• Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).

Consciousness Does Not Compute (and Never Will), Says Korean Scientist

Migrated topic.
Very interesting. It seems legit to me, from my background in CS. It is important to note that this only applies to quantum interactions, as the author says (section 7).
 
Disclaimer: I’m neither a physicist nor a mathematician, so take what I say with a grain of salt!

Although I like his hypothesis and agree with the suggested conclusion that consciousness does not arise from physical processes, I don’t think there’s anything very unique here.

First of all, I think there are lots of physical phenomena that are not computable. (The n-body problem is a simple example.) Being unable to precisely describe a physical process with mathematics doesn’t mean the process isn’t physical – it just means the process can’t be described with mathematics.

Secondly, I have yet to hear a satisfying definition of consciousness, so there’s no way of knowing what the author even means by “consciousness”. His “proof” that human consciousness cannot be computed is dependent on his definition of consciousness.

When it comes to consciousness, I’d much rather hear what a philosopher or a poet or an artist has to say rather than a biologist, physicist, or mathematician.
 
This author is making a HUGE leap when he generalizes quantum-scale phenomena to consciousness. As far as I know, there is very little compelling evidence that quantum mechanics is involved with our phenomenological experience of consciousness (Roger Penrose disagrees with me on this, but whatever).

The definition of consciousness used her is extremely vague, the author only makes reference to 'self awareness,' but even that is a load term. Are we talking about having a defined identity? Are we talking about the experience of being separate from the universe? Are we talking about simple self referential information processing? I'm not a physicist, so the answer may be buried in all that notation, but I missed it.

Blessings
~ND
 
gibran2 said:
Disclaimer: I’m neither a physicist nor a mathematician, so take what I say with a grain of salt!

Although I like his hypothesis and agree with the suggested conclusion that consciousness does not arise from physical processes, I don’t think there’s anything very unique here.

First of all, I think there are lots of physical phenomena that are not computable. (The n-body problem is a simple example.) Being unable to precisely describe a physical process with mathematics doesn’t mean the process isn’t physical – it just means the process can’t be described with mathematics.

Secondly, I have yet to hear a satisfying definition of consciousness, so there’s no way of knowing what the author even means by “consciousness”. His “proof” that human consciousness cannot be computed is dependent on his definition of consciousness.

When it comes to consciousness, I’d much rather hear what a philosopher or a poet or an artist has to say rather than a biologist, physicist, or mathematician.
Click to expand...

I feel the same.

quote from article said:
"Non-computability of Consciousness" documents Song's quantum computer research into TS. Song was able to show that in certain situations, a conscious state can be precisely and fully represented in mathematical terms, in much the same manner as an atom or electron can be fully described mathematically. That's important, because the neurobiological and computational approaches to brain research have only ever been able to provide approximations at best. In representing consciousness mathematically, Song shows that consciousness is not compatible with a machine.
Click to expand...

Imo, just because you were able to mathematically represent a 'conscious moment' within a 'certain situation' doesn't necessarily mean that that represents consciousness in it's entirety. Why did it have to be a 'certain situation' in order for mathematics to be made? Why not at any given moment under any circumstances. I just think this falls short.

But im no physicist or scientist, so don't take what I say too seriously. Just thoughts. :)
 
I mainly disagree with this:
In his paper, "Non-computability of Consciousness," Daegene Song proves human consciousness cannot be computed. Song arrived at his conclusion through quantum computer research in which he showed there is a unique mechanism in human consciousness that no computing device can simulate.
Click to expand...
The way I see it, the brain is a computing device, so the above statement is a priori wrong.

Secondly, the article is sloppy in its expressions. It equates mathematical representability to computability, which I disagree with. As Gibran and others already pointed out, even mathematical problems without closed-form solutions can have numerically approximated solutions to whatever precision computer capacity allows. That's the beauty of computing: A simple algorithm can calculate a result that otherwise transcends closed-form symbolic expression. min(x,y), for example, is easy to construct as a coded function but impossible(?) to construct as a mathematical symbolic function of x and y.
 
I'm just gonna shoot straight on my opinion, just an opinion, but is not the brain the best quantum computer ever evolved? Or created? Able to feel? react with chemicals and feelings? Even shoot electronic pulses through it? Sometimes a part activates that triggers another part without any interactions, Its a hard thing to figure out.. :?: Iv seen some docs on how this happens and its very interesting..
 
Back
Top Bottom