4 ms·

Yes and? Where is your disproof that other physical systems can't hold consciousness? I am sure of my body, I am not sure of you. I can feel, but how do I know

Yes and? Where is your disproof that other physical systems can't hold consciousness? I am sure of my body, I am not sure of you. I can feel, but how do I know you are not faking the outputs of feeling? 1. Scooters can move from a place to a place. 2. That a scooter has a body with an engine. Therefore scooters are special and cars don't exist.

lolakutty 5d ago
>but how do I know you are not faking the outputs of feeling? You won't..but it does not matter. >Where is your disproof that other physical systems can't hold consciousness? I said no such thing. Just that there is no reason to think that LLMs are conscious. If we find some natural or artificial entity with some unknown and un-inspectable thing inside it, that behaves in an intelligent manner, I would not be sure that it is not conscious.
- hardbass 5d ago
  Why unknown? The human brain is known and inspectable, then you should say it is not conscious. You haven't yet shown why you think an LLM can't be conscious. You are just saying "just because" with no reason or parameters given.
  - lolakutty 5d ago
    >The human brain is known and inspectable, then you should say it is not conscious. Human brain is not "inspectable". > LLM can't be conscious. Because there is no reason to think so, and suggestion that would be like suggesting the existence of ghosts and goblins. Extremely unscientific.
    - hardbass 5d ago
      So what is the reason to not think it can be conscious? Brains are physical systems, so are LLMs. How is a human brain not inspectable? Tell me what part of it is beyond inspection? You have been making up absurd non sequiturs throughout this chat, ending with this beyond absurd statement now.
      - lolakutty 5d ago
        > Brains are physical systems, so are LLMs. So are rocks. Are rocks conscious? Idol worshipers might have a point after all! >Tell me what part of it is beyond inspection? Oh, you can dissect a brain as much as you like. Is that what you mean by "inspection". I was thinking more like "How does it work". In that sense, we don't know a lot.
        hardbass 5d ago
        Rocks don't talk to me and think and act intelligently. Current LLM's do. We don't know a lot about how chaotic systems work either in terms of predicting its outcome even if we know every individual step. The argument you gave for the brain equally applies to the LLMs, or any other complex system. So your premise is wrong.
        lolakutty 5d ago
        > Rocks don't talk to me and think and act intelligently. These are not required for consciousness. > Current LLM's do. Computer chat bots are not a new thing. So were all the past ones conscious too?
        hardbass 5d ago
        >These are not required for consciousness. Define consciousness right here, otherwise we have nothing else to discuss. You keep making up undefined crap and circular "it is it, because it is it" nonsense without proof. If you cannot immediately and clearly define consciousness in a testable clear manner right now, I will ignore and stop all conversation with you until you do. Potentially past models could have been. None before came close to being this articulate and able to think and talk on our level before, and do things beyond us like difficult math problems.
        lolakutty 5d ago
        You said "rocks don't talk to me and think and act intelligently." But a coma patient who is conscious would be unable to talk and act in an intelligent manner. That does not means that they are not conscious. So consciousness does not require externally observable behavior. That was my point. So a rock could be conscious for all we know.. Also, If you are irritated by my "crap", why don't you stop replying? Are you paid or somehow obliged to correct every crap talker on the internet or something?

lolakutty 5d ago

>but how do I know you are not faking the outputs of feeling? You won't..but it does not matter. >Where is your disproof that other physical systems can't hold consciousness? I said no such thing. Just that there is no reason to think that LLMs are conscious. If we find some natural or artificial entity with some unknown and un-inspectable thing inside it, that behaves in an intelligent manner, I would not be sure that it is not conscious.

hardbass 5d ago
Why unknown? The human brain is known and inspectable, then you should say it is not conscious. You haven't yet shown why you think an LLM can't be conscious. You are just saying "just because" with no reason or parameters given.
- lolakutty 5d ago
  >The human brain is known and inspectable, then you should say it is not conscious. Human brain is not "inspectable". > LLM can't be conscious. Because there is no reason to think so, and suggestion that would be like suggesting the existence of ghosts and goblins. Extremely unscientific.
  - hardbass 5d ago
    So what is the reason to not think it can be conscious? Brains are physical systems, so are LLMs. How is a human brain not inspectable? Tell me what part of it is beyond inspection? You have been making up absurd non sequiturs throughout this chat, ending with this beyond absurd statement now.
    - lolakutty 5d ago
      > Brains are physical systems, so are LLMs. So are rocks. Are rocks conscious? Idol worshipers might have a point after all! >Tell me what part of it is beyond inspection? Oh, you can dissect a brain as much as you like. Is that what you mean by "inspection". I was thinking more like "How does it work". In that sense, we don't know a lot.
      - hardbass 5d ago
        Rocks don't talk to me and think and act intelligently. Current LLM's do. We don't know a lot about how chaotic systems work either in terms of predicting its outcome even if we know every individual step. The argument you gave for the brain equally applies to the LLMs, or any other complex system. So your premise is wrong.
        lolakutty 5d ago
        > Rocks don't talk to me and think and act intelligently. These are not required for consciousness. > Current LLM's do. Computer chat bots are not a new thing. So were all the past ones conscious too?
        hardbass 5d ago
        >These are not required for consciousness. Define consciousness right here, otherwise we have nothing else to discuss. You keep making up undefined crap and circular "it is it, because it is it" nonsense without proof. If you cannot immediately and clearly define consciousness in a testable clear manner right now, I will ignore and stop all conversation with you until you do. Potentially past models could have been. None before came close to being this articulate and able to think and talk on our level before, and do things beyond us like difficult math problems.
        lolakutty 5d ago
        You said "rocks don't talk to me and think and act intelligently." But a coma patient who is conscious would be unable to talk and act in an intelligent manner. That does not means that they are not conscious. So consciousness does not require externally observable behavior. That was my point. So a rock could be conscious for all we know.. Also, If you are irritated by my "crap", why don't you stop replying? Are you paid or somehow obliged to correct every crap talker on the internet or something?