791–800 of 1001 posts
When the consciousness itself not understood and well defined in the first place, it is pretty pointless to debate if something is or isn't conscious. And here in particular the reasoning behind the argument is bizarre. Decomposing the complex activity into simple steps like 'predicting the next word' and claiming that surely can't have consciousness. A similar argument would be -- there is no way that movements of e…
When the consciousness itself not understood and well defined in the first place, it is pretty pointless to debate if something is or isn't conscious. And here in particular the reasoning behind the argument is bizarre. Decomposing the complex activity into simple steps like 'predicting the next word' and claiming that surely can't have consciousness. A similar argument would be -- there is no way that movements of e…
A human just predicts the next best action.
But I wonder if some of the magic in the human brain is its analog nature. Chemical signaling and impulses of neurons interact with each other with waveforms that have theoretically infinite detail. In contrast, computers discrete, quantized values, storing no more detail of a signal than what is needed for the programmers desired task. Is there perhaps something about the continuous and chaotic nature of analog data that could give rise to consciousness? If so, it seems like it would preclude consciousness ever being seen in digital form.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I will say, I find it fascinating that there are some philosophers and consciousness researchers who seem to be less certain. I just listened to Chris Hayes interview David Chalmers this week, whose position seemed to be that it's probably not conscious, but that we can't be certain. And more than that: he seemed open to the idea that they may become conscious under further scaling/training/advancements. It's a great…
Imagine yourself in an isolation chamber. What are you thinking? Are you no longer conscious?
That said, I'm not sure I follow what you're actually asking here? I'll also note that I'm not taking a position one way or the other, just sharing a podcast and noting that an extremely reputable scholar on the subject of consciousness seems to have a bit more uncertainty and humility than many commenting here. ;)
I often hear the assumption that LLMs can or will become conscious because consciousness is likely substrate independent . The idea being that our brain is just a computer made out of meat and it doesn't do anything that can't be precisely simulated by a silicon computer. But I wonder if some of the magic in the human brain is its analog nature. Chemical signaling and impulses of neurons interact with each other with…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Daniel Dennet in „Consciousness Explained” argues that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon, and when we look at its individual components, it is like seeing an illusionist’s trick. We may wonder how many grains of sand make a dune, of how many molecules of water make a liquid. (John Conway would argue that it takes a single spin-1 particle to have free will, but I digress.) The same way, even if individual chemic…
Which to me, raises an interesting question: - How many individual components do you need for it to emerge? Most people would be okay with saying that individual cells are not conscious, maybe even that tree are not conscious even thought they are made of many cells. Neurons seem to be the determinant factor in deciding whether something could have a consciousness, but again how many do you need? Does growing 1B neur…
If it is about the relationship between components, then I would imagine just two. Then it is a matter of scale.
This seems to be anathema to many people. I'm not sure why but the notion of something having a tiny bit of consciousness that is imperceptible seems to be unacceptable. There are so many things that we cannot comprehend at small scales. Nobody really has a handle on how large a Planck length is.
For some reason it comforts people to think there is a threshold at which it all switches on, but for what reason would there be a threshold?
We'd need a good definition of consciousness to get anywhere on this. I suspect such a definition would include agency, which includes desires and goals for the self. LLMs don't seem to have agency, and seem unlikely to get it since they are specifically engineered to do as told. No doubt someone is trying, as we speak, to do just this. But I doubt the effort will be large -- LLMs are engineered to do as told because…
- not observable (feelings, agency etc)
- not useful (spiritual definitions, definitions that degrade into consciousness = being human/animal)
I often hear the assumption that LLMs can or will become conscious because consciousness is likely substrate independent . The idea being that our brain is just a computer made out of meat and it doesn't do anything that can't be precisely simulated by a silicon computer. But I wonder if some of the magic in the human brain is its analog nature. Chemical signaling and impulses of neurons interact with each other with…
My background is in cognitive science and psycholinguistics. I spent more than ten years talking to first year psychology undergraduates about whether AIs could be conscious; also did some research on (extremely tiny) AIs in modelling language behaviours. There is a great deal of good thinking on Chiang's topic by professional philosophers, and there's much to be said for reading them. I won't rehearse their ideas he…
I'm also super curious to learn more about the philosophers you referenced and their thoughts on this subject. Would you be willing to share some of your favorite examples?