4 ms·
We don't know a lot of things. That does not make it sensible to just make up unfounded claims about them. I don't know what you ate today. It would be insane
by basilikum 1mo ago
We don't know a lot of things. That does not make it sensible to just make up unfounded claims about them.
I don't know what you ate today. It would be insane for me to confidently claim that you ate two bananas and a pizza today.
The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. That's the basis of empirical research.
- gqgs 1mo agoWho exactly are these people confidently claiming that stones possess consciousness you are talking about? I've read a number of panpsychist publications, yet I have yet to encounter an author who asserts with certainty that stones are conscious exactly in the same way human beings are. The more common panpsychist interpretation, that everything exists on a spectrum of consciousness, with stones at the low end and humans at the high end, seems like a fairly reasonable ontological hypothesis to me.
- joshheitzman 1mo agoWhat's the difference between a computer and a stone?
- gqgs 1mo agoA lot of answers to this question so it depends which layer you are talking about. Functionally,I'd say a key difference is that it's probably easier to perform general computation with a computer than to achieve the same goal using a stone.
- joshheitzman 1mo agoIf the computer is functional, powered, and connected to some some kind of interface allowing you to use it (e.g. network, touchscreen, desktop setup, etc.), then sure you can use it to perform general computation. But if its unpowered, is there any real difference between a stone and a computer in a debate about consciousness?
- j-pb 29d agoSo because you eventually die, it means that you were never alive? The weights of an llm obviously don't have consciousness. It's the process that potentially has it. Are you conscious on a nanosecond timescale?
- joshheitzman 29d ago> So because you eventually die, it means that you were never alive? I said nothing of the kind. I can only assume your question in response to my comments mean you think a powered computer is alive. I'll challenge that on the basis that a computer can generally maintain its state without power just fine. Shut it down, unplug it. Wait a day, a year, a decade and plug it back in. Assuming the hardware didn't degrade to the point of failure you can turn it on again and it will be in the same state you left it in before you unplugged it. Is it alive while its unplugged? Or is it simply not alive whether its plugged in or not?
- j-pb 29d agoIt's having condciousnedd while it acts as if it's having consciousnes. It is powered while it is powered. Under general anesthesisa you are still alive, but you don't have consciousness.
- joshheitzman 29d agoCool. I've never seen a computer act as if it's having consciousness.
- j-pb 28d agoWhat do modern LLMs act like then to you?
- joshheitzman 27d agoThey act like LLMs. They are unprecedented.
- YeGoblynQueenne 1mo agoOne is a computer and the other, a stone.
- svachalek 1mo agoWell those that claim humans are conscious need to come up with a test to demonstrate it empirically. Then we can have LLMs take the same test. As it is, it would be insane for me to confidently claim you are conscious or even that you're human, as an LLM could have written the same message.
- j-pb 29d agoThe burden if proof is on you in this case. The philosophical zombie does not satisfy occams razor because it asserts an unmeasurable property that has no effect on the outcome. If it acts like it has consciousness, then assuming it to have consciousness is more scientifically rigorous, than assuming for it not to have consciousness, because the former requires one less variable.