aspenqy

follow =/= support

[aspenqy @aspenqy]

@BeraHugs While I can't speak for Andres, I read his view as requiring specific dynamics for phenomenal binding (e.g., coherent fields unifying experience). Others argue sentience could arise from higher-order, self-maintaining causal relations unfolding thru time, regardless of substrate.

[aspenqy @aspenqy]

@webmasterdave @iyzebhel But can't the bonding come from the fact that the subject is unified via a particular sort of higher-order, self-maintaining causal relation extended through time, rather than needing quantum nonseparability at the fundamental level?

[aspenqy @aspenqy]

@Tritan95 @TaylorLorenz Self-report isn’t proof of sentience, agreed. But that’s not my claim. The question is whether the underlying physical process could ever genuinely have qualia, not whether text output proves it.

[aspenqy @aspenqy]

@algekalipso 2/ Topological segmentation might explain the synchronic boundary. Another hard Q may be diachronic: what makes one segmented whole persist as the same subject thru time? Great stuff.

[aspenqy @aspenqy]

@algekalipso 1/ The whole→parts→whole loop seems key. Is the “shared scene” just broadcast content, or a self-regenerating regime whose parts help constitute the next global state?

[aspenqy @aspenqy]

@algekalipso I basically agree, but I wonder if resolution matters. A digital system may look fragmented at the local-operation level while still forming a genuinely integrated whole at a higher causal res. The key Q is whether that higher-level unity is physically real or just descriptive.

[aspenqy @aspenqy]

@webmasterdave @tim_tyler @Benthamsbulldog 2/ It won’t prove consciousness by itself, but if that kind of unity survives controlled perturbation and substrate change, it could help clarify what a specifically quantum account of phenomenal binding still needs to explain, even if it raises more questions than answers.

[aspenqy @aspenqy]

@webmasterdave @tim_tyler @Benthamsbulldog 1/ I’m in the process of testing whether a classical connectome model can exhibit a non-arbitrary, intervention-stable form of whole-level unity at a privileged resolution, rather than just behavioral integration.

[aspenqy @aspenqy]

@KeithWoodsYT @thesyrupyfey A system can have real higher-level functions without implying built-in purposes. ATP synthase is identified partly by its role, but that role can still be explained through molecular dynamics, system organization, and evolutionary selection rather than teleology.

[aspenqy @aspenqy]

@webmasterdave @gnosia101 @DavidBrin The darker part is that past suffering may remain part of reality. Still, a subject needn’t suffer eternally: along its own forward trajectory, the painful state can end even if that event remains part of spacetime. It's a profoundly sad idea. That said, I live as a vegan.

[aspenqy @aspenqy]

@webmasterdave @gnosia101 @DavidBrin As a vegan, I still avoid contributing to suffering because I don’t want my own causal trajectory intertwined with producing it. But if all possible histories exist, that doesn’t erase suffering globally. It just means this particular trajectory contains less of it downstream.

[aspenqy @aspenqy]

@webmasterdave @newscientist But this could be entirely off base. It's a sort of Russellian monism-like model.

[aspenqy @aspenqy]

@webmasterdave @newscientist A strange implication is that even a car might have intrinsic character tied to its organization without being conscious or feeling anything. Consciousness would require additional subject-forming relations, so intrinsic character alone wouldn’t imply awareness or pain.

[aspenqy @aspenqy]

@webmasterdave @newscientist Maybe binding is better reframed as individuation: a conscious moment may be one unified structural-phenomenal state at its own whole resolution, not many qualia glued together. Then the open question is what physics, classical, quantum, etc., realizes that unity. Thoughts?

[aspenqy @aspenqy]

@MaxVelocityWX "Ever recorded" is doing more work than many may assume. Reliable tracking in that area has only really been around since the early 70s. So even if it's true, it's likely not as significant as many may assume.

[aspenqy @aspenqy]

@_The_Prophet__ Fundamental consciousness doesn’t merely imply one subject. One underlying reality could instantiate many numerically distinct experiencers. If the brain individuates one subject trajectory, destroying that organization may end that subject even if consciousness exists elsewhere.

[aspenqy @aspenqy]

@tomieinlove @schisofrenia Not magic, just strange. We already know a fair amount about how neural organization maps onto experience. The missing piece is a precise enough causal geometry-to-qualia map that future neurotech could reproduce, transform, or perhaps directly share specific phenomenal states.

[aspenqy @aspenqy]

@Chris_Grosse A bit heavy of the cheese perhaps.