My operational definition of consciousness is the Turing test. -- Matt Mahoney, [email protected]
On Sun, Oct 18, 2026, 8:59 PM James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: > "Computability" is almost always conflated with Rissanen's statistical > notion of minimum description length even though, by definition, it is not > recurrent, which your definition is. Just replace Kolmogorov Complexity > with its algorithmic approximation using program search as Solomonoff > described in his original papers. You don't even need Levin. Solomonoff > addressed the 60 years of nonsense that people have used to dismiss his > theory in his original papers -- they were just too busy playing with SPSS > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPSS> and publishing "social science > narratives" to let rigorous notions of causality interfere. > > No measurement instrument is perfect and its *operation* is the essence > of experimental protocol. > > On Sun, Oct 18, 2026 at 5:46 PM Matt Mahoney <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> For an operational definition of consciousness, I would use the memory >> capacity of the agent as an upper bound. For the lower bound I could use >> Wolfram's 2 state 3 symbol Turing machine as the simplest known machine, >> but it is extremely difficult to program in practice. The input sometimes >> has to be an infinitely repeating pattern. A better choice would be a >> language like C because it's well known or brainfuck because it's simple. >> But Kolmogorov complexity is not computable regardless of language, so it >> doesn't matter. >> >> A formal or operational definition of consciousness is mostly useful (or >> useless) for philosophical arguments like whether animals or computers or >> atoms are conscious. >> >> >> -- Matt Mahoney, [email protected] >> >> On Sun, Oct 18, 2026, 1:04 PM James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Of course I wholeheartedly agree that choice of UTM isn't the bugaboo >>> that the pedantic twits make it out to be. Only it does matter in going >>> from formal to operational definitions because the operations of the UTM >>> are otherwise undefined. >>> >>> Presumably you would want some way of actually measuring the bits in >>> what we refer to as "reality". Nor do I suggest that you should abide by my >>> answer to said pedantic twits (NiNOR Complexity) since that answer is at >>> the same level of pedant discourse as is their "critique" of Kolmogorov >>> Complexity as information criterion for causal model selection. That said, >>> you are, of course, free to ignore my question regarding UTM as it is >>> deferrable until such time as you wish to measure your definition of >>> consciousness. >>> >>> On Sat, Oct 17, 2026 at 3:13 PM Matt Mahoney <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I'm defining formal consciousness. For operational consciousness we >>>> just need to distinguish between neurological consciousness (being awake), >>>> subjective consciousness (not a zombie) and moral consciousness (can suffer >>>> and we should prevent it). My definition is closest to the first type >>>> because it has a physical explanation and is observable. The others are >>>> just opinions. I don't need to redefine them. >>>> >>>> I'm looking for criticisms and alternate suggestions for my formal >>>> definition. >>>> >>>> We can measure consciousness as the rate of conscious experience in >>>> bits per second. But it depends on the interval. In general, K(S3|S1) ≤ >>>> K(S2|S1) + K(S3|S2) because of forgetting. The rate is lower over longer >>>> intervals. In humans it's like 10 bits per second over 1 minute or 1 bit >>>> per second over a year. >>>> >>>> I don't define a UTM because Kolmogorov's proof of UTM independence >>>> still applies. In practice it is still useful even though Kolmogorov >>>> complexity is not computable regardless of UTM. >>>> >>>> -- Matt Mahoney, [email protected] >>>> >>>> On Sat, Oct 17, 2026, 3:08 PM James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> "But feel free to offer an alternative definition." >>>>> >>>>> Presumably you are: >>>>> >>>>> 1) drawing a distinction between operational and formal definitions >>>>> and/or >>>>> 2) inviting others to contribute their might-be-hated definitions. >>>>> >>>>> BTW, I don't hate your formal definition but I'm curious how you >>>>> propose to select the UTM. I'm also going to presume that by >>>>> "consciousness" you mean the recurrent generation of "bits of conscious >>>>> experience" as you forward chain K(S2|S1) to K(S3|S2), etc. >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Oct 17, 2026 at 1:17 PM Matt Mahoney <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Like Shane Legg did for intelligence, I offer a formal definition of >>>>>> consciousness. I define the number of bits of conscious experience by an >>>>>> agent in going from state S1 to S2 as K(S2|S1), where K is conditional >>>>>> Kolmogorov complexity, the length of the shortest program that outputs a >>>>>> description of S2 given S1 as input. >>>>>> >>>>>> This agrees with our intuitive definition of consciousness. Inanimate >>>>>> objects with no memory are not conscious. Plants are not conscious. >>>>>> Animals >>>>>> with large brains have more conscious experience than animals with small >>>>>> brains. Accumulated conscious experience increases over time. You have no >>>>>> conscious experience of anything you don't remember. >>>>>> >>>>>> You can hate my definition but you have to accept the fact that I >>>>>> have defined it. >>>>>> >>>>>> Why might you hate it. Because: >>>>>> 1. There is no distinction between positive and negative >>>>>> reinforcement. Both result in a change in behavior that can be measured >>>>>> in >>>>>> bits. >>>>>> 2. Computers are conscious. When you download a 1 GB text file, the >>>>>> computer has as much conscious experience as you do in a lifetime. >>>>>> 3. Your total conscious experience since birth after you die is 0. >>>>>> 4. Consciousness does not require or imply paranormal perception. >>>>>> >>>>>> But feel free to offer an alternative definition. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- Matt Mahoney, [email protected] >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, Oct 17, 2026, 11:23 AM James Bowery <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 16, 2026 at 6:49 PM Matt Mahoney < >>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Anyway, it is not clear to me why you would define consciousness >>>>>>>> this way. What purpose does it serve? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To quote Shane Legg's Singularity Summit presentation on measures of >>>>>>> machine intelligence: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://youtu.be/0ghzG14dT-w?t=1155 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "I've given you an equation that even if you HATE my definition, you >>>>>>> have to accept the fact that I've actually defined it formally and said >>>>>>> exactly what I mean. I think that's a very good start. At least we can >>>>>>> argue on that basis." (applause) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Use "operationally" in place of "formally", and accept that Ed May >>>>>>> hasn't been a PhD advisor to anyone like Shane Legg who could write a >>>>>>> thesis that would undoubtedly survey "definitions" of "consciousness" >>>>>>> much >>>>>>> better than anyone heretofore has bothered with, thence to provide a >>>>>>> taxonomy of such definitions into which something like the operational >>>>>>> definition I've proposed can reside and maybe we can start to have a >>>>>>> collegial discourse. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As to the "purpose" such an operational definition might serve, how >>>>>>> about this: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Finding a place for the very concept of "purpose" itself in our >>>>>>> discourse, in that the so-called "time-reversibility" of the laws of >>>>>>> physics may embody what the Greeks called "Telos" for "final cause" -- >>>>>>> rather than the folks endlessly yammering about "AI Alignment" are, >>>>>>> themselves, "conscious" of at present. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://web.archive.org/web/20150925072222/http://www.boundaryinstitute.org/bi/EtterPubs.htm >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Etter was the colleague I mentioned previously who also arrived >>>>>>> early with Solomonoff at the 1956 Dartmouth summer workshop, but because >>>>>>> his family was independently wealthy, never had to genuflect to what >>>>>>> Pirsig >>>>>>> called "The Church of Reason" and its travesty of Newton's yeoman farmer >>>>>>> homestead with The Church's "tenure" as the path to independent thought >>>>>>> as >>>>>>> the foundation of scientific revolutions -- independent thought once >>>>>>> you'd >>>>>>> been brainwashed and effectively castrated. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Artificial General Intelligence List > <https://agi.topicbox.com/latest>* / AGI / see discussions > <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi> + participants > <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/members> + delivery options > <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription> Permalink > <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T2784bbfe524b0b93-M7c82040a2a457eab9623279c> > ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T2784bbfe524b0b93-Md17b1d43c1da2d5032fa1f15 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
