4 ms·

> we can further speculate that said mind is, in turn, affected by certain chemical interactions (approximations of something external to those minds) Indeed,

by lisper 2y ago

> we can further speculate that said mind is, in turn, affected by certain chemical interactions (approximations of something external to those minds) Indeed, there is quite a bit of evidence to support this hypothesis. > and even call the general existence of minds into question Well, you can call anything into question, but there is quite a bit of evidence for the existence of minds. > we could treat that chemical reaction as, in turn, derivable from (or be a representation of) mind-states Well, I suppose we could, but again there is quite a bit of evidence that the causality of that particular mechanism (if I'm understanding you correctly -- you are being pretty imprecise here) runs in the other direction. > You can see how as far as scientific method is concerned this gets nowhere very quickly Sorry, no, I don't see that at all. AFAICT the way in which minds arise from chemistry is pretty well understood. In fact, it is sufficiently well understood that we are on the cusp of being able to create artificial minds that are not based on chemistry. > Naively, it seems that best we could do is 1) acknowledge that uncertainty Sorry, no, I don't see any uncertainty to acknowledge. > I did attempt to provide a justification for my position. Yes, but I think your attempt has failed.

strogonoff 2y ago
> there is quite a bit of evidence that the causality of that particular mechanism (if I'm understanding you correctly -- you are being pretty imprecise here) runs in the other direction. Not if you look thoroughly. There is no proof that causality runs[0] in either direction, and in all likelihood it would remain so for as long as the hard problem is unsolved. > AFAICT the way in which minds arise from chemistry is pretty well understood. That would be immensely groundbreaking, absolutely historical news that would eclipse LLMs, reverberate HN for months and would not pass either of us unnoticed. > In fact, it is sufficiently well understood that we are on the cusp of being able to create artificial minds that are not based on chemistry. Have you heard about the so-called Chinese room experiment or the concept of a philosophical zombie? > I don't see any uncertainty to acknowledge. That’s because you have adopted a philosophical position implicitly. > Yes, but I think your attempt has failed. You have not even attempted to object by providing a counter-argument, though. [0] Side note: even though I am guilty of thinking that way myself, I find the whole notion of “causality running” smelling of Cartesian dualism and another inheritance of our religious past. A theory presupposing the existence of two different kinds of things (as in this case, mind vs. physical), while useful in its own ways, is necessarily less elegant than a theory that can manage with one.
- lisper 2y ago
  > There is no proof You need to read this: https://blog.rongarret.info/2024/04/three-myths-about-scientific-method.html https://blog.rongarret.info/2024/04/three-myths-about-scient... Focus on myth #3. > That would be immensely groundbreaking Yes, it was [1]. Still is, as this work is on-going [2]. > Have you heard about the so-called Chinese room experiment or the concept of a philosophical zombie? Yes. Have you heard of the Turing test? For the record, the Chinese Room is based on the false premise that the Chinese Room is possible. It isn't. The person inside the room would be dead long before it emitted its first symbol. And philosophical zombies are IPUs [3]. > That’s because you have adopted a philosophical position implicitly. No, I have adopted a philosophical position explicitly [4]. > You have not even attempted to object by providing a counter-argument, though. Perhaps you are unaware that I am the author of TFA [5]? Did you read it? --- [1] https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/Turing_Paper_1936.pdf https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/Turing_Paper_1936.pdf [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_neuroscience https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_neuroscience [3] https://blog.rongarret.info/2024/04/feynman-bullies-and-invisible-pink.html https://blog.rongarret.info/2024/04/feynman-bullies-and-invi... [4] https://blog.rongarret.info/2024/03/a-clean-sheet-introduction-to.html https://blog.rongarret.info/2024/03/a-clean-sheet-introducti... [5] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40205012 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40205012
  - strogonoff 2y ago
    > Focus on myth #3. If you don’t like the word “proof” then replace it with the phrase “conclusive evidence”. > Yes, it was [1]. Still is, as this work is on-going [2]. Sorry, how does any of that show that “minds arise from chemistry”? > Yes. Have you heard of the Turing test? Yes, and a Chinese room would pass the Turing test by its very definition. > The person inside the room would be dead long before it emitted its first symbol. Replace the person with a powerful CPU. > And philosophical zombies are IPUs [3]. In this context a philosophical zombie is an instance of a Chinese room, which are fairly real things. Take a sufficiently advanced LLM, or an emulation of human brain, and you get one. (Showing that it is not a philosophical zombie would call for some conclusive evidence showing that the phenomenon of consciousness is caused by whatever entities feature in models from today’s natural sciences—so that manipulating them in a particular way is enough to cause consciousness to magically arise.) > Perhaps you are unaware that I am the author of TFA [5]? Did you read it? That slipped my mind after a while, but I don’t think it invalidates the discussion. I skimmed it back when it was posted and generally I have been familiar with the illusionist takes on consciousness for a while. As monistic materialism (as well as cartesian dualism) in general, they always strike me as inelegant and needlessly contrived. (When competing hypotheses cannot be falsified due to limitations of scientific method, beauty and elegance remain as qualities we can judge them on, and I find that beauty inversely correlates with the number of entities a given hypothesis must magically conjure into existence.)

by lisper 2y ago

strogonoff 2y ago

> there is quite a bit of evidence that the causality of that particular mechanism (if I'm understanding you correctly -- you are being pretty imprecise here) runs in the other direction. Not if you look thoroughly. There is no proof that causality runs[0] in either direction, and in all likelihood it would remain so for as long as the hard problem is unsolved. > AFAICT the way in which minds arise from chemistry is pretty well understood. That would be immensely groundbreaking, absolutely historical news that would eclipse LLMs, reverberate HN for months and would not pass either of us unnoticed. > In fact, it is sufficiently well understood that we are on the cusp of being able to create artificial minds that are not based on chemistry. Have you heard about the so-called Chinese room experiment or the concept of a philosophical zombie? > I don't see any uncertainty to acknowledge. That’s because you have adopted a philosophical position implicitly. > Yes, but I think your attempt has failed. You have not even attempted to object by providing a counter-argument, though. [0] Side note: even though I am guilty of thinking that way myself, I find the whole notion of “causality running” smelling of Cartesian dualism and another inheritance of our religious past. A theory presupposing the existence of two different kinds of things (as in this case, mind vs. physical), while useful in its own ways, is necessarily less elegant than a theory that can manage with one.

lisper 2y ago
> There is no proof You need to read this: https://blog.rongarret.info/2024/04/three-myths-about-scientific-method.html https://blog.rongarret.info/2024/04/three-myths-about-scient... Focus on myth #3. > That would be immensely groundbreaking Yes, it was [1]. Still is, as this work is on-going [2]. > Have you heard about the so-called Chinese room experiment or the concept of a philosophical zombie? Yes. Have you heard of the Turing test? For the record, the Chinese Room is based on the false premise that the Chinese Room is possible. It isn't. The person inside the room would be dead long before it emitted its first symbol. And philosophical zombies are IPUs [3]. > That’s because you have adopted a philosophical position implicitly. No, I have adopted a philosophical position explicitly [4]. > You have not even attempted to object by providing a counter-argument, though. Perhaps you are unaware that I am the author of TFA [5]? Did you read it? --- [1] https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/Turing_Paper_1936.pdf https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/Turing_Paper_1936.pdf [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_neuroscience https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_neuroscience [3] https://blog.rongarret.info/2024/04/feynman-bullies-and-invisible-pink.html https://blog.rongarret.info/2024/04/feynman-bullies-and-invi... [4] https://blog.rongarret.info/2024/03/a-clean-sheet-introduction-to.html https://blog.rongarret.info/2024/03/a-clean-sheet-introducti... [5] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40205012 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40205012
- strogonoff 2y ago
  > Focus on myth #3. If you don’t like the word “proof” then replace it with the phrase “conclusive evidence”. > Yes, it was [1]. Still is, as this work is on-going [2]. Sorry, how does any of that show that “minds arise from chemistry”? > Yes. Have you heard of the Turing test? Yes, and a Chinese room would pass the Turing test by its very definition. > The person inside the room would be dead long before it emitted its first symbol. Replace the person with a powerful CPU. > And philosophical zombies are IPUs [3]. In this context a philosophical zombie is an instance of a Chinese room, which are fairly real things. Take a sufficiently advanced LLM, or an emulation of human brain, and you get one. (Showing that it is not a philosophical zombie would call for some conclusive evidence showing that the phenomenon of consciousness is caused by whatever entities feature in models from today’s natural sciences—so that manipulating them in a particular way is enough to cause consciousness to magically arise.) > Perhaps you are unaware that I am the author of TFA [5]? Did you read it? That slipped my mind after a while, but I don’t think it invalidates the discussion. I skimmed it back when it was posted and generally I have been familiar with the illusionist takes on consciousness for a while. As monistic materialism (as well as cartesian dualism) in general, they always strike me as inelegant and needlessly contrived. (When competing hypotheses cannot be falsified due to limitations of scientific method, beauty and elegance remain as qualities we can judge them on, and I find that beauty inversely correlates with the number of entities a given hypothesis must magically conjure into existence.)