1. Something which results in "qualia"

2. Something which arises by a non-mechanistic process

and then is just expecting readers to accept that these two definitions are equivalent. It's the same fatal flaw as the original Chinese Room argument.

Eg. A regular computer with a camera that's programmed to do something if a photon hits a certain pixel is non deterministic.

I personally do agree that consciousness probably does have an element of non determinism but I don't think that non determinism needs to come from neurons in the brain. We have a whole bunch of non deterministic inputs, consciousness could well come from that and that's true if computers too. In fact it's pretty well known there's nothing really quantum about human neurons.

A feeling in your mind is more than just a signal. Feeling a pit in one's stomach is not because I feel serotonin or GABA or whatever (i don't know which one). You really, truly feel a literal pit in your stomach. Why does one feel this? Even if you claim it's due to a physical pit in my stomach (perhaps due to muscle clenching or whatever), why do I sense a pit? Not in the 'oh my brain neurons fire indicating the presence of something' but in the 'why does it feel like that'?. Why why why? No one can explain the qualia of the sensation and the only way to claim this thing can be experienced by non-biological objects is by a blind faith.

EDIT: there should be a rule on HN against downvotes without responses. Unless you can explain qualia; stop downvoting. It's a major problem.

Yep, I think almost everyone agrees with that.

and the only way to claim this thing can be experienced by non-biological objects is by a blind faith.

But not that. If you admittedly can’t explain the phenomenon in the first place, how can you have any confidence in that assertion? You’re trying to have it both ways.

“Nobody can understand it, but I just know that it doesn’t work and definitely can’t work in the way you’re suggesting.”

To claim that non biological things certainly experience qualia is... A statement of faith.

I have not said they don't.

My statement is simply that we've never had any evidence they do.

My statement (the equivalent of agnosticism) is observational.

The other (that non biologic things are equally capable of qualia) is a faith based statement.

It's like me saying 'only biological things experience qualia because God made it so'.

- "Qualia" are subjective conscious experiences; you know they're real because you experience them yourself.

- We all assume that other people have them too (ignoring abstract philosophical debates around "zombies").

- Sounds like you assume dogs have them too -- because dogs act as if they're conscious, right?

- However, some people assert that computers cannot have qualia, by the "Chinese Room" argument.

My position is that the "Chinese Room" argument is meaningless if we don't understand anything about the basis of qualia in the first place -- and we don't. Where does the "only biological entities" requirement come from? Do bacteria have consciousness? Where do you draw the line?

In contrast, "if it acts as if it's conscious, maybe it is conscious" at least seems logically consistent. It looks pretty likely that computers could act as if they're conscious, if AI continues to advance. Maybe they would really be conscious and maybe they wouldn't, who knows? But I haven't seen any convincing argument to rule it out.

To repeat, the only direct confirmation of qualia we have is our own subjective experiences. Everything else is guesswork.

Although not everyone feels that way and many believe only humans have qualia.

More to the point though... It's a hard stretch convincing me that matrix multiplications lead to qualia. At which point in the multiplication is sensation felt?

Whereas a dog and a human presumably operate on principles we still don't understand, so there is room in this unknown space for qualia to exist.

Downvotes are specifically for things that do not support productive discussion, so downvote + response makes no sense.

EDIT: If HN had a private message facility, I can somewhat see a case for private feedback with downvotes, though I suspect that would also end up unworkable.

(but i'm not downvoting your idea, to your point!)

For any entity with qualia, of which only one certainly exists from the perspective of any given observer, this is more accurately stated as “any other entity than the self” rather than “non-biological objects”.

Qualia inherently is not observable externally, so it is impossible to build a body of evidence which would support associating it with observable traits like “being a biological object”.

For example, many children upon reaching the age of reason (usually somewhere around 7) will ask questions like 'how do I know my blue is the same as yours?' which is evidence they experience qualia.

Current computer AI attempts don't count because they've been exposed to large corpi of philosophy

Sure, but the exact same argument could be made about everyone who isn't you, couldn't it? You only have two pieces of evidence to support the idea that other people feel anything:

- you feel things, other people are made of the same meat stuff as you so maybe it's a safe assumption that other people feel things in the same way you do (aside: this does pose a bit of a problem for those of us who eat animal products)

- other people tell you they feel things

Could I not say that you're relying on blind faith in assuming that I feel things just because you do?

Also, how do you know you feel things? How do you know you have free will? How do you know you're conscious? The only answer anyone can honestly give to any of those questions is "because I feel like I do".

We could say "well, it'll be magic then", but that's not particularly satisfying. To be fair you did say it's magic "for lack of a better word", however there is a better word: unknown.

So I feel a bit similar about your argument to be honest.

What I mean is that we haven't found an example of something where it has been shown that the only possible explanation is magic.

Do you have an example? Sounds like you are the one that is claiming greater knowledge of things.

There is magic even in things we understand. Gravity, magnetic forces, the ability to feel emotions it goes on forever basically.

What I've actually come to realize is the phrase, "nothing is magic" is actually nonsensical because it's a paradox.

> the magic in existence itself

this refers to the mystery of why anything exists at all, and why it exists in the way it does. Not the same as some special property that only exists in certain phenomena.

> There is magic even in things we understand

This again refers to the "why it exists in the way that it does" again, as fundamental forces just "are" rather than having a causal explanation. Again, not the same thing.

> Things can be understood and still magic

That's the opposite of what you were saying before, which is that there is some special element within us that can't be replicated in a machine. That would require us not understanding something, or at the very least recognizing and understanding some property that we have identified that can't be replicated in machines, which we haven't.

What is your definition of "magic"?

My definition of magic is: mysteriously enchanting; magical: magic beauty. That's from dictionary.com btw.

Something can be explainable through words or scientific study and still be mysterious, enchanting and having magic beauty.

But topics have scope. I still find value in science. I recognize that science is just the map and not the territory, and is not a final answer about any truth. Within the confines of science itself though, there are an internal set of rules that keep it consistent. Intermingling two systems only confuses the issue. I don't use dzogchen nondual meditation to analyze chemical reactions, and I don't use science to analyze the qualia of my personal experience.

That being said, there is room for going up a level and seeing where the two systems might synergize or interact, but it requires a lot of thought and effort. It's not just something you come up with off the cuff. Magic in the Harry Potter sense may exist but until there is some mechanism for measuring it and understanding it, there's no room for it within scientific methods.

It's a metaphysical issue to intertwine the two ideas, not a physical one.

Discussing about the relative merits of neurons and transistors will get you nowhere. It is a philosophical, possibly religious question, outside the real of natural science.