3 ms·

> There's no reason to assume a nematode or an LLM is conscious. It has inputs. It need not necessarily understand them -- that is a separate question to that

by uoaei 3y ago

> There's no reason to assume a nematode or an LLM is conscious. It has inputs. It need not necessarily understand them -- that is a separate question to that of consciousness. See the note for laypeople. > It's not the hypothesis we know to be true. I don't think this is a best-faith response to my comment. If I was unclear I can clarify: in absence of further evidence it's a good starting place. I don't think I implied anything about truth. > And experience informs us that consciousness is not universal How is it possible you know this with such certainty? People whose lives and careers begin and end with this question don't have any such knowledge.

tgv 3y ago
The best starting point is the one that seems most likely. We've never observed consciousness, not even in people. I (i.e., the first person perspective) can talk to them and get convinced others feel the same, so it's fair to assume most people are conscious (in particular because small children seem to lack this capacity). In higher mammals it's uncertain, and we can't communicate at all with anything else, but observation hasn't revealed much. There is no evidence of consciousness in other animals or dead matter, despite people looking for it. It also wouldn't have any evolutionary advantage for a fly to be conscious, nor does it make neurological sense. A fly's behavior doesn't reveal much thought, how could it ever have a consciousness? Just because it is somewhat capable of learning? It takes us many years to get to the point, and it requires a lot of social interaction, and a lot of understanding. So the starting point is: consciousness in most other species is most likely missing, and certainly in dead matter. > How is it possible you know this with such certainty? People whose lives and careers begin and end with this question don't have any such knowledge. It is technically unknown, because there isn't a definition, certainly not an operationalizable one. Assuming consciousness is another physical force makes it fundamentally unknowable. It is the easy way out.
- uoaei 3y ago
  Simply ignoring the entire field of philosophy of mind and imposing your own definitions is not going to get you anywhere. Thought is not required for consciousness, only experience. I strongly suggest you read the literature and traditions of thought so you may be more informed about the things of which you speak. > there isn't a definition There is, and I quoted it directly above. If you have an issue with the definition I suggest you bring it up with the community that came up with it, namely, professional philosophers. I suspect they already have a precise term for the thing you're referring to as 'consciousness'. However the most ridiculous part of your reply is this: > We've never observed consciousness You have never experienced color? Taste? I consider it pretty important for someone with such strong opinions on the matter to have personal... ahem, experience... in it.
  - tgv 3y ago
    Those philosophers have been ignoring the entire field of cognitive and neuro-psychology. Well, not the entire field, they cherry-pick, and have a weird tendency to then chose people with views that are not widely shared, to put it politely. > You have never experienced color? We've got a model for that, thanks. It's called perception. But we haven't observed it, not as a group. Many of us can describe it from personal experience, but since no-one, not even your beloved philosophers, has come up with a good, operationalizable definition, there's no way of observing it.
- hnfong 3y ago
  You don't have a definition of consciousness, and then go about determining what has consciousness based on "seems most likely" and "fair to assume", admitting it is the "easy way out", then object to other people calling LLMs potentially 'conscious' just because their word overlaps with yours? That's sloppy reasoning at the very least. What's your point unless you want some kind of authoritarian last say about how a particular word ('consciousness') is being used in philosophical discussions?

by uoaei 3y ago

tgv 3y ago

The best starting point is the one that seems most likely. We've never observed consciousness, not even in people. I (i.e., the first person perspective) can talk to them and get convinced others feel the same, so it's fair to assume most people are conscious (in particular because small children seem to lack this capacity). In higher mammals it's uncertain, and we can't communicate at all with anything else, but observation hasn't revealed much. There is no evidence of consciousness in other animals or dead matter, despite people looking for it. It also wouldn't have any evolutionary advantage for a fly to be conscious, nor does it make neurological sense. A fly's behavior doesn't reveal much thought, how could it ever have a consciousness? Just because it is somewhat capable of learning? It takes us many years to get to the point, and it requires a lot of social interaction, and a lot of understanding. So the starting point is: consciousness in most other species is most likely missing, and certainly in dead matter. > How is it possible you know this with such certainty? People whose lives and careers begin and end with this question don't have any such knowledge. It is technically unknown, because there isn't a definition, certainly not an operationalizable one. Assuming consciousness is another physical force makes it fundamentally unknowable. It is the easy way out.

uoaei 3y ago
Simply ignoring the entire field of philosophy of mind and imposing your own definitions is not going to get you anywhere. Thought is not required for consciousness, only experience. I strongly suggest you read the literature and traditions of thought so you may be more informed about the things of which you speak. > there isn't a definition There is, and I quoted it directly above. If you have an issue with the definition I suggest you bring it up with the community that came up with it, namely, professional philosophers. I suspect they already have a precise term for the thing you're referring to as 'consciousness'. However the most ridiculous part of your reply is this: > We've never observed consciousness You have never experienced color? Taste? I consider it pretty important for someone with such strong opinions on the matter to have personal... ahem, experience... in it.
- tgv 3y ago
  Those philosophers have been ignoring the entire field of cognitive and neuro-psychology. Well, not the entire field, they cherry-pick, and have a weird tendency to then chose people with views that are not widely shared, to put it politely. > You have never experienced color? We've got a model for that, thanks. It's called perception. But we haven't observed it, not as a group. Many of us can describe it from personal experience, but since no-one, not even your beloved philosophers, has come up with a good, operationalizable definition, there's no way of observing it.
hnfong 3y ago
You don't have a definition of consciousness, and then go about determining what has consciousness based on "seems most likely" and "fair to assume", admitting it is the "easy way out", then object to other people calling LLMs potentially 'conscious' just because their word overlaps with yours? That's sloppy reasoning at the very least. What's your point unless you want some kind of authoritarian last say about how a particular word ('consciousness') is being used in philosophical discussions?