3 ms·
I have no clue what you're talking about, but there's fundamentally no evidence our thoughts are the decisive events leading to behavior rather than, say, a rat
by diogenes4 3y ago
I have no clue what you're talking about, but there's fundamentally no evidence our thoughts are the decisive events leading to behavior rather than, say, a rationalization of said behavior. You're too bold in your modeling of human perception.
- Jensson 3y agoYou seem to think we are talking about sentience, but this is a discussion about intelligence. Don't confuse the two.
- diogenes4 3y agoHow are you defining intelligence as distinct from sentience? At first blush such a distinction has no utility.
- Jensson 3y agoIf you don't make that distinction then your statement doesn't make sense "there's fundamentally no evidence our thoughts are the decisive events leading to behavior". You started making this separation here, not me, I just talk about intelligence. If you thought they were the same thing you wouldn't say things like that.
- diogenes4 3y agoI just took "intelligence" as a metonym for "thought processes". Again, I am unsure what it means to use intelligence if not through our own perception of our own intelligence, nor what utility such a concept would have.
- p-e-w 3y ago> there's fundamentally no evidence our thoughts are the decisive events leading to behavior rather than, say, a rationalization of said behavior In fact, there is plenty of evidence for the latter, such as experiments where people whose motor cortex was stimulated electrically made up all sorts of random explanations for why their body moved, including, crucially, that they intended for that motion to happen.
- Jensson 3y agoBut that isn't relevant for this discussion. Humans can be intelligent in a fundamentally different way than LLMs even if sentience isn't special.