But the Chinese room argument is very flawed, at least if we assume that consciousness does in fact arise in the brain and not through some supernatural phenomenon.
Suppose we know the exact algorithm that gives rise to consciousness. The Chinese room argument states that if a person carries out the algorithm by hand, the person does not become consciousness. Checkmate atheists.
This is flawed because it is not the axons, synapses, neurotransmitters or voltage potentials within the brain that are conscious. Instead, it appears that consciousness arises when these computations are carried out in concert. Thus consciousness is not a physical object itself, it is an evolving pattern resulting from the continuous looping of the algorithm.
Furthermore, consciousness and intelligence are not the same thing. Intelligence is the ability to make predictions, even if it’s just a single-neuron on/off gate connected to a single sensory cell. Consciousness is likely the experience of being able to make predictions about our own behavior, a meta-intelligence resulting from an abundance of neurons and interconnections. There is likely no clear cutoff boundary of neural complexity where consciousness arises, below which no consciousness can exist. But it’s probably useful to imagine such a boundary.
Basically, what if thinking creatures are simply auto-correct on steroids (as Linus Tordvals put it). What’s unreasonable about treating intelligence as a matter of statistics, especially given that it’s such a powerful tool to model every other aspect of our universe?
Well that’s not my interpretation. Consciousness arises from understanding. True understanding. Not stimulus in- behavior out.
Consciousness is not a simple exchange or matching task. Which is what the Chinese room illustrates.
There is more to it.
The Chinese room is modern LLMs.
Human brains are altered by every stimulus. Physically they are constantly changing at the neuron level.
The way inhibitory neurons work … It does not work in a way that (at present) can be predicted very accurately beyond a single or small number of neurons.
As I like to say. Every moment the brain is updated biologically. Biological changes. Connections weakened, strengthened, created, destroyed.
This happens constantly.
You can’t use statistics to predict these kind of events.
Although the neuro definition of “consciousness” is debated. It is generally considered “awareness”.
It’s something that is a product of many processes in the brain.
And we haven’t even touched on brain occillations and how they impact cognitive functions. Brain occillations are heavily tied to consciousness/awareness. They synch up processes and regulate frequency of neuron firing.
They gatekeep stimuli effects as well.
The brain is so unbelievably complicated. Research on ERPs are the best we have for predicting some specific brain spikes of cognitive activities.
You may find the research on it to be less than where you think it is.
Neuroscience knowledge is far below what most people think it is at (I blame click bait articles).
However it’s still an interesting area so here is the wiki.
But the Chinese room argument is very flawed, at least if we assume that consciousness does in fact arise in the brain and not through some supernatural phenomenon.
Suppose we know the exact algorithm that gives rise to consciousness. The Chinese room argument states that if a person carries out the algorithm by hand, the person does not become consciousness. Checkmate atheists.
This is flawed because it is not the axons, synapses, neurotransmitters or voltage potentials within the brain that are conscious. Instead, it appears that consciousness arises when these computations are carried out in concert. Thus consciousness is not a physical object itself, it is an evolving pattern resulting from the continuous looping of the algorithm.
Furthermore, consciousness and intelligence are not the same thing. Intelligence is the ability to make predictions, even if it’s just a single-neuron on/off gate connected to a single sensory cell. Consciousness is likely the experience of being able to make predictions about our own behavior, a meta-intelligence resulting from an abundance of neurons and interconnections. There is likely no clear cutoff boundary of neural complexity where consciousness arises, below which no consciousness can exist. But it’s probably useful to imagine such a boundary.
Basically, what if thinking creatures are simply auto-correct on steroids (as Linus Tordvals put it). What’s unreasonable about treating intelligence as a matter of statistics, especially given that it’s such a powerful tool to model every other aspect of our universe?
Well that’s not my interpretation. Consciousness arises from understanding. True understanding. Not stimulus in- behavior out.
Consciousness is not a simple exchange or matching task. Which is what the Chinese room illustrates.
There is more to it.
The Chinese room is modern LLMs.
Human brains are altered by every stimulus. Physically they are constantly changing at the neuron level.
The way inhibitory neurons work … It does not work in a way that (at present) can be predicted very accurately beyond a single or small number of neurons.
As I like to say. Every moment the brain is updated biologically. Biological changes. Connections weakened, strengthened, created, destroyed.
This happens constantly.
You can’t use statistics to predict these kind of events.
Although the neuro definition of “consciousness” is debated. It is generally considered “awareness”.
It’s something that is a product of many processes in the brain.
And we haven’t even touched on brain occillations and how they impact cognitive functions. Brain occillations are heavily tied to consciousness/awareness. They synch up processes and regulate frequency of neuron firing.
They gatekeep stimuli effects as well.
The brain is so unbelievably complicated. Research on ERPs are the best we have for predicting some specific brain spikes of cognitive activities.
You may find the research on it to be less than where you think it is.
Neuroscience knowledge is far below what most people think it is at (I blame click bait articles).
However it’s still an interesting area so here is the wiki.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event-related_potential