Transclude of sentience#^2b8cc4
→ The reality we interact with is fundamentally the result of the representation mechanisms in our brain. There are certain regularities and patterns that are universal, but the signals we get and interact with on a high level are not the raw “real world”.
Link to originalTapestries of Valence - The Emergence of Quality
When millions of simple units network together, their collective patterns of attraction and repulsion create rich “tapestries of valence.” What we call qualia - the redness of red, the pain of pain - are these complex patterns.
Red isn’t a neutral label we attach feelings to; it’s a specific tapestry of attraction and repulsion across our sensory system. When you see food, you don’t first neutrally identify “food object” and then apply “positive value” - the recognition itself is attractive. The tapestry of valence that recognizes food is simultaneously the pull toward it.
Reward is not a label applied after the fact. Interpretation and value judgement are one and the same.
The system doesn’t recognize something then evaluate it; the recognition itself is evaluative.
We don’t need to explain how neutral representations acquire subjective character - there are no neutral representations. Everything is made of valence from the ground up.
Link to originalWe only exist “ as if”. We exist inside a dream reality (“simulacrum”) constructed by our brain, which is what makes consciousness so mysterious to us. - Joscha Bach
“Physical systems cannot be conscious, only simulations can. Consciousness is a virtual property”.
This explanation by chatty makes sense?In other words, the brain’s complex computational processes create a “simulation” of reality, and consciousness is a byproduct of this simulation. It’s as if our minds are running a “program” that generates the experience of being conscious. Thus, consciousness is virtual because it depends on the brain’s processing rather than existing independently as a physical entity.
This view challenges the notion that consciousness is directly tied to physical matter. Instead, it’s seen as an emergent phenomenon that arises from the “virtual” processes within the brain’s complex network.So he is saying our conscious experience, our feelings, qualia?, … exist in an emergent simulacrum?
What even does it mean to be simulated. Why not just say that it operates on a different level of abstraction??
Also, yes, our deeper cognitive circuts do not directly perceive 100% of nature in an unaltered form, we constantly interpret and filter the few signal we do get, but … what is the point being made here?
One thing that follows from this is that qualia are substrate agnostic … you would think… but then he says this:
He also says “mechanical things cannot be conscious” (“a giant machine with parts pushing and pulling at eachother - none of that is a perception or emotion”) … but can it not emerge from the mechanical interactions? Then what is the brain doing?
“consciousness is a virtual property, meaning it exists as if - like money, which is not a physical object. The token you use to symbolise money is not the money itself, but it is a system of causal structure that people have agreed on, and you have to assume the existence of money in order to understand how the world works. It is a ‘stable invariance’, but not a physical thing. It exists so consequently that it has causal power over reality (can shape it).” Fair enough, I can live with this explanation, even though I do not fully grasp it yet. but then again, what differentiates this from a sophisticated mechanical system?
→ I think i know how to resolve this: You cannot store a dynamic system which is dependent on the environment in space. You can store a snapshot of a brain (in theory), a snapshot of the consciousness. But it only has meaning when running.
→ A stable pattern or structure through time that emerges from the brain’s activity ←