Comment Re:Based on the article... (Score 1) 217
It's all neurons, baby. All neurons.
It's all neurons, baby. All neurons.
"Nothing in our math that would generate consciousness?" Wait till you find out there's nothing in any of our cosmological models that would generate the Internal Revenue Service.
Yes. Barely paraphrased.
This article is really an example of the God of the gaps argument, or perhaps the argument from incredulity fallacy, which basically boils down to "science doesn't have an answer for it, so there must be some superlative, transcendent explanation." The possibility that science might later obtain such an answer is discounted.
The authors are victims of Dunning–Kruger: despite their abundance of academic qualifications, they can't even fathom that might be committing a debunked theological trope (and numerous fallacies besides), as they believe they have nothing to learn from those icky, sloppy, backward soft-humanities people from a century and a half ago—yet they are so supreme in their own self-righteousness as shepherds of the True Wisdom of Physics that they feel no hesitation at all to arrogate for their discipline anything that others have failed to conquer.
Yes, it is tradition for shitty philosophers to say "humans can do X, but computers can't do X," even though a rigorous definition of "doing X" has never been provided and may never be possible.
We don't really have a concrete functional definition of what it means for a human to know/understand something (much less "apprehend" it), but the current thinking from AI researchers is almost certainly that it is within reach of a sufficiently powerful LLM with a robust memory mechanism and the ability to make online batch updates. So hearing this No-True-Scotsman crap that boils down to "universe contains X but computers cannot contain X," where X = "read Douglas Hoffstadter while smoking a pipe and sounding, like, deep, man" is absolutely a fossil from ten or twenty years ago.
I realize we're shitting on a paper with four PhDs and a Nobel prize behind it, but come on, guys. If you're going to wander into religious studies, do your homework first.
Then consciousness is the subjective experience of homeostasis—not a quantum effect. That particular pool is too shallow to yield any other interesting fruit.
Yes, that is the problem with the paper in question—it is a giant emesis of jargon meant to bewilder and subjugate peer reviewers so it can smuggle in its narcissistic, premodern slop about consciousness (and therefore observation) being a fundamental physical property rather than an emergent one (which is unrelated to the physical interactions that we euphemistically and somewhat problematically call observation).
Hey, hey. We're picking on the quantum consciousness crackpots in this thread. Go do your No-True-Scotsman dick-measuring somewhere else.
Really more of a demonstration of the weirdness of entangled photons than anything else; the operant mechanism is still a physical interaction, not some grant-farming pseudo-empiricist checking in on the results.
All of these physical phenomena would still occur as they do even if there were no stinking apes in the entire goddamn universe to gawk at them.
The last person that quit or was fired will be held responsible for everything that goes wrong -- until the next person quits or is fired.