[wildermuthn]

If the universe is material, then we already know with 10-billion percent certainty that some arrangement of matter causes qualia. All we have to do is figure out what arrangements do that.

Ironically, we understand consciousness perfectly. It is literally the only thing we know — conscious experience. We just don’t know, yet, how to replicate it outside of biological reproduction.

[woodruffw]

> All we have to do is figure out what arrangements do that.

That’s the hard part!

> It is literally the only thing we know — conscious experience. We just don’t know, yet, how to replicate it outside of biological reproduction.

This conflates subjective experience as necessary (an uncontroversial observation) with actually understanding what subjective experience is.

Or put another way: we all know what it’s like to breathe, but this doesn’t imply knowledge of the pulmonary system.

[wildermuthn]

Agree on hard. But at least possible.

I think a better analogy would be vision. Even with a full understanding of the eye and visual cortex, one can only truly understand vision by experiencing sight. If we had to reconstruct sight from scratch, it would be more important to experience sight than to understand the neural structure of sight. It gives us something to aim for.

We basically did that with language and LLMs. Transformers aren’t based on neural structures for language processing. But they do build upon the intuition that the meaning of a sentence consists of the meaning that each word in a sentence has in relation to every other word in a sentence — the attention mechanism. We used our experience of language to construct an architecture.

I think the same is true of qualia and consciousness. We don’t need to know how the hardware works. We just need to know how the software works, and then we can build whatever hardware is necessary to run it. Luckily there’s theories of consciousness out there we can try out, with AST being the best fit I’ve seen so far.