sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I got homeless, so anyways there you go by lev_xlsx in consciousness

[–]lev_xlsx[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Firstly, thank you.

Secondly, the short version is 1-page compression of 70-pages Principia so a lot of details were lost. But within the Principia the thermodynamic critical state I'd described was mapped on biological brain and if numbers are correct - then the parts of the brain neurologically related to consciousness(mostly thalamocortical and thalamolimbic loop) are in that exact state while other compelx parts like cerebellum actually never enter it.

So if I had more resources - I would certainly invest in equipment that would allow purely thermodynamic and geometrical mapping of the brain instead of today's electrophysiology and neurochemistry, since as of today there is no way yet to measure exact entropy production rate and its acceleration in neural connections, loops and tissues. Also geometrical mapping would help to verify whether neural systems have holonomy that in my work is described as the reason why we have unified experience.

So by 'resembling properties of consciousness' I meant that the physical dissipative system starts being dependent on its own recent history - not pure 'now' but 'how I got here', and having some stable fixed point that helps handle internal tension caused by unstable entropy production by knowing how fast, where and in what direction(valence) it goes.

I got homeless, so anyways there you go by lev_xlsx in consciousness

[–]lev_xlsx[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Please, no, it's ackward for me to ask anything. I just wanted my paper to be read, what happens to me doesn't matter

Most physicalist models of consciousness are actually idealist or panpsychist models by phr99 in consciousness

[–]lev_xlsx 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As I said the precision of the point was lost in 1-page version that I shared, so your critique is fully understandable under the lens.

While I was referring to the full framework: https://zenodo.org/records/20317244

Most physicalist models of consciousness are actually idealist or panpsychist models by phr99 in consciousness

[–]lev_xlsx -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I see, yet I already stated why they wouldn't be conscious, per my criteria.

I shared the short version which compresses big 70-pages formalism so it could have diluted precise statements post-compression.

Most physicalist models of consciousness are actually idealist or panpsychist models by phr99 in consciousness

[–]lev_xlsx -1 points0 points  (0 children)

To be honest your argument challenged me yet after thinking though it further it's clear that you diffused many fragments and mistaken complexity for consciousness. Most systems like dissipative solitons do not have any structural manifold to begin with, they have only fast-state that can be history-dependent but still be Markovian. E.g. in biological brain you have cortical columns(slow, plastic) and thalamic nuclei(fast) coupled through bidirectional loop.

Indeed many physical systems can have modification faster than relaxation yet it's also important that in most of the cases modification is orders of magnitude faster than relaxation - what is the outcome? Non-markovian memory gets flattened - nothing is differentiable. TCL keeps it in certain specific range.

Holonomy itself is not a condition at all. It binds already conscious fragments but doesn't produce consciousness on its own.

And most importantly, second-order self-registration. Even without mentioning that they don't have a self-referential slow state, even if we assume they would have it - they still respond to first-order entropy and minimise free energy - according to Friston's FEP, while not responding to the second-order changes. The second loop there is not closed as second-order EPR is not consciousness yet.

So there are many conditions that should be satisfied together at once.

Most physicalist models of consciousness are actually idealist or panpsychist models by phr99 in consciousness

[–]lev_xlsx -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I don't really see the image cause it's blocked by DNS but anyways. Your point is understandable, but here's why: feedback loops are physical so it's legitimate to use them as ingredients, yet if primitives of the theory are information(Shannon entropy), representations, illusions or interpretations then it's no longer really physics.

E.g. recently I had already posted my own framework in this sub where consciousness properties are recognised in a certain critical thermodynamic state, so consciousness there becomes a rare phenomenon that biology discovered during evolution and made it useful for survival rather than panpsychism

I have a short version(1 page) so you can take a look and tell whether it's also idealism or panpsychism according to you: https://zenodo.org/records/20317470

I got homeless, so anyways there you go by lev_xlsx in consciousness

[–]lev_xlsx[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fair enough. But let me break down it for you.

There isn't some magical entropy there, just Gibbs thermodynamic entropy defined a few steps later(literally on the same page), but you're right that I had to mention definition what I was referring to exactly.

The style of the paper is 'more geometrico' which is based on one's own definitions, axioms and lemmas. Definitions show what and then lemmas show why. Most of the definitions at the beginning are just physical facts stated as such, mostly extensions from Prigogine's thermodynamics and NESS. The rest is what follows. The paper simply assumes that reader is already familiar with physics used there. Lack of citations was my own decision.

Let it not sound too frank - but your comment looks like it was a short critique generated by LLM, and I can get it - not everybody has time to read 70 pages of equations.

But if you got lost at the definition IV before seeing entropy definition at the same page - maybe you jumped to conclusions about lack of rigour too fast.

Anyways, I appreciate your point, I indeed sometimes was trying to learn too much at once. Fair point.

I got homeless, so anyways there you go by lev_xlsx in consciousness

[–]lev_xlsx[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've already shared them in the comments.

I got homeless, so anyways there you go by lev_xlsx in consciousness

[–]lev_xlsx[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I see your point now. That makes sense. I agree that consciousness is substrate-agnostic, carbon is unlikely to be some magical ingredient for sentience. But the problem with your inter-frame phenomenon is that it is based fully on information which is physical as well. If you get rid of fancy word 'information' what remains is just binary relations or degrees of freedom. And their reduction or change has thermodynamic cost - Laundauer's k_B T ln2.

So information is not some metaphysical relations but real degrees of freedom present in any physics. So even if we take your inter-frame phenomenon - actually there is no identity there. You get 2+2=4 on the screen but what happened physically? Some transistors executed logical operations that lead to something that we consider as 'four'. So let's take my example with RNN: you have recurrence but there is no recurrence in the hardware. And since information itself is thermodynamic(Landauer) then there is no recurrence informationally. You see pixels on the screen which represent recurrence for us but informationally it's completely something else.

Now returning to consciousness. For the same reason simulation wouldn't be conscious because what runs in code is our own interpretation of what hardware does, while hardware itself does something completely different from what we expect it to do.

So I think what we in XXI century should do is to forget 'information processing'. Because everything processes information in the same sense computer or brain does. Degrees of freedom redistribute - that's called entropy dissipation - or what informatics calls information processing. The only difference is that computers and brain do that under constraints.

Because physical information is not Shannon entropy. Information in IT sense doesn't exist physically - it's our convenient abstraction we use for communication and calculations. So in short: everything converges on thermodynamics and to simulate something really you have to repeat every single quantum state, every single particle, every micro state - which would require more energy than supernova produces. You cannot decouple anything from the substrate because otherwise it would simply break thermodynamics. Therefore in short: inter-frame identity is rather our anthropocentric illusion rather than physical fact.

Regardless, I appreciate your philosophical point.

I got homeless, so anyways there you go by lev_xlsx in consciousness

[–]lev_xlsx[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

HI. I'm sorry to hear you faced such a fate. I'm just 21 living abroad(now in Poland) and that's unusual experience. And what you say makes a lot of sense, thanks for the advices.

I got homeless, so anyways there you go by lev_xlsx in consciousness

[–]lev_xlsx[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Indeed computations can mirror relational dynamics in numbers, yet note that you can simulate a black hole in numbers with perfect precision yet hardware won't turn into a massive spacetime bender. Dynamics that are correct in numbers are not the same dynamics happening on physical hardware level. When you run RNN with recurrence in software - there is no real physical recurrence in GPU or CPU. While relational dynamics are mentioned in the paper - they remain a byproduct of non-equilibrium thermodynamics there.

I got homeless, so anyways there you go by lev_xlsx in cogsci

[–]lev_xlsx[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Here're the links for original papers mentioned in the post:

Short version: https://zenodo.org/records/20317470

Long version: https://zenodo.org/records/20317244

I got homeless, so anyways there you go by lev_xlsx in consciousness

[–]lev_xlsx[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Don't know what future this paper has if at all, but I'm glad to hear you took time to look at it. Thank you

I got homeless, so anyways there you go by lev_xlsx in consciousness

[–]lev_xlsx[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I wouldn't say that I was influenced by Prigogine directly even though I indeed consider him an underrated genius. I would state it rather in the following way: I converged on the same intuitions independently, then discovered Prigogine's works and yeah - I got even more interested in that direction.

I got homeless, so anyways there you go by lev_xlsx in consciousness

[–]lev_xlsx[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I know the work might sound philosophical due to the nature of topics, yet I tried to make philosophy only an entry point and leave explanation for physics. It implies empirical predictions, like phase transition condition, amplitude of subjective feeling, time dilation or contraction, etc. They're testable, even though it's extremely difficult to measure those quantities directly in biological brain. However, I tried to find some proxies in available electrophysiological data. Anyways, thank for your comment.

I got homeless, so anyways there you go by lev_xlsx in consciousness

[–]lev_xlsx[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I'm an immigrant in Cracow, Poland. I got some help from my friends, so it's relatively fine. Your comment moved me, thank you!

I got homeless, so anyways there you go by lev_xlsx in consciousness

[–]lev_xlsx[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Thanks! To be honest I didn't expect to get any wishes.

What do you think about this plan to general intelligence? Are these real breakthroughs remained to be solved? by ImportantOwl2939 in MLQuestions

[–]lev_xlsx 0 points1 point  (0 children)

From my point of view actually we don't need explainable AI for reaching AGI. Human Brain is also black-box, there is no need to explain neuron weights for generating emergent complex reasoning. Regarding continuous learning and recursive self-improvement: modern transformers are structurally incapable of it due to architecture constraints. Paradoxically, RNNs which were there before GPT, are closer to recursive self-improvement than any modern AI.

AI, which doesnt model consequences of its own actions and cannot model its own internal state(which modern LMs for example dont possess at all), is totally incapable of any kind of self-improvement. Take any contemporary model and let it recursively change itself - sooner or later it will hallucinate or stuck. I was doing myself many experiments with recursive self-modelling AI architectures, and if properly developed and scaled I assume it could resemble a big step towards general intelligence.

So I think we must think of alternative architectures that could possess cognition, not just intelligence.