churchmen who agreed that the Copernican system was practically useful, so long as one remembers that obviously the Earth doesn’t really go around the sun. So, how do the intellectual wusses respond to the charges? For one thing, they point out that viewing a quantum computer in terms of “parallel universes” raises serious difficulties of its own. In particular, there’s what those condemned to worry about such things call the “preferred basis problem.” The problem is basically this: how do we define a “split” between one parallel universe and another? There are infinitely many ways you could imagine slic- ing up a quantum state, and it’s not clear why one is better than another! One can push the argument further. The key thing that quan- tum computers rely on for speedups – indeed, the thing that makes quantum mechanics different from classical probability theory in the first place – is interference between positive and negative amplitudes. But to whatever extent different “branches” of the multiverse can usefully interfere for quantum computing, to that extent they don’t seem like separate branches at all! I mean, the whole point of inter- ference is to mix branches together so that they lose their individual identities. If they retain their identities, then for exactly that reason we don’t see interference. Of course, a many-worlder could respond that, in order to lose their separate identities by interfering with each other, the branches had to be there in the first place! And the argument could go on (indeed, has gone on) for quite a while. Rather than take sides in this fraught, fascinating, but perhaps ultimately meaningless debate...”..Scott Aaronson , QCSD, p148
Also see
Only their physical possibility requires some kind of nonphysicality. Physically impossible things can be conceivable if you don’t know why they are physically impossible, if you can’t see the contradiction between their existence and the laws of physics. The conceivability of zombies is therefore evidence for phenomenal consciousness not having been explained, at least. Which it hasn’t anyway: zombies are in no way necessary to state the HP.
A rich inner life is something you have whatever your metaphysics. It doesn’t go.away when you stop believing in it. It’s the phenomenon to be explained. Res Cogitans, or some other dualistic metaphysics, is among an number of ways explaining it...not something needed to pose the problem.
The HP only claims that the problem of phenomenal consciousness is harder-er than other aspects of consciousness. Further arguments by Chalmers tend towards the lack of a physical solution, but you are telescoping them all into the same issue.
But not the Hard Problem: the HP is about having any qualia at all, not about ambiguous or anomalous qualia. There would be an HP if everyone just saw the same.uniform shade of red all the time.
If. But we in fact lag in understanding the phenomenal aspect, compared to the others. In that sense, there is a defacto hard-er problem.
No, that’s not important. The HP starts with the subjectivity of qualia, it doesn’t stop with it.
Subjectivity isn’t just the trivial issue of being had by a subject, it is the serious issue of incommunicability, or ineffability.
No, you can state and justify the HP without assuming dualism.
Or both?
And how is the topic of free will related to consciousness anyway?
There could be non spooky free will...that is more than a mere feeling. Inasmuch as Seth has skipped that issue—whether there is a physically plausible, naturalistic free will—he hasn’t solved free will.
There are ways in which you could have both, because there are multiple definitions of free will, as well as open questions about physics. Apart from compatibilist free will, which is obviously compatible with physics, including deterministic physics, naturalistic libertarian free will is possible in an indeterministic universe. NLFW is just an objectively determinable property of a system, a man-machine. Free will doesn’t have to be explained away, and isn’t direct require an assumption of dualism.
The subjective e, sense -of-self is,.pretty much by definition. Whether there are any further objective facts, that would answer questions about destructive teleportation and the like, is another question. As with free will, explaining the subjective aspect doesn’t explain away the objective.aspect.