My latest 2¢: Sure, “informational dimension” is that way. But either one exists apart from information as something in space with spatial dimension, or one doesn’t exist and no one is home. Conscious means “to know”. “Conscious of” implies the capacity to ascribe meaning to information, and therefore reason with knowledge, which is the “term concatenator” in mathematical theorems that give them meaning, the basis of reason (which I’d call different from just computing, which is devoid of meaning to an unconscious machine). We don’t call even the most sophisticated computer or robot conscious for this reason. Because consciousness finds its basis in existence apart from information, which to me is evidence it is not emergent solely due to information-processing complexity.Dimensionality is just conceptual scaffolding, an organizational construct within some domain of interest. In the context of quantum physics, we need an infinite-dimensional space of quantum states to adequately describe the RAM chp. In the context of classical physics, we need just three dimensions. In the context of computer programming, a one-dimensional space is sufficient.
All of these models, though contradictory between each other, are nevertheless consistent within their own domains. To me, that's a pretty clear indication that dimensionality reflects our way of thinking more than it reflects the "true nature" of the thing being considered. Anyway, best of luck on the front lines.
The basis of consciousness is the treatment of information as being separate from that which it describes, which again, I would call “knowledge” vs. just “information.” A machine may “know,” but consciousness knows that it knows, or “feels” it knows, and a basic quantitative feedback loop doesn’t make the Roomba experience its own existence. As you said, you doubt the most sophisticated machine would be “conscious” once we turn it on. Because it’s an extension of life, and life is itself currently scientifically undefined any more than just another soft discrete state-processing physical machine. The reason I want to start my reasoning from consciousness is because it‘s the only thing that cares whether or not it exists to define it, and is experientially desiring information rather than just “picking it up” via various sensors.
A conscious human can “see” its own spatial thoughts, implying it can “experience a vision” of said data in its mind, and then manipulate it in any internally visual way using its “mind’s eye.“ Where is the internal projection “screen” this thought is “on,” that one is describing internally as being “viewable,“ and why do said thoughts not resemble a CT scan of the brain’s image of the representative synapses during said projection? The “3D” of existence is different than the 3D of information, no different than the 2D array on a screen being different than the discontiguous collection of bits in a RAM chip representing it.
Last edited: