hardbass

4 ms·

1.
by hardbass 5d ago
Define consciousness
2.
by hardbass 5d ago
We didn't build most things in nature. We didn't build hills for example, but we can pile earth and make a hill. Why are brains special? Again, no progress is possible unless you define what consciousness is in your view. I shall
3.
by hardbass 5d ago
It is a waste of time to talk to you as you keep refusing to define what you think consciousness is but keep talking as if its a settled matter that you know what is and isn't conscious. So correct, I see no further point in talking.
4.
by hardbass 5d ago
Just commenting on what I see.
5.
by hardbass 5d ago
Go ask the people who believe in it. I for one cannot understand how something aphysical can affect our thoughts and decisions. But some think consciousness resides outside of physical systems entirely.
6.
by hardbass 5d ago
I am open to the concept of every entity having some measure of consciousness. At least it is internally consistent. As of yet though, if you want to go anything at all beyond "Only I exist", you will have to see that certain orga
7.
by hardbass 5d ago
He just goes around in circles saying inane non-sequiturs, then dodges when asked certain questions.
8.
by hardbass 5d ago
I get what you were trying to say, I still disagree, its an open question and I feel existing LLMs already might possess some consciousness. I cannot prove it of course so I am not saying so definitively. You haven't given any disproof
9.
by 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 c
10.
by hardbass 5d ago
It should have been clear from our discussion when I said "souls" I meant belief in the non-physical. Magic juice in the brain that is unexplainable by physics at all. Being unexplainable by current physics but explainable by futu
11.
by 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 ga
12.
by 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 th
13.
by hardbass 5d ago
If you think "souls" have some physical mechanism then they are not souls by the definition I am using. We would then agree, though I do not yet think we have found reason for new physical laws to be required, however that can of
14.
by hardbass 5d ago
You said you know everything about it. Then you should not have written bugs in the first place. How are you sure a system we wrote didn't emerge consciousness, if you can't even prove a system you wrote doesn't have classic
15.
by hardbass 5d ago
And why do you think we can't do the same for brains?
16.
by 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 paramete
17.
by hardbass 5d ago
Its a purely physical mechanism but one that is currently beyond our understanding. "Magic" magic is belief in souls, eg brains have aphysical magic.
18.
by hardbass 5d ago
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 plac
19.
by hardbass 5d ago
He gave the classic "I feel" argument. The problem is I am not him. To me lolakutty and an LLM both can only present their feelings or state via external indications. Both he and an LLM can say they are conscious. Who if any of th
20.
by hardbass 5d ago
That magic means a different thing from supernatural magic.
21.
by hardbass 5d ago
Yes but you are not me, I am me. I don't know you are conscious or can "feel". Both you and an LLM present themselves using words and other external indications only. If you argue brain scans, then similar experiments have be
22.
by hardbass 5d ago
How do I know you can feel? You can say you feel just an an AI can say it feels.
23.
by hardbass 5d ago
If you think current physics is insufficient but future physics might be sufficient, I can accept that but its still an unfounded belief. If you truly believe something "more" is needed, then you are placing a bet that always lost
24.
by hardbass 5d ago
Why? What's so strange about a human brain? It is a physical system of molecules running electrical and chemical signals. We already have direct proof that physical systems support consciousness. So why do you believe other physical sy
25.
by hardbass 5d ago
Pets can't speak human languages or do thinking on logic or natural logic. Current AI's can. Its a very bad example. People saying "current archs are limited" are much less than people outright claiming "software th
26.
by hardbass 5d ago
What's the non-math part you think? All of currently known physics is turing computable as far as I am aware.
27.
by hardbass 5d ago
Why do security bugs in Linux exist? We built Linux, we know everything that is going on inside.
28.
by hardbass 5d ago
Why? The human brain already exists. Unless you have some well defined criterion for what hardware can support consciousness how can you say that?
29.
by hardbass 5d ago
I think the working space in a given chat or session still counts as mind enough, but your argument is different, in that it argues about specific architectures rather than simply stating "software therefore cannot be conscious".
30.
by hardbass 5d ago
Believing a specific architecture is not capable of consciousness is a different matter. I am seeing statements that simply state things like "it is software or a machine and therefore cannot be conscious" without any further clar

More ›