3 ms·
Respectable to whom? That sounds like magic thinking, not science.
by loandbehold 4y ago
Respectable to whom? That sounds like magic thinking, not science.
- mellosouls 4y agoPhilosophers. That's why I used the word "philosophical" not "scientific". Dismissing serious ideas with thousands of years of philosophical history behind them as "magic thinking" is either a failure of imagination or education; you can rectify the latter by reading up on the subject. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/panpsychism/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/panpsychism/
- loandbehold 4y agoThere are many things respectable scientists believed thousand years ago that we now know are not true. Vitalist views of life and consciousness are one of those things. As of 2023, believing that consciousness is a distinct phenomenon as fundamental as space or time is a crackpottery at the level of believing 5G causes COVID.
- mellosouls 4y agoThat's a silly thing to say in the context of the links that will have instructed you differently.
- southernplaces7 4y agoOne doesn't have to believe that consciousness is a distinct phenomenon that's as fundamental as space or time to reasonably argue that ChatGPT is not in any way close to any known view of consciousness. Crackpottery is being brazenly, uncritically wide-eyed about these LLM systems just because they can convincingly simulate human activities such as conversation and art rendering.