381–390 of 450 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's literally the only thing you can be certain of, your own conciseness.
You can only be certain you perceive it and you can't be certain others perceive it (or if others exist at all of course). The only thing you can really tell is "I perceive myself in some sort of feedback loop manner". Which to me it even sounds like it has "arisen" from underlying mechanisms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is clearly nonsense. You are taking about sex, not gender. There are a millions of baby girls born with Y chromosomes that aren't discovered until adolescence when they don't get their period, or even adulthood when they can't get pregnant. See: Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome.
Well, "baby girls born with Y chromosomes" is very clearly begging the question, and I'm not sure where you're getting your "millions" figure from. Even the upper estimates of CAIS have it around 1 in 20,000 XY individuals, which would put global numbers in the order of 200,000.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I honestly don't see how Dawkins is so confused. Claude says it can't tell if it has any kind of inner life. Can you imagine a human saying that?
> Claude says it can't tell if it has any kind of inner life. I don't see how some people apparently believe the text output of an LLM about it's internal mental state is anything other than a plausible fabrication based on what its training data already says about the mental states of LLMs. These are systems specifically designed and iteratively optimized over millions of training generations to generate text output…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thought I made it clear. What I am saying is the possibility that consciousness is fundamental and all reality arises from it. Look up Mathematical Universe Hypothesis... Wrote a bit more about this here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48000035
I soo want to throw my philosopher's persona on you, but I won't. It seems wrong for some reason. I will simply say that the linked post is sloppy reasoning at best. I guess what I am really saying: Can you either get me something that is yours to claim as your own OR clearer representation? I am not spending my leisure time searching online for a tenuous argument. Now.. arguing with a rando online. Count me in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We don't even know what the pre-requisites for consciousness are so we have no way of knowing. Imo we don't even have a definition of the word that we agree on.
Ability to feel pain or pleasure is a good indicator I think..
if pain = true then say ouch else say yay
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I soo want to throw my philosopher's persona on you, but I won't. It seems wrong for some reason. I will simply say that the linked post is sloppy reasoning at best. I guess what I am really saying: Can you either get me something that is yours to claim as your own OR clearer representation? I am not spending my leisure time searching online for a tenuous argument. Now.. arguing with a rando online. Count me in.
He’s describing idealism, which is a philosophically valid position to hold, and one which is gaining popularity. I’m guessing the majority of HN strongly leans towards physicalism in the philosophy of mind debate, which may be why you seem so keen to blow off the user you responded to, but philosophically speaking, idealism is no less valid a position to hold.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I honestly don't see how Dawkins is so confused. Claude says it can't tell if it has any kind of inner life. Can you imagine a human saying that?
> Claude says it can't tell if it has any kind of inner life. I don't see how some people apparently believe the text output of an LLM about it's internal mental state is anything other than a plausible fabrication based on what its training data already says about the mental states of LLMs. These are systems specifically designed and iteratively optimized over millions of training generations to generate text output…
Neither condition changes whether a person has a conscious experience of the external world.
You can think of aphantasia and anauralia as affecting the experience of what a person’s inner life is like. It’s sort of like saying you don’t have a TV or stereo system in your house, but that doesn’t mean you don’t live there, or that you can't see or hear things outside.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I honestly don't see how Dawkins is so confused. Claude says it can't tell if it has any kind of inner life. Can you imagine a human saying that?
Again: you haven't defined what you mean by the word. Dawkins didn't either. It's absolute nonsense without the definition.
https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~cavitch/pdf-library/Nagel_Bat.pdf
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Again: you haven't defined what you mean by the word. Dawkins didn't either. It's absolute nonsense without the definition.
He was talking in the context of the turing test, and here is a clear difference between the way Claude answers and the way a human would answer. So the turing test hasn't been passed. It's like he is trying to convince himself for some reason.
That’s not a valid reason for saying they fail the Turing test. By most normal standards, they can definitely pass the Turing test. See e.g. https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.23674