4 ms·
The cool thing about Eric and his work is that he consistently challenges "folk psychology" in ways that aren't just doom and gloom. I think the best way to und
by jhickok 15d ago
The cool thing about Eric and his work is that he consistently challenges "folk psychology" in ways that aren't just doom and gloom. I think the best way to understand his argument in the paper isn't as supporting panpsychism necessarily since the proliferation of "consciousness" might be because it's cheap and easy to get like an illusionist[0] might support. I think the universe might be conscious, but that's not entirely interesting because being conscious is just a behavioral disposition to get labelled conscious, i.e. it's more akin to a speech act than some deep metaphysical classification.
As always, reading Eric is a treat and if you enjoy reading about the oddities of our world and the weird conclusions that fall out of our best theories, then you would enjoy reading his work.
0: https://keithfrankish.github.io/articles/Frankish_Illusionism%20as%20a%20theory%20of%20consciousness_eprint.pdf https://keithfrankish.github.io/articles/Frankish_Illusionis...
- qarl 15d agoThe answer is probably that consciousness is an illusion like continuity of existence is an illusion. Which is why most attempts to define it are circular. The U.S. definitely takes actions to defend and protect itself. Seeks growth. I'm not so sure about inner dialogue... but is that a requirement? Or maybe the dialogue between the humans in the system qualifies?
- jhickok 15d agoI'm not so sure humans have an inner dialogue. I think what we need to investigate is why humans believe they have an inner dialogue (even though not all humans report having an inner dialogue), and one of the explanations might be that we actually do have an inner dialogue, and another might be that we have the illusion of an inner dialogue. In fact, this is one of the research areas that Eric Schwitzgebel from OP has explored: https://direct.mit.edu/books/monograph/3242/Describing-Inner-Experience-Proponent-Meets https://direct.mit.edu/books/monograph/3242/Describing-Inner...
- qarl 15d agoOh that is delicious, thank you. I am reminded of how my LLMs will make things up to explain their behavior that are entirely fictional.
- jhickok 15d agoYes, another assumption is that our thought process is what leads to an action, when it fact it could possibly be a ride-a-long confabulation that doesn't materialize until needed, i.e. we are asked about why we did what we did.
- qarl 14d agoYes. I remember the "passenger" episode of Westworld. And that is EXACTLY what LLMs do. They will entirely confabulate a reason for something they have no idea about, if they think they should know about it. They do an incredible job of replicating human behavior.
- tstrimple 15d agoPlease disprove the inner dialogue so mine will shut the fuck up sometimes.
- jhickok 15d agoI wish I could help, but there are inconsistencies in my inner monologue that does assist in making it retreat into the background a little. For example, I interrogate my inner voice to find out what it *sounds* like; does it sound like me? Does an inner monologue actually make any sound? To me, it doesn't sound like anything, and helps reinforce the fleeting, slippery notion of an inner voice. It makes if feel, to me, as if that inner voice is the smoke from the underlying fire, as it were. You can also disrupt an inner voice by speaking a word out loud. It does seem to impair working memory, unfortunately. Actually, thought suppression in general is associated with causing the target thought to recur more.