4 ms·

> 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/th

by 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.)
- lisper 2y ago
  > how does any of that show that “minds arise from chemistry”? That's too long a story for an HN comment (which is the reason I referred you to an entire field of study) but the TL;DR is that the only reason we have to believe that minds exist at all is the I/O behavior of things that purport to have them (i.e. people) and that I/O behavior can (as far as we can tell) be completely accounted for the the behavior of neurons, which can be completely accounted for by chemistry. > Replace the person with a powerful CPU. That completely eviscerates the experiment. The whole point of the Chinese Room is that there is a conscious person inside who does not speak Chinese. Without that, the Chinese Room is just a run-of-the-mill AI. > 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. Where is your "conclusive evidence" that this "phenomenon of consciousness" actually exists? If an AI exhibits I/O behavior that is indistinguishable from a human (i.e. can pass the Turing test) then on what basis can you call one a "philosophical zombie" and not the other? > they always strike me as inelegant and needlessly contrived What is your alternative?
  - strogonoff 2y ago
    > that I/O behavior can (as far as we can tell) be completely accounted for the the behavior of neurons, which can be completely accounted for by chemistry Thing is, this can be explained the other way around. If neurons & chemistry were merely how conscious phenomena appear (a map of the territory), the observed outcome would not change. (Most of chemistry, physics, etc. all work equally well in that scenario, by the way, but there may be implications in other fields.) By the way, reducing everything to I/O behaviour is also a philosophical position, I believe it’s called behaviourism. > The whole point of the Chinese Room is that there is a conscious person inside who does not speak Chinese. Neither does a powerful CPU/an LLM—the point of putting a slow person that doesn’t speak the language is to illustrate on an intuitive level what happens with a fast program that does the same, just in the blink of an eye. > Where is your "conclusive evidence" that this "phenomenon of consciousness" actually exists? You want to attribute me a claim I do not make. There is no conclusive evidence either way, and it could be impossible to obtain any (at least within the framework of scientific method). However, a theory where it does not exist has major logical flaws in my view. > If an AI exhibits I/O behavior that is indistinguishable from a human (i.e. can pass the Turing test) then on what basis can you call one a "philosophical zombie" and not the other? Hinges on the hard problem. If you claim consciousness does not exist, then you have your answer and I have mine, but I would object to treating it as a fact. > What is your alternative? I would not claim to have my own, but variants of monistic idealism as I understand them presuppose the objective existence of consciousness and go from there. I find that way we may have to magically conjure out of nothing much fewer entities and arbitrary rules, and don’t have to explain away the only phenomenon we have direct access to.

by lisper 2y ago

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.)

lisper 2y ago
> how does any of that show that “minds arise from chemistry”? That's too long a story for an HN comment (which is the reason I referred you to an entire field of study) but the TL;DR is that the only reason we have to believe that minds exist at all is the I/O behavior of things that purport to have them (i.e. people) and that I/O behavior can (as far as we can tell) be completely accounted for the the behavior of neurons, which can be completely accounted for by chemistry. > Replace the person with a powerful CPU. That completely eviscerates the experiment. The whole point of the Chinese Room is that there is a conscious person inside who does not speak Chinese. Without that, the Chinese Room is just a run-of-the-mill AI. > 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. Where is your "conclusive evidence" that this "phenomenon of consciousness" actually exists? If an AI exhibits I/O behavior that is indistinguishable from a human (i.e. can pass the Turing test) then on what basis can you call one a "philosophical zombie" and not the other? > they always strike me as inelegant and needlessly contrived What is your alternative?
- strogonoff 2y ago
  > that I/O behavior can (as far as we can tell) be completely accounted for the the behavior of neurons, which can be completely accounted for by chemistry Thing is, this can be explained the other way around. If neurons & chemistry were merely how conscious phenomena appear (a map of the territory), the observed outcome would not change. (Most of chemistry, physics, etc. all work equally well in that scenario, by the way, but there may be implications in other fields.) By the way, reducing everything to I/O behaviour is also a philosophical position, I believe it’s called behaviourism. > The whole point of the Chinese Room is that there is a conscious person inside who does not speak Chinese. Neither does a powerful CPU/an LLM—the point of putting a slow person that doesn’t speak the language is to illustrate on an intuitive level what happens with a fast program that does the same, just in the blink of an eye. > Where is your "conclusive evidence" that this "phenomenon of consciousness" actually exists? You want to attribute me a claim I do not make. There is no conclusive evidence either way, and it could be impossible to obtain any (at least within the framework of scientific method). However, a theory where it does not exist has major logical flaws in my view. > If an AI exhibits I/O behavior that is indistinguishable from a human (i.e. can pass the Turing test) then on what basis can you call one a "philosophical zombie" and not the other? Hinges on the hard problem. If you claim consciousness does not exist, then you have your answer and I have mine, but I would object to treating it as a fact. > What is your alternative? I would not claim to have my own, but variants of monistic idealism as I understand them presuppose the objective existence of consciousness and go from there. I find that way we may have to magically conjure out of nothing much fewer entities and arbitrary rules, and don’t have to explain away the only phenomenon we have direct access to.