5 ms·

That just explains how one can make up words to describe their experience. You can certainly explain all the observations that humans or animals do from an outs

That just explains how one can make up words to describe their experience. You can certainly explain all the observations that humans or animals do from an outside perspective. It doesn't explain the fact that one does indeed actually feel the pain. I am not just making up a tale after the fact that it did hurt, it did in fact hurt! And neither knowing or not knowing how it works, nor making up explanations has nothing to do with it. A robot as I said could easily just say "When you hit me hard, I dont know why but it gives me an instinct to scream and move out of the way" just as easily I could say "I dont know why but what you said made me never want to talk to you again". Qualia is still something we cant describe, so I am not sure what you mean its like making up some gibberish like an LLM does. If you ask me what red is I cant tell you, I dont go "well its like the frequency of light that resembles autumn and golden leaves". Youve either experienced it yourself or you havent.

exe34 2y ago
Yes, I believe your account that this is what it seems like to you. The fact that you believe that doesn't make it so.
- andoando 2y ago
  What does "doesnt make it so" even mean here. If I experience pain, then I dont "actually" feel pain? I don't understand what youre saying.
  - exe34 2y ago
    That's the whole point of an illusion, yes. There are people who claim to have felt the presence of their own accidentally selected dirty or seen other creatures from their preferred mythology. Would you claim that their experience are genuine, that if they saw and felt the presence of mythical creatures, then these creatures must exist?
    - andoando 2y ago
      I would say their experience of it certainly exists yes. No one is claiming these conscience experiments are material reality. It doesnt matter if you call them illusions or hallucinations. It's intriguing that they exist at all. If they simply did not exist there would be no discussion about this in the first place. I mean do you believe an LLM running is equivalent to you experiencing lucid dreams? Whats the difference? Do you think the difference is simply that I say it's different? That if I added some code for the LLM to say "Yes I really do experience lucid dreams", it would be equivalent to your experience of lucid dreams? Or is there something else, entirely unexplained happening from my experiences and a computer making rudimentary calculations to string words together?
      - exe34 2y ago
        An LLM thinks in text tokens. A lucid dream is more images and animations - so it'll be something more functionality equivalent to SOTA or DALL-E, but it's probably not diffusion itself. Yes, it exists as a phenomenon in nature, reported by most, if not all humans. It requires an explanation, but it might not have much to do with consciousness/self-awareness/intelligence or whatever you want to call it.
naasking 2y ago
> It doesn't explain the fact that one does indeed actually feel the pain. Nobody denies that you "feel the pain", eliminativism simply denies that "feeling the pain" necessarily has implications for what does and does not fundamentally exist, and therefore, whether your perception of pain necessarily reflects some fundamental reality. There is no "pain" in the standard model after all, so either your pain doesn't really exist, or you're suggesting we add something to fundamental physics literally because of feelings.
- andoando 2y ago
  Why is it assumed the standard model of physics is all encompassing in the first place?The standard model hasnt managed to explain all of physics even. Unless you can explain consciousness with physics, its only reasonable to assume something additional
  - naasking 2y ago
    > its only reasonable to assume something additional No it's not, just like it wasn't reasonable to posit something more was needed to explain the difference between living and non-living matter. See the history of vitalism. Making assumptions that aren't strictly necessary to explain evidence is almost never warranted.
    - andoando 2y ago
      The model of physics itself has changed multiple times to explain physics, at great reservation mind you. Relativity required massive changes in thinking to what we considered physically possible, as did quantum physics (things can just happen by chance without further reason, whaaat?) And in the grand scheme of things, our quest for knowledge has had a very very short timespan. Insisting that the mode of thought that has worked for a few hundred years must persist to eternity is not wise. Assuming the standard model of physics will explain consciousness without any fundamental alternations is just as big of an assumption as the assumption that there is more to the standard model of physics. No different than having assumed newtonian physics could have explained relativity. As far as I can see, current understanding of physics has no conceivable way of explaining how a system suddenly becomes capable of experiencing feeling. And neither is it scientific to deny what is so readily observable to every human being. Lastly, it would seem that you agree that our model of physics is in itself an illusion, within the framework of our conscious experience. On one hand it would appear you say, our conscious experience of reality is the sole way to find truth, and the other, that our conscious experience is flawed and experience of qualia can be discarded entirely. If we are to say "it only appears that you feel pain", how is this different than to say "it only appears that objects move"? The proposal here is that your flawed, conscious experience can produce a truth of an "external" reality, whose laws are capable of forming the vary thing which is producing this flawed perception.

exe34 2y ago

Yes, I believe your account that this is what it seems like to you. The fact that you believe that doesn't make it so.

andoando 2y ago
What does "doesnt make it so" even mean here. If I experience pain, then I dont "actually" feel pain? I don't understand what youre saying.
- exe34 2y ago
  That's the whole point of an illusion, yes. There are people who claim to have felt the presence of their own accidentally selected dirty or seen other creatures from their preferred mythology. Would you claim that their experience are genuine, that if they saw and felt the presence of mythical creatures, then these creatures must exist?
  - andoando 2y ago
    I would say their experience of it certainly exists yes. No one is claiming these conscience experiments are material reality. It doesnt matter if you call them illusions or hallucinations. It's intriguing that they exist at all. If they simply did not exist there would be no discussion about this in the first place. I mean do you believe an LLM running is equivalent to you experiencing lucid dreams? Whats the difference? Do you think the difference is simply that I say it's different? That if I added some code for the LLM to say "Yes I really do experience lucid dreams", it would be equivalent to your experience of lucid dreams? Or is there something else, entirely unexplained happening from my experiences and a computer making rudimentary calculations to string words together?
    - exe34 2y ago
      An LLM thinks in text tokens. A lucid dream is more images and animations - so it'll be something more functionality equivalent to SOTA or DALL-E, but it's probably not diffusion itself. Yes, it exists as a phenomenon in nature, reported by most, if not all humans. It requires an explanation, but it might not have much to do with consciousness/self-awareness/intelligence or whatever you want to call it.

naasking 2y ago

> It doesn't explain the fact that one does indeed actually feel the pain. Nobody denies that you "feel the pain", eliminativism simply denies that "feeling the pain" necessarily has implications for what does and does not fundamentally exist, and therefore, whether your perception of pain necessarily reflects some fundamental reality. There is no "pain" in the standard model after all, so either your pain doesn't really exist, or you're suggesting we add something to fundamental physics literally because of feelings.

andoando 2y ago
Why is it assumed the standard model of physics is all encompassing in the first place?The standard model hasnt managed to explain all of physics even. Unless you can explain consciousness with physics, its only reasonable to assume something additional
- naasking 2y ago
  > its only reasonable to assume something additional No it's not, just like it wasn't reasonable to posit something more was needed to explain the difference between living and non-living matter. See the history of vitalism. Making assumptions that aren't strictly necessary to explain evidence is almost never warranted.
  - andoando 2y ago
    The model of physics itself has changed multiple times to explain physics, at great reservation mind you. Relativity required massive changes in thinking to what we considered physically possible, as did quantum physics (things can just happen by chance without further reason, whaaat?) And in the grand scheme of things, our quest for knowledge has had a very very short timespan. Insisting that the mode of thought that has worked for a few hundred years must persist to eternity is not wise. Assuming the standard model of physics will explain consciousness without any fundamental alternations is just as big of an assumption as the assumption that there is more to the standard model of physics. No different than having assumed newtonian physics could have explained relativity. As far as I can see, current understanding of physics has no conceivable way of explaining how a system suddenly becomes capable of experiencing feeling. And neither is it scientific to deny what is so readily observable to every human being. Lastly, it would seem that you agree that our model of physics is in itself an illusion, within the framework of our conscious experience. On one hand it would appear you say, our conscious experience of reality is the sole way to find truth, and the other, that our conscious experience is flawed and experience of qualia can be discarded entirely. If we are to say "it only appears that you feel pain", how is this different than to say "it only appears that objects move"? The proposal here is that your flawed, conscious experience can produce a truth of an "external" reality, whose laws are capable of forming the vary thing which is producing this flawed perception.