Microblog

Scott Adams defined consciousness as the ability to predict your next moment and then compare the actual moment to your predicted one, reassess, and predict the next moment again. This process, constantly happening every moment, is consciousness. I found this conceptualization of consciousness to be quite ingenious. This idea comes up in response to broader debates, such as Naval’s observation that we haven’t heard a precise, falsifiable theory of what consciousness actually is, and Max Hodak’s point that anyone confidently claiming AI is or isn’t conscious can be safely ignored, given plausible but untested theories. Thread Discussion on the Definition A reply noted: “Meh. Many primitive algorithms meet that definition. Doesn’t fit the colloquial meaning of consciousness.” My response: I wouldn’t judge the definition by who meets it. That’s like saying I’m not rich because my neighbor has the same amount of money. Why, we both can be rich. If computers meet the definition, then I would say they are conscious. But anyway, what is the colloquial meaning of consciousness? Further reply: “The colloquial meaning is our subjective experience as humans. It often extends to relatively smart animals but excludes primitive life forms like viruses. It usually excludes chess bots (which would meet Adam’s definition).” My counterpoint: Agreed that chess bots meet this definition, and that’s why it seems like this is not a good definition. But let me give you this counterpoint: the scope of consciousness of a chess bot is limited to the digital world of that particular game. The scope of consciousness of humans extends to their physical world, which is orders of magnitude more complex than that of chess. Then we also have a mental world; predicting the next moment for humans includes how one will feel in that moment (your subjective experience). So it’s just that the realm humans operate in, where our consciousness functions, is different from the realm the chess bot operates in. I don’t think it’s a problem with the definition of consciousness. Again, think of it this way. Elon Musk would be happy when he builds a rocket ship. A poor person is happy when he gets a happy meal from McDonald’s. The definition of happiness in both cases can be the same. Just because getting a happy meal from McDonald’s would not necessarily make Elon Musk particularly happy, doesn’t mean that the definition is wrong. It feels wrong because you’re comparing two individuals operating in different realms. I won’t judge Scott Adams’ definition of consciousness by comparing two different entities, humans versus chess bots, operating in completely different realms. This framework offers a functional, testable way to think about consciousness that applies across humans, animals, and potentially AI, without getting lost in unprovable subjectivity. It emphasizes ongoing prediction, comparison, and adjustment as the core mechanism.