My understanding of PGS's view is that he thinks that metabolism and autonomously maintaining and caring for oneself are necessary conditions for a sharp self/other boundary (and therefore for having a point of view and consciousness). That makes sense if we're talking about animals, but artifacts also can be clearly distinct from their environments, unlike rocks. Current language models are already sharply distinct from each other and from other software, but none of them autonomously maintains itself.
I read 'Other Minds' a while back and loved it. I need to get round to Metazoa.
If I remember correctly, he also notes that a minimal degree of this self awareness is found in certain microbes too, where they must be able to separate their own chemical and electrical signals from those they're tracking in the environment.
Sort of the conversation I had with myself as I wrote my book on AI, "What makes it go from a tool to a self?"
It’s easy to see intelligence in motion, perception, feedback loops. A rock doesn’t have this. But at some point, that loop starts referencing itself, not just reacting, but forging its own path based on experience.
“The point of view is a useful bridging concept between matter and mind” has a sort of interesting buddhist ring to it because, without the point of view, the division between “matter” and “mind”, these concepts which are themselves the result of sticking a bridge (not a goal) over an ambiguous chunk of life (as this entity, life splits just like a rock), would not even be differentiated. So yes, a bridge over a stream that the bridge delineates is pretty solid. “Expedient means!”
A point of view is necessary but not sufficient for consciousness. A point of view lets you observe the world, but that doesn't mean that you can model it. For consciousness we not only have to model the world, but model ourselves within that model of the world. Only then do we get the inner 'I' which is our model of ourselves, the physical 'me'.
Have you read the recent book A Brief History of Intelligence? I'm reading it now on Emmett Shear's recommendation. Has some of the same themes
It's on my list, and this comment just bumped it up!!
I've been enjoying it, it's well-written.
My understanding of PGS's view is that he thinks that metabolism and autonomously maintaining and caring for oneself are necessary conditions for a sharp self/other boundary (and therefore for having a point of view and consciousness). That makes sense if we're talking about animals, but artifacts also can be clearly distinct from their environments, unlike rocks. Current language models are already sharply distinct from each other and from other software, but none of them autonomously maintains itself.
Also, you might enjoy this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YsNRnZRgg8
The best
I read 'Other Minds' a while back and loved it. I need to get round to Metazoa.
If I remember correctly, he also notes that a minimal degree of this self awareness is found in certain microbes too, where they must be able to separate their own chemical and electrical signals from those they're tracking in the environment.
Sort of the conversation I had with myself as I wrote my book on AI, "What makes it go from a tool to a self?"
It’s easy to see intelligence in motion, perception, feedback loops. A rock doesn’t have this. But at some point, that loop starts referencing itself, not just reacting, but forging its own path based on experience.
It begins to shape its own reality.
“The point of view is a useful bridging concept between matter and mind” has a sort of interesting buddhist ring to it because, without the point of view, the division between “matter” and “mind”, these concepts which are themselves the result of sticking a bridge (not a goal) over an ambiguous chunk of life (as this entity, life splits just like a rock), would not even be differentiated. So yes, a bridge over a stream that the bridge delineates is pretty solid. “Expedient means!”
A point of view is necessary but not sufficient for consciousness. A point of view lets you observe the world, but that doesn't mean that you can model it. For consciousness we not only have to model the world, but model ourselves within that model of the world. Only then do we get the inner 'I' which is our model of ourselves, the physical 'me'.