Humanity has the debate about AI consciousness backwards

The confetti has been out of the cannon for a while now.

Because in our solar system, they happened from highly specific events (e.g. Jupiter traveling towards the center of the solar system, rather than staying out near the middle… but only for a little while, then returning to its standard position as a gravitational shield for earth.) We just don’t see evidence of that, let alone even seeing solar systems with planets of a varied-enough size to even theoretically support the CHANCE of it happening.

And that’s besides things we don’t have comparative evidence for, but which took ages on earth. It took a seriously long time for multicellular life to pop up. Easily could be a great filter. We also need tides. Another filter. We also need a planet rotating and orbiting at the right rates. Another filter. Etc.

A corollary of causal exclusion is that two causally identical systems have identical explanations for identical physical events. If you posit some property of a substrate purported to be relevant for consciousness, it will either have a causal influence or non-causal influence. Given causal closure, any causal influence is explained by prior physical events, thus bypassing any relevance of this special property (or this special property is just identical to some physical event). If the influence of this special property is non-causal, then due to causal exclusion it can't have any explanatory relevance to causally downstream behavior. E.g. it is causally excluded from relevance to speech acts about consciousness. You're left with some kind of non-physical, non-causal influence. In other words, wishful thinking.

Two further points. Modern physics has been described as "topic neutral"[1] in the sense that it doesn't posit the intrinsic nature of the substrate being described, only describes its behavior. Thus physics properly understood is itself multiply realizable: the behavior of physics can be "implemented" in dissimilar substrates with a range of intrinsic properties. But, according to the argument just outlined, these intrinsic properties can't play any explanatory role in the unfolding of physical dynamics (outside of bare implementation).

The other point is that this argument is fully general in the sense that any closed explanatory regime causally excludes phenomena not captured by entities defined within the explanatory regime. The explanatory regime of abstract semantic information is another such closed regime. Thus, for our speech acts, i.e. abstract semantic information, to be about consciousness, consciousness must be captured within the explanatory regime of abstract semantic information.

[1] https://chomsky.info/201401__/

What I meant was that even if I am a lone mind that is dreaming up a universe, I am dreaming of living as a human inside a material universe. Materialism can be nested into solipsism in this practical manner, where my solipsist self is the definition of "ultimately real" while the materialist world is only "apparently real". That is to say, my observations occur as if I am a human inside a true material universe, regardless of whether I really am. I don't know in the ultimately true sense if it's the mind/simulation/some-metaphysical-thing generating my observational sequence, but this observational sequence can be predicted without knowing that.

Also note that I'm using the term "materialism" loosely to mean that oneself is a part of a larger world rather than the whole. I'm aware of the incomplete and approximate nature of existing physics. Physics is yet another layer of "modeled apparent reality" nested inside materialism. I'm not counting on any specific physics model to predict all that I can observe in a materialist world. Such a theory of everything does not exist, at least not yet. But what we do have are models which make reasonably good predictions at some local abstraction level, some fuzzily bounded local region of materialist reality. These models need not be limited to physics. Phenomena that can be roughly modeled at higher levels do not need to be reduced to low-level physics to predict future observations with good enough precision (though it could probably be done, with great effort).

Now, to answer your question. As I understand it, you're asking whether something external in the material world caused me to move my hands to type these words.

I think that's an accurate description. But you would have to take this statement in context of the prior explanations for it to make sense in a metaphysically strict manner.

We could model this in a pretty rough high level way: I look at screen. I see article that says something about consciousness. It piques my interest so I click and read, then I talk in the comments.

And we could think about what else caused this specific event of me typing these words. There are countless causal chains, but I'll list a few:

- My understanding of language and the words used here can be traced back to every interaction I've had with other people and objects in the past. I was not born literate. Change any one of those interactions and I may be saying something slightly (or very) different right now.

- I need to eat food and drink water, or I would eventually be too weak to move my fingers to type. This comment would never happen if I'm starving.

- I see that you made a comment, so I'm responding. Your decision to comment was a part of the cause of me writing this comment. If you did not make that decision, it would be impossible for me to write this reply.

If I want to challenge physics and claim the future is something that's completely unpredictable and can only be determined by my mind or god/simulation, I could think or pray really hard about teleportion, and see if I can teleport or move really fast 1 meter forward in 10 milliseconds, surpassing the biochemical limits of my muscles and joints. I can't. The movement of things have predictable bounds regardless of whether this apparent movement of matter has metaphysical origins in mind/simulation/god/whatever, it can be predicted as if it's material. Of course, I feel like I'm making decisions. But my very concept of a decision refers to exactly some process in my mind that's always subject to apparent external influence, rather than just internal processing. This intuition is backed by the fact that other people can predict my behavior to some extent. Like you just implicitly did by assuming that if I were to respond to your comment, then I would answer your question using words in natural language you can read. You implicitly made some predictions about what will be transmitted over the wire, what I will input on my end, and what I am thinking about (the sort of mental activity which leads to muscle movements to input readable natural language text to respond to your comment). These are very rough predictions, but they're right nonetheless. Again, I don't know whether I'm truly a brain grounded in material reality in a strict metaphysical sense, but it doesn't really matter if all of my observations make it seem like I am.

I know with metaphysical certainty that you are bound by the workings of a materialist world, because I am defining certainty using my own consciousness, and you are a part of my materialist model. But hearing this from me is not enough for you to prove to yourself in a metaphysically strict sense that you are in a true material world, even if we're both in a true material world, because your definition of certainty is based on your own consciousness, and we do not share the same consciousness. If I were a figment of your imagination or an NPC in a simulation, I could behave the exact same way and say the same things to you. I would always appear to be a part of your materialist model at the "apparently real" rather than the "ultimately real" metaphysical layer, as you appear to me, regardless of our true metaphysical grounding. So I cannot show you ultimate causation. I can only point out the practical equivalence of apparent causation.

This is actually where I sit. In no way do I claim we’re the only intelligent life that will ever exist! I think the universe is extremely young. I imagine it’s more likely humans are “forerunners”, if you will, than that we’re actually special in some permanent sense.

Right now, humans are special. I don’t know if that will always be the case. In fact, I doubt it.