4 ms·

I am pretty sure I am not conscious, and this seems to solve the entire problem that other people have.

by H8crilA 4mo ago

roncesvalles 4mo ago
My pet theory is that I don't think all humans are conscious (in other words, some perfectly cognitively normal-seeming people are just automatons without an inner experience, like plants or LLMs). Mainly motivated by the fact that a lot of people report not having an inner monologue, and other little hints that I've picked up over the years. The "inner experience" might be totally optional to fitness, like green eyes.
- trick-or-treat 4mo ago
  That's called solipsism. I went through it as a lad, I think it's not uncommon.
  - H8crilA 4mo ago
    I assure you that I am not conscious (and a human, not an LLM). Therefore at least partial solipsism is true.
    - randallsquared 4mo ago
      If you aren't conscious, and if no one else is, either (in spite of their reports of such), the solipsism still need not be true. It's a reach, I guess.
      - jfyi 4mo ago
        I am not sure I am prepared for solipsgnosticism to be a thing.
    - Tier2Capital 4mo ago
      what do you mean youre not conscious?
      - H8crilA 4mo ago
        I'm trolling, figured some people would actually spend time thinking about this. Wasn't wrong :)
  - randallsquared 4mo ago
    I think LLMs have brought it roaring back for a lot of people.
    - jfyi 4mo ago
      Nah, it never went anywhere. The internet just provides a safe space for people to admit philosophies that would cause social issues in person.
  - roncesvalles 4mo ago
    Not really. Solipsism means only you're (certain to be) conscious. It's an epistemological thing. I'm making a purely biological conjecture motivated by some observations. I believe some humans are definitely conscious (including of course myself, if you take my word), but that some might not be. The conscious experience may just be a phenotypic variant, like having blue eyes, eidetic memory or dyslexia. Consider also some recent research that shows that our consciousness is only observational and gives us an illusion of control. The actual decision-making is done a split second before we perceive to have done it. That means it might be totally optional. Consider also that we know some living creatures to definitely not have a mind for example plants, and some creatures deemed highly unlikely to have a mind such as fish and insects. And yet they "operate" just fine. Somewhere in ecology there's a boundary and yet it's not apparent just by observing behavior. I have a corollary hypothesis which is that only young people are actually conscious. One day you go to bed and your mind never wakes up, but your body keeps on living the automaton till you actually die. (also if you're wondering, I don't think the boundary is along racial lines)
    - kodt 4mo ago
      >(also if you're wondering, I don't think the boundary is along racial lines) read the entire comment waiting for this
    - mmnfrdmcx 4mo ago
      > I have a corollary hypothesis which is that only young people are actually conscious. One day you go to bed and your mind never wakes up, but your body keeps on living the automaton till you actually die. Thank you for a new existential fear unlocked. Why do you believe this? Reminds me of https://www.theintrinsicperspective.com/p/they-die-every-day https://www.theintrinsicperspective.com/p/they-die-every-day
    - adornKey 4mo ago
      The relation of consciousness and being in control is interesting. I'm not so sure about the decision-making experiments - maybe they just measured latency in the communication layers? I think being in control is a rare thing. It's hard to change even the smallest habits - the default result is failure - but sometimes it's possible. The only thing that seems to work reliably is subconscious manipulation of people using propaganda and repetition. That's for me the main reason to believe that at least 90% of people don't have active functional consciousness in their loop. Decisions of Plants work in different time scales, so they're hard to perceive, but I don't think they work that different - it all boils down to maximising some gain-function using some chemistry for memory. Your theory about going automaton is interesting. I've seen intelligent persons that communicated very well going "crazy". (I think women do that a lot) - like a looping LLM. And later they came back to normal - but since then I have some doubts about their internal state...
- adornKey 4mo ago
  One step further is to ask how conscious your mind actually is. There is a lot happening on autopilot - and everybody usually checks out for a few hours at night. Maybe consciousness is a rare temporary thing. I think evidence suggests that humans aren't conscious most of the time. So it wouldn't surprise me if 95% of the time people are just stochastic parrots. But maybe that number is even close or equal to 100%. Intellectually a lot of humans perform worse than LLMs and a lot of people (most of them) are completely unable to process abstract concepts and basic logic at all. Can those people truly be called conscious? Is consciousness worth something without the ability to reason?
- dboreham 4mo ago
  See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Consciousness_in_the_Breakdown_of_the_Bicameral_Mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Consciousness_in...
- rixed 4mo ago
  They are easy to recognize, they call themselves "physicalists" :)
vixen99 4mo ago
If I knew precisely which definition of consciousness you are testing against your own experience I would understand your point and I would like to. Can you say what it is that you are sure you are not?

I am pretty sure I am not conscious, and this seems to solve the entire problem that other people have.

by H8crilA 4mo ago

I am pretty sure I am not conscious, and this seems to solve the entire problem that other people have.

My pet theory is that I don't think all humans are conscious (in other words, some perfectly cognitively normal-seeming people are just automatons without an inner experience, like plants or LLMs). Mainly motivated by the fact that a lot of people report not having an inner monologue, and other little hints that I've picked up over the years. The "inner experience" might be totally optional to fitness, like green eyes.

trick-or-treat 4mo ago
That's called solipsism. I went through it as a lad, I think it's not uncommon.
- H8crilA 4mo ago
  I assure you that I am not conscious (and a human, not an LLM). Therefore at least partial solipsism is true.
  - randallsquared 4mo ago
    If you aren't conscious, and if no one else is, either (in spite of their reports of such), the solipsism still need not be true. It's a reach, I guess.
    - jfyi 4mo ago
      I am not sure I am prepared for solipsgnosticism to be a thing.
  - Tier2Capital 4mo ago
    what do you mean youre not conscious?
    - H8crilA 4mo ago
      I'm trolling, figured some people would actually spend time thinking about this. Wasn't wrong :)
- randallsquared 4mo ago
  I think LLMs have brought it roaring back for a lot of people.
  - jfyi 4mo ago
    Nah, it never went anywhere. The internet just provides a safe space for people to admit philosophies that would cause social issues in person.
- roncesvalles 4mo ago
  Not really. Solipsism means only you're (certain to be) conscious. It's an epistemological thing. I'm making a purely biological conjecture motivated by some observations. I believe some humans are definitely conscious (including of course myself, if you take my word), but that some might not be. The conscious experience may just be a phenotypic variant, like having blue eyes, eidetic memory or dyslexia. Consider also some recent research that shows that our consciousness is only observational and gives us an illusion of control. The actual decision-making is done a split second before we perceive to have done it. That means it might be totally optional. Consider also that we know some living creatures to definitely not have a mind for example plants, and some creatures deemed highly unlikely to have a mind such as fish and insects. And yet they "operate" just fine. Somewhere in ecology there's a boundary and yet it's not apparent just by observing behavior. I have a corollary hypothesis which is that only young people are actually conscious. One day you go to bed and your mind never wakes up, but your body keeps on living the automaton till you actually die. (also if you're wondering, I don't think the boundary is along racial lines)
  - kodt 4mo ago
    >(also if you're wondering, I don't think the boundary is along racial lines) read the entire comment waiting for this
  - mmnfrdmcx 4mo ago
    > I have a corollary hypothesis which is that only young people are actually conscious. One day you go to bed and your mind never wakes up, but your body keeps on living the automaton till you actually die. Thank you for a new existential fear unlocked. Why do you believe this? Reminds me of https://www.theintrinsicperspective.com/p/they-die-every-day https://www.theintrinsicperspective.com/p/they-die-every-day
  - adornKey 4mo ago
    The relation of consciousness and being in control is interesting. I'm not so sure about the decision-making experiments - maybe they just measured latency in the communication layers? I think being in control is a rare thing. It's hard to change even the smallest habits - the default result is failure - but sometimes it's possible. The only thing that seems to work reliably is subconscious manipulation of people using propaganda and repetition. That's for me the main reason to believe that at least 90% of people don't have active functional consciousness in their loop. Decisions of Plants work in different time scales, so they're hard to perceive, but I don't think they work that different - it all boils down to maximising some gain-function using some chemistry for memory. Your theory about going automaton is interesting. I've seen intelligent persons that communicated very well going "crazy". (I think women do that a lot) - like a looping LLM. And later they came back to normal - but since then I have some doubts about their internal state...
adornKey 4mo ago
One step further is to ask how conscious your mind actually is. There is a lot happening on autopilot - and everybody usually checks out for a few hours at night. Maybe consciousness is a rare temporary thing. I think evidence suggests that humans aren't conscious most of the time. So it wouldn't surprise me if 95% of the time people are just stochastic parrots. But maybe that number is even close or equal to 100%. Intellectually a lot of humans perform worse than LLMs and a lot of people (most of them) are completely unable to process abstract concepts and basic logic at all. Can those people truly be called conscious? Is consciousness worth something without the ability to reason?
dboreham 4mo ago
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Consciousness_in_the_Breakdown_of_the_Bicameral_Mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Consciousness_in...
rixed 4mo ago
They are easy to recognize, they call themselves "physicalists" :)

vixen99 4mo ago

If I knew precisely which definition of consciousness you are testing against your own experience I would understand your point and I would like to. Can you say what it is that you are sure you are not?