Natesh Ganesh
@entropicheatdeath.bsky.social
In no particular order - AI, physics, hardware, consicousness, football.
Weird timeline we find ourselves in. If I were to take one +ve from all this, it is that I might finally be able to convince my wife to relocate to Europe for a few years. I dream of working out of small Italian town somewhere in the countryside.
March 25, 2025 at 3:23 AM
Weird timeline we find ourselves in. If I were to take one +ve from all this, it is that I might finally be able to convince my wife to relocate to Europe for a few years. I dream of working out of small Italian town somewhere in the countryside.
My wife is a citizen, but I am only a resident. Last week, we drew up an emergency plan on who to call, finances, etc in case I get deported...even accidentally. Not always thinking about it, but the fear is there in the back of my head. 2/2
March 24, 2025 at 6:27 PM
My wife is a citizen, but I am only a resident. Last week, we drew up an emergency plan on who to call, finances, etc in case I get deported...even accidentally. Not always thinking about it, but the fear is there in the back of my head. 2/2
Definitely thinking twice before posting anytbing critical. For the 1st time since I have been here, not sure about traveling abroad even with legal documents. I carry my immigration docs on me at all times, given how many border patrol agents I have seen over the last month in my neighborhood. 1/2
March 24, 2025 at 6:25 PM
Definitely thinking twice before posting anytbing critical. For the 1st time since I have been here, not sure about traveling abroad even with legal documents. I carry my immigration docs on me at all times, given how many border patrol agents I have seen over the last month in my neighborhood. 1/2
My abstract for the Ernst Mach workshop on 'Conscious AI? Functionalism & it's Alternatives' was rejected. Might just go ahead & put out a blog post/video discussing the work instead. Convinced that we need to augment functionalism with stat-mech to ground the realizers.
March 24, 2025 at 5:34 PM
My abstract for the Ernst Mach workshop on 'Conscious AI? Functionalism & it's Alternatives' was rejected. Might just go ahead & put out a blog post/video discussing the work instead. Convinced that we need to augment functionalism with stat-mech to ground the realizers.
I am not trying to be argumentative - I think there is value in the operational parts of IIT i.e. the weak form that Anil & others talk about. Its some of this metaphysical/fundamental parts that make no sense to me.
March 22, 2025 at 8:27 PM
I am not trying to be argumentative - I think there is value in the operational parts of IIT i.e. the weak form that Anil & others talk about. Its some of this metaphysical/fundamental parts that make no sense to me.
I mean I would even understand that within your conscious experience - the neuron doesnt 'exist' or experienced, just only the overall exp itself that neuron is part of producing. Just don't understand how that can be extended to everything else.
March 22, 2025 at 8:25 PM
I mean I would even understand that within your conscious experience - the neuron doesnt 'exist' or experienced, just only the overall exp itself that neuron is part of producing. Just don't understand how that can be extended to everything else.
But the neuron case, isn't that a direct implication of what is in the IIT 4.0 paper. Its not an extreme. I would understand an operational case being made where AC is ignored for calculation purposes, but IIT says AC doesnt ontologically exist.
March 22, 2025 at 8:22 PM
But the neuron case, isn't that a direct implication of what is in the IIT 4.0 paper. Its not an extreme. I would understand an operational case being made where AC is ignored for calculation purposes, but IIT says AC doesnt ontologically exist.
If I understand correctly, IIT is not solipsistic & assumes there are things independent of our consicous exp out there to explain regularities. So I don't see why we should expect to define existence for those things by resorting to our exp.
March 22, 2025 at 1:47 PM
If I understand correctly, IIT is not solipsistic & assumes there are things independent of our consicous exp out there to explain regularities. So I don't see why we should expect to define existence for those things by resorting to our exp.
The principles of IIT talks about a broader ontological claim about existence, not just something about our cons exp. I understand that it is hard to separate parts of my exp from the whole, but one is making a giant leap to get to 'A doesnt exist if AB exists' (except in cases of entanglement?)
March 22, 2025 at 1:44 PM
The principles of IIT talks about a broader ontological claim about existence, not just something about our cons exp. I understand that it is hard to separate parts of my exp from the whole, but one is making a giant leap to get to 'A doesnt exist if AB exists' (except in cases of entanglement?)
In this case, where there is clear micro/macro separation, it's even clearer to say both A & AB exists without running into issues. I ultimately don't buy the underlying ideas with Kim's double counting causes picture.
March 22, 2025 at 12:41 AM
In this case, where there is clear micro/macro separation, it's even clearer to say both A & AB exists without running into issues. I ultimately don't buy the underlying ideas with Kim's double counting causes picture.
Same with phi(AB)>phi(A)>0 - under principle of being, i have AB exists & A also exists as part of AB. There is no double counting when it comes to existence.
March 22, 2025 at 12:24 AM
Same with phi(AB)>phi(A)>0 - under principle of being, i have AB exists & A also exists as part of AB. There is no double counting when it comes to existence.
Also everything about AB & AC is captured by states+dynamics/interactions. If phi(AB)>phi(AC)>0 implies AB exists, C exists & interacts with A, but AC doesn't exist, you are saying somehow the parts of AC - states & dynamics exists & happen, but AC as a whole somehow doesn't exist!!
March 22, 2025 at 12:22 AM
Also everything about AB & AC is captured by states+dynamics/interactions. If phi(AB)>phi(AC)>0 implies AB exists, C exists & interacts with A, but AC doesn't exist, you are saying somehow the parts of AC - states & dynamics exists & happen, but AC as a whole somehow doesn't exist!!
But that seems to be an artifact of how you have chosen to quantify existence. For me, something exists or doesn't exist. If A exists, it being part of both AB & AC with phi>0, simply reiterates A exists as part of both. Not that A exists doubly.
March 22, 2025 at 12:15 AM
But that seems to be an artifact of how you have chosen to quantify existence. For me, something exists or doesn't exist. If A exists, it being part of both AB & AC with phi>0, simply reiterates A exists as part of both. Not that A exists doubly.
Maybe, but just to be very clear - AC with non-zero phi doesn't exist? In your opinion, what problems do we run into by saying both exist (albeit with diff causal powers), other than any IIT-theory specific ones? What is the motivation outside of it providing a criterion in IIT to pick a complex?
March 21, 2025 at 8:58 PM
Maybe, but just to be very clear - AC with non-zero phi doesn't exist? In your opinion, what problems do we run into by saying both exist (albeit with diff causal powers), other than any IIT-theory specific ones? What is the motivation outside of it providing a criterion in IIT to pick a complex?
So if 2 systems AB & AC have some phi>0, with AB having the greater value, then only AB truly exists even though I might be able to interact & verify the causal power of AC? So now I have a system that doesnt exist but yet somehow still has causal power, going against principle of being?
March 21, 2025 at 8:44 PM
So if 2 systems AB & AC have some phi>0, with AB having the greater value, then only AB truly exists even though I might be able to interact & verify the causal power of AC? So now I have a system that doesnt exist but yet somehow still has causal power, going against principle of being?
Ideas can be weird & yet coherent. My problem is that the max principle when applied to existence itself seems incoherent. Somehow we went from things with cause-effect power exist (agreeable) to only that with max of it exist(??) in an ontological sense?
March 21, 2025 at 8:38 PM
Ideas can be weird & yet coherent. My problem is that the max principle when applied to existence itself seems incoherent. Somehow we went from things with cause-effect power exist (agreeable) to only that with max of it exist(??) in an ontological sense?
Were these principles known & understood within IIT much before & 4.0 was when it was published? The max existence principle seems like a pretty radical assumption to make. Are there good reasons to make it? I haven't seen anything explaining the reasoning behind it further.
March 21, 2025 at 7:16 PM
Were these principles known & understood within IIT much before & 4.0 was when it was published? The max existence principle seems like a pretty radical assumption to make. Are there good reasons to make it? I haven't seen anything explaining the reasoning behind it further.
That's fair - the 1st one makes sense given everything else in IIT & i agree to some extent. The latter two - makes no sense to me. They almost feel like assumptions created to solve other issues in the framework. I haven't seen them pre-IIT 4.0. Am I wrong?
March 21, 2025 at 7:13 PM
That's fair - the 1st one makes sense given everything else in IIT & i agree to some extent. The latter two - makes no sense to me. They almost feel like assumptions created to solve other issues in the framework. I haven't seen them pre-IIT 4.0. Am I wrong?
I am open to not understanding something fundamental, but imo these just look like made-up assumptions. There is no reason to buy into these principles, unless you already think IIT is correct. What am I missing?
March 21, 2025 at 6:35 PM
I am open to not understanding something fundamental, but imo these just look like made-up assumptions. There is no reason to buy into these principles, unless you already think IIT is correct. What am I missing?
Thanks. Got it though.
March 10, 2025 at 7:03 PM
Thanks. Got it though.
Is there a non-paywalled version of Tononi et al available?
March 10, 2025 at 5:23 PM
Is there a non-paywalled version of Tononi et al available?
Oops, I meant Tononi's paper.
March 10, 2025 at 5:22 PM
Oops, I meant Tononi's paper.
Is a non-paywalled version of the paper available somewhere?
March 10, 2025 at 5:04 PM
Is a non-paywalled version of the paper available somewhere?
Behind a paywall. Is a preprint available?
March 10, 2025 at 4:45 PM
Behind a paywall. Is a preprint available?
Ah okay. Confusion arises since I hear strong illusionism being described as denial of consciousness as a phenomenon vs your view above. If folks insist on referring to this eliminativist position as illusionism, perhaps we need a 3rd category called 'stark illusionsim' or something.
February 23, 2025 at 7:57 PM
Ah okay. Confusion arises since I hear strong illusionism being described as denial of consciousness as a phenomenon vs your view above. If folks insist on referring to this eliminativist position as illusionism, perhaps we need a 3rd category called 'stark illusionsim' or something.