| ▲ | lolakutty 3 hours ago |
| Sure, if your architecture include hardware that is known to be capable of generation consciousness, the no one will say that. Problem is that we don't know any such hardware.. |
|
| ▲ | WarmWash 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| And I am sure that lolakutty will momentarily bestow the world with a consciousness test, solving a problem that has eluded millions of top thinking man hours over millennia of trying... However, I feel rather certain, that deep down the proposed test will just be another "is it chemical goo?" |
| |
| ▲ | lolakutty 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The test can only be done on oneself, and not on others. So I know I am conscious, and I am made up of a brain, among other things. So I know for a fact that this set of things that I am comprised of, can generate consciousness. | | |
| ▲ | WarmWash 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | But then you are stuck being the only conscious entity... To extended anywhere beyond the firm ground of "I know I am conscious", you need to step onto the progressively shaky ground of assumptions, which just amounts to "tests of consciousness" i.e. I have a chemical goo brain that is conscious, therefore other chemical goo brains are conscious... It is possible that you are the only conscious entity in the universe, and you have no tools whatsoever to disprove that. That knowledge is no help in determining the consciousness of anything besides yourself. | | |
| ▲ | lolakutty 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | >It is possible that you are the only conscious entity in the universe, and you have no tools whatsoever to disprove that. That is correct. | | |
| ▲ | WarmWash 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | >Sure, if your architecture include hardware that is known to be capable of generation consciousness, the no one will say that. Then circling back to your original comment, no architecture can include hardware that is known to be conscious, unless that architecture includes your personal brain, because lolakutty's brain is the only thing in the universe that is capable of generating consciousness... Which is a totally meaningless statement. This is like im14andthisisdeep levels of philosophy here...the "Nothing is real therefore everything is real" kinda stoner riffing | | |
| ▲ | hardbass an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | He just goes around in circles saying inane non-sequiturs, then dodges when asked certain questions. | | | |
| ▲ | lolakutty an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yea, 14 year old should know it. Sad that I had to explain it to you.. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | hardbass 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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 them is lying? |
|
|
| ▲ | hardbass 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Why? The human brain already exists. Unless you have some well defined criterion for what hardware can support consciousness how can you say that? |
| |
| ▲ | lolakutty 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Oh, I thought you were talking about "architectures" not containing a human brain.. | | |
| ▲ | hardbass 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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 systems can't have consciousness? Give me your definition of what consciousness is. | | |
| ▲ | lolakutty 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | >Give me your definition of what consciousness is. It should have the ability to feel... | | |
| ▲ | hardbass 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | How do I know you can feel? You can say you feel just an an AI can say it feels. | | |
| ▲ | lolakutty 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | You don't have to know that. All you have to know is that you can feel and is conscious, and this consciousness is a result of your physical body.. | | |
| ▲ | hardbass 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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 been done on LLMs too. | | |
| ▲ | lolakutty 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | To my argument to work, to answer "why is a brain special", you only have to consider two things. 1. That you are conscious. 2. That you have a human body with a brain. This implies that your body can harbor consciousness. That is what is special about your body in this context. And that answers your question. | | |
| ▲ | hardbass 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | >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 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | >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 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > 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 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > 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 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | >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 an hour ago | parent [-] | | 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? | | |
| ▲ | hardbass an hour ago | parent [-] | | 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 organizations of physical systems appear to have consciousness and certain organizations don't. You haven't yet given any definition still of what exactly you think consciousness is, and are trying to act special by thinking your own, probably not well formed, definition is the only right one. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
