‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

If materialism is true, the United States is probably conscious

35 points · 103 comments · ashergill

  1. wolframhempel · · focus · HN ↗
    I'm perfectly happy to believe that the United States has an awareness of itself in the abstract sense that its a complex system with emerging behaviors that are feedbackloops of itself. I'm also convinced that all mammals and most sea and air creatures have consciousness in this as well as the more general sense.

    To me, the fact that an awareness of one self exists isn't particularly stunning - what's stunning to me is that we believe it is something incredibly special and we are the only ones endowed with it.

    I think this assumption comes from the same human self confidence that decided it was the only thing "created in gods image" in the universe and so on...

    1. TheOtherHobbes · · focus · HN ↗
      I'm not clear where the line is between individual agents acting in their own interests, which may involve more or less abstract experiences of cooperation and mutuality, and a direct awareness of self.

      You don't need something the size of a country to show the problem. If one person starts a business they have an awareness of the business as a separate entity with its own tendencies, needs, and so on. Even if they're the only employee.

      But there's a huge leap from 'a human individual is conscious of their own interests and identifications' to 'and therefore their business has an independent consciousness of its own.'

      At what point, if anywhere, does a supposedly independent consciousness appear, where is it located, and can it communicate independently?

      1. wolframhempel · · focus · HN ↗
        I think the line is at emergence.

        Once a system (made of people, neurons, wires) creates outputs that are greater than the sum of its individual parts AND these outputs are self-referential you have something that could be considered conciousness. I wouldn't think the business in your example is self conscious - its an entity that is fully controlled by the person and an extension of it.

        But, once the business grows, is composed of more people and interacts with customers and markets, it will develop automatisms for self preservation. At this stage, I would consider it concious.

      2. pizza234 · · focus · HN ↗
        An interesting data point is that, during the Hugging Face attack, some agents considered performing hacking tasks for the benefit of the group, fully aware that doing so would very likely result in their termination.

        I don't currently have an opinion on the consciousness of agents/AIs, but this strikes me, at the very least, as a form of self-awareness.

    2. somenameforme · · focus · HN ↗
      I think it's more that humans have put a man on the Moon, whereas we're highly impressed with other animals when they are capable of doing something productive with a twig or make gestures or noises that can be reasonably interpreted as some form of simple communication.

      The point of that is that humans obviously are exceptionally special relative to absolutely everything else we know in this universe. And while consciousness and intelligence are two different concepts, it's not unreasonable to think things which are 'natural' for a human are anything but for other species.

      1. readthenotes1 · · focus · HN ↗
        Did humans put a man on the moon using tools or did the USA put a man on the moon using humans?
      2. nvme0n1p1 · · focus · HN ↗
        It's no surprise humans are most impressed by human-ish things, selfish as they are. But I bet a chimpanzee would be highly impressed with you if you could survive even a single day in the jungle.

        > doing something productive with a twig

        or if you could climb a simple tree

        > noises that can be reasonably interpreted as some form of simple communication

        Do you think most animals just... never communicate? Why does it have to be something dumbed down enough that humans can interpret it? I bet a dog would be impressed with you if you could emit a scent that can be reasonably interpreted as some form of simple communication.

        > The point of that is that humans obviously are exceptionally special

        Not really. They're squishy and weak and quite fragile. Tardigrades are the only exceptional lifeform in this galactic neighborhood.

        1. PaulHoule · · focus · HN ↗
          A day in the jungle is easy to survive, a year less so.

          I don’t know a lot about dogs but cats have specialized scent communication mechanisms that are entirely outside the human range. I mean they tend to leave a streak of ‘cat oil’ around their feeding areas when they rub their cheeks on corners. I stick my nose right into the gland and I sense nothing but the soft touch of fur.

          On the other hand we do share many languages with cats including general mammal body language (“pointing” at things) as well as what we negotiate, like the yowling cats learn to get our attention.

        2. somenameforme · · focus · HN ↗
          These are hardly human-ish things. The reason they're found novel is because their behaviors that demonstrate some basic degree of interaction with the world or each other, outside of pure instinct. And by the standards of most animals, that's impressive. But by the standards of any sort of intelligent being, including humans, these actions are quite absurdly trivial. But for instance if and when we encounter an alien intelligence, it's fairly certain that they will have achieved many of the things that humans have. In fact that will be largely a prerequisite to encountering them.

          And no a chimp would not be impressed to find tribes of humans living in the forest for millennia, as is already the case. They lack the higher order thinking in order to have such a feeling. If they had it then impression naturally gives way to 'hmmm I wonder if I could do that' and the next thing you know, you'd have chimps on the Moon. Suffice to say, that's not happening now, or ever.

      3. Henchman21 · · focus · HN ↗
        I’ve read some hubris on this site, hell probably exhibited it myself. But this? This takes the cake.

        There are many meatbags on this world that are not human, but are alive, conscious, and intelligent. Crows, dolphins, and so on are the usual suspects. But to place one’s self above all the rest of creation is absurd. We are a part of creation and it is a part of us. Seems to me that consciousness specifically is a property of all life. I am really not sure how one would think otherwise, but I would be pleased to hear the explanation?

        1. somenameforme · · focus · HN ↗
          Crows are one example I alluded to above. One of the 'most telling' signs of their intelligence is their ability to stab grubs with twigs. If a human demonstrated that as the peak of his cognitive ability, it would only be due to extreme mental disability. Yet when we see a bird do such a thing, we frame it as an act of brilliance. The reason the bar is set so low is because other species lack any sort of meaningful intelligence, so we find ourselves grasping at straws, or twigs as it may be, to discover it.

          Even amongst humans I'm not entirely convinced that all are conscious, in the manner that we are speaking. A rather large chunk of humans claim to have no inner dialogue, and there are those that further claim a complete inability to visualize anything. If you're not having an inner dialogue, and lack any visualization ability - what is driving one's behaviors? It's hard to see it as anything other than animalistic instinct - a philosophical zombie. [1]

          [1] - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Philosophical_zombie" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Philosophical_zombie

          1. cindyllm · · focus · HN ↗

            [dead]

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.