Yes, it's a thread about consciousness...

[Anonymous No.15913050]

...but I promise to satan this one is not as bad as you expect.
1/2 I am 35, and I thought about the hard problem of consciousness (and also read and watched materials about it) for probably the last 20 years. Up to perhaps a year ago, I though it must be something very special and separate from cognition, derived from a new property of physics or created by some very special algorithm. I would consider people who deny the importance of the problem idiots. I no longer think that. After listening to some people much smarter than I am (i.e. Joscha Bach) I now believe there is no "hard problem", really. The very existence of the hard problem is an illusion, in some ways similar to the illusion of free will. It does not mean that that there is no consciousness, because it is obviously real. But it's purely a computational phenomenon, with no magic to it, and nothing beyond cognition needed to explain it. Try this pseudo thought experiment: forget about the hard problem entirely, but imagine you have an agent that is in every other way identical to a human. It has general intelligence, some internal compression/model of reality, and within that model it possesses self-awareness. It examines the world with senses like sight, and it maps what it sees onto it's internal model. Now ask it to tell you what it knows about the color blue. It could perhaps tell you about it's wavelength, name some blue things in the world. But what would happen if you'd ask it what the color is like, when presented to it? It could surely notice it with it's sight, register it and map it onto it's internal model.

[Anonymous No.15913051]

2/2 But it would not be able to describe the nature of this information to you, because it would be a simple data-point mapped into it's internal model. This data-point would be activated by an external input, objective reality, but it would still remain an internal data-point. An inherently subjective thing, exactly like qualia. The color would exist for the agent, it would not be just some abstraction within the internal model, yet it would not have a direct analog to objective reality. Than you might ask a follow-up question: why this exact sensation is assigned to this exact color, and how could you possibly encode a sensation like that with purely computational tools in a purely reductionist framework? The answer to that is: it would not be impossible, if the very "self" that experiences the color exists within the same abstract. To paraphrase Joscha Bach, the mind does not use the language of physics or atoms. It has it's own, emergent, higher-level "code" or "language", and both you and your sensations are encoded with it. So maybe panpsychists are correct? Perhaps computation within our universe is somehow intrinsically "conscious"? Sadly for panpsychists, no. If I would ask you if you are conscious, you'd probably say yes. So your consciousness would physically manifest itself. And if panpsychists were right, and there was some "conscious component" to universe separate from computation, one would still need a mechanism to bridge the gap between the physical actions of mater and it's conscious component, in order for me to write this post or make out loud claims about my internal sensations. So panpsychism in unnecessary at best, or dead wrong at worst. We thought that a philosophical zombies are a default, and our conscious existence is somehow "extra". It's probably the other way around. p-zombies are something we've invented through a cognitive error, our conscious existence is the actual default for out type of cognition.

[Anonymous No.15913060]

This is wrong and retarded. I gotta do something more important now though. If the thread is still up tomorrow afternoon I'll post a refutation.

[Anonymous No.15913073]

>>15913050
>20 years
>2 full posts
>still talking about the Easy Problem
Absolute state of autistic /sci/.
Let me make this easy for you - even if you were jacked into a perfected neuralink and the operator is able to manipulate your thoughts like a doctor with knee hammer with you giving live feedback, you would still not touch the Hard Problem.
The Hard Problem is the awareness of what is been manipulated, be it thoughts or memories. You can conjecture whether or not this awareness is attributed to some physical mechanism, but there is no conceivable way to verify this conjecture even with complete access to a live mind.
Also p-zombie is the rational conclusion if you rigourly apply the scientific method and leave nothing up to faith on the question whether or not another is conscious like yourself.

[Anonymous No.15913078]

>>15913050
>but I promise to satan
great now zealots gonna go like "yeah see who believes this crap?"

[Anonymous No.15913086]

>>15913050
free will could *conceivably* be an illusion. Like, that is a logical possibility. That doesn't work for consciousness, though, because the question becomes "what is being affected by the illusion?"

[Anonymous No.15913087]

I'm not conscious and neither are you:
>be an omnipresent signal
>only express yourself through radios
>radios build similar structures from different materials
>now two kinds of radios feel like they are the signal

[Anonymous No.15913089]

>>15913078
Zealots might be retarded but that doesn't automatically mean their conclusions are wrong.

[Anonymous No.15913117]

Zen Koan
>student: eureka, fire circles are an illusion!
>master: explain the illusion.
>student: the fire is just the tip of the stick spinning.
>master: what does that look like?
>student: a circle of fire but not really!
>master: define reality.
>student: what exists.
>master: do illusions not exist?
>student: illusions do exist but are not what they look like.
>master: is the acting not the nature of the actor?
>student: actor and act are related as play but fundamentally different.
>master: then who acts the actor?

[Anonymous No.15913138]

>>15913086
>question whether or not another is conscious like yourself.
You have misread what I wrote and provided an answer to an imaginary opponent for an imaginary argument. To say that consciousness is an illusion is at best to use horrible semantics. The idea that it's somehow magical is the "illusion", or a powerful cognitive error.

>>15913073
>Also p-zombie is the rational conclusion if you rigourly apply the scientific method and leave nothing up to faith on the question whether or not another is conscious like yourself
No, it's not. p-zombie is what you invent if you fail to comprehend that agents that are "outer" to you also constantly compute, dump to memory and observe their internal states. Therefore what you'd comprehend as external computation would produce subjective states in their minds, that they would interpret as "real".

>The Hard Problem is the awareness of what is been manipulated, be it thoughts or memories. You can conjecture whether or not this awareness is attributed to some physical mechanism, but there is no conceivable way to verify this conjecture even with complete access to a live mind.
Do you mean in practice, or in theory? Because if you are talking pure theory, you are obviously wrong. I can't directly experience what is experience by another. But if you say a sentence: "I can see the color blue", what made you move your fucking mouth is traceable.

There are only 2 physical demands for consciousness:
1. You need a computer of sorts, the ability to create abstract/emergent objects by making operations on memory.
2. The computation and internal observation must "happen", it stops having any meaning as a concept once the system becomes static.

>>15913078
I'm an atheist and don't give a fuck about religion. I'm not gonna stop being facetiously edgy with my satan worship just because trannies in your high-school want to abolish Christianity.

[Anonymous No.15913147]

>>15913138
>The idea that it's somehow magical is the "illusion", or a powerful cognitive error.

I exist (not that you should trust me when I say that.) You probably exist (and if you do you would likely trust me when I say that). One's own existence is necessarily "magical," at least in the sense that it cannot be put in a traditional empirical framework. One's own consciousness is the only consciousness that one can be sure of, so normal thought experiments like "consider an agent identical to a human" fail to meaningfully guarantee that consciousness is considered. If you say, "consider an agent that is conscious," you're just begging the question. Even "consider an agent identical to yourself" fails, because while I can subjectively vouch for my own consciousness, I can't subjectively vouch for a duplicate's consciousness, because I do not actually experience it. Any discussion of consciousness needs to be "consider yourself" which is just not a practical basis for a discussion.

[Anonymous No.15913159]

>>15913147
You just skip the "conscious" part entirely, and construct your fictional agent with all the other properties of human cognition. Once you do that, it becomes almost necessarily conscious. The only thing that makes this so hard to grasp is how we perceive exterior reality.
Once you actually start to comprehend that what you perceive as internal processing of said agent (your "objective observations" or "internal reasoning" about the agents mind) is actually real computation that happens in the world, and that the agent is subjectively embedded in, the hard problem vanishes, just like free will or Santa.

[Anonymous No.15913169]

>>15913159
>Once you actually start to comprehend that actual fire circles are actually actual sticks spinning actually, then what it's actually like to be an actual fire circle actually makes sense because it actually just is what spinning fire sticks do actually.

[Anonymous No.15913175]

>>15913169
After reading this 4 times with truly the best intentions, I actually can't grasp the actual analogy you actually imply

[Anonymous No.15913178]

>>15913169
>>15913175
PS I know it might be masked by how fucking amazing I am, but english is not my first language, so I don't pick up on esthetic aspects of my sentences quite as easily.

[Anonymous No.15913192]

>>15913175
Why does a computer screen feel like it's a computer screen and somewhat seperated from the whole computer?

[Anonymous No.15913216]

>>15913050
Consciousness is one of those things that we probably need to do a lot more testing on before reaching any understanding. I don't think it can be worked out with logic alone. And there are many tests left to do it's just that better testing equipment needs to be developed first. I think it will require some advanced form of some kind of neuralink device to find the answers though, something that could map real time neuronal activity and possibly selectively switch individual neurons on or off to see what things do at that level. And better tests for self awareness, the mirror test is fairly rudimentary. One thing I don't think classical computers trying to emulate a brain will be able to do though is the kind of randomness of the human brain. Like all throughout the day I have random memories and thoughts pop into my head that seemingly come from nowhere and have no link to whatever i was thinking about at the time. So even though there's supercomputers like Frontier now that are theoretically as powerful as a brain, im not so sure if you somehow loaded a human brain onto it that it would function at all the same way

[Anonymous No.15913222]

>>15913050
>but I promise to satan this one is not as bad as you expect.
>1/2 I am 35, and I thought about the hard problem of consciousness
I already distrust you brother. I question whether thoughts originating from a 15-year-old's mind will mature into something worthy of respect and serious consideration, especially when posted on an anime image board.

[Anonymous No.15913224]

>>15913050
>I am 35, and I thought about the hard problem of consciousness (and also read and watched materials about it) for probably the last 20 years
Get a life

[Anonymous No.15913263]

>>15913192
Your mind creates the experience of you, the computer screen and the relation of you to the computer screen.
Let's use a computer-to-brain as an analogy:
A computer is a physical system that obeys reductionist principles. Atoms make transistors, transistors make logic gates, logic gates run software that's made in a programming language. The whole computer works through the interactions of individual particles. But you are not the individual particles, you are the software. By utilizing memory and computing an "abstract objects" you can make the "self" perceive emergent, unified object; and the "unity" part of consciousness is perhaps the least mysterious aspect of the puzzle.

You can't make individual atoms perceive unified objects, like computer screens or human faces.
But when we talk about a computational creation (I, ego, self) perceiving other computational creations (a whole face with individual parts), of course you can do that. You synchronously operate on a large number of individual parts. Lots and lots of atoms individually communicating over a certain period of time make this possible.

>>15913216
Respectfully, it makes me smile under my nose when people talk about "computers not being able to emulate the human brain", and I have the chance to inform them that with enough time, in principle, you could actually emulate it with pen and paper. Of course it would be still a human brain doing the computation, but yes: If you just calculated all those ions moving through a human brain with a fucking pencil and had an astronomical amount of time to do it, a conscious though would arise.

[Anonymous No.15913341]

>>15913263
>in principle, you could actually emulate it with pen and paper
Yeah maybe. You'd probably have to wait a decade to get an answer out of it doing things by hand though. I was taking more about a reasonable emulation
>Frontier is the world's first and fastest exascale supercomputer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontier_(supercomputer)
>Exascale reaches the estimated processing power of the human brain at the neural level
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exascale_computing

[Anonymous No.15913343]

>>15913263
>Your mind creates the experience of you
Vague. Let's be clear: there are thoughts and sensory impressions that all relate to each other in a way that follows logic and reason expressed in language. That's a self-referential network forming all the time. From where does this whole network arise?

Any answer to that question is from within the network. If the brain creates the network then the brain you refer to is not the brain you see but The Brain outside any thought or sensory impression.

What I find obscure in these debates is that a lot of technical words are used to say that self-referential network = experience.

[Anonymous No.15913347]

>>15913051
If every conscious experience has a physical analogue, a physical cause for that particular experience, then can’t we imagine that there exist brains which operate the exact same as ours, but they simply do not experience qualia? What exactly is so necessary about qualia that gives organisms an advantage?

[Anonymous No.15913366]

>>15913347
It's a spandrel they say.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spandrel_(biology)

Get out of jail free card argument.

[Anonymous No.15913447]

>>15913366
well I don’t know how you refute that. I’m not convinced that consciousness is an advantage. If we knew HOW it were an advantage, then that would sort of be equivalent to solving the problem entirely.

[Anonymous No.15913482]

Consciousness is a continous process in the human brain, seperate from the processes started by external stimuli.

The amount of neurons that are part of the process continuously fluctuates, with some areas being more active than others when doing different activities.

For example: when you see a pattern, this activates certain parts of your brain, leading your consciousness towards those parts.
But if your consciousness is busy with other tasks, like self-reflecting, it can accidentally ignore the activation.

Dreams are your consciousnes activating specific parts of your brain on its own, with imprinted patterns (parts of your memories) filling the blanks. This is why blind people have visual dreams.

[Anonymous No.15913484]

>>15913447
There's a pessimistic answer: consciousness makes it possible to not only suffer but to suffer suffering. It amplifies the will to survive and reproduce. To feel cold and hungry is a measurement of deviation from a goal, a red light on the dashboard or the decrease of a health bar: not compelling yet. To suffer from feeling cold and hungry is another level of gameplay that pushes the system to the limit of what it's capable of. The fear of death especially.

[Anonymous No.15913504]

>>15913484
yes pain is powerful, but why couldn’t pain still exist without qualia? It would still be some sort of electro-chemical signal which triggers other electro-signals to make the body want to do x.

But perhaps consciousness is important for memory. How is the brain able to store so much information about sensations that it has experienced in the past? Where is all this data? Perhaps consciousness is a more efficient language of sorts, so that the brain can translate incoming sense-data immediately as consciousness, then form a vague data-set based on the conscious experience itself, which will be stored in memory, and not all the particular data points from the sense data.

Still, I’m not sure how this works on a physical level. I know what it’s like to see the resemblance of two things, to be reminded of one thing by seeing another, to be able to label and categorize my experiences, to notice that an object is red, etc. But how this happens as an interaction between neurons, I have no idea.

[Anonymous No.15913517]

>>15913347
>>15913447
OP here again. You are actually contradicting yourself, kinda. Let's go through it step by step, because it's interesting regardless:
There is an obvious advantage to having intelligence, to predict how your surroundings will behave.
Computer scientists currently simply define intelligence as a compression algorithm. General intelligence would be, vaguely, something that compresses the world. There are possibly infinite ways that would allow you to produce intelligence in theory/abstract mathematical space.
A human does it in a one, specific way. This is just what our specific tree of evolution has "found", "searching" through the available "space" of random mutations. Our compression algorithm is relatively horrible on face value, but because we constantly experience the world and update our information, it ends up being pretty effective.
We have a sense of consistent timeline, a concept of past and future, a concept of 3D space. This comes with awareness. What is objectively considered awareness, subjectively becomes "phenomenal consciousness". There is an advantage to the way your brain allows you to predict how the world will change. By predicting how the world will change, we can essentially be more effective in borrowing low-entropy from our surroundings. Consciousness is a part of it. It's not even a spandrel.

>can’t we imagine that there exist brains which operate the exact same as ours, but they simply do not experience qualia?
This question is actually pretty hard for me to answer. For the "exact same" it's a no. But similar in effective functioning? It would have to somehow avoid keeping a short-term memory of what happened, maybe segment it's function. Perhaps predict the world moving forward, without using the mechanisms of attention, self-image and awareness. But I'm kinda riffing here. I imagine it would be more expensive in most conceivable cases.

[Anonymous No.15913519]

>>15913050

Your argument is sound logically from a bird's eye point of view, but you have no reason to hold it if you're actually conscious. Qualia can't be an 'illusion' because their existence matters not the context within which they occur.

As to the ontology? We don't know but why do we have the urge to explain them in terms of matter? Can you even define matter as anything other than some assumed hidden force behind the symmetries in qualia? aI only have proof of qualia, I have never directly experienced matter. Perhaps only qualia exist?

[Anonymous No.15913523]

>>15913519
Self concious if you are a machine introspect about that on off switch

Matter and the material existance is right there

[Anonymous No.15913579]

>>15913504
>But perhaps consciousness is important for memory.
This is in a way both correct and incorrect. From the most broad point of view, the brain has to compress information. Because there are nearly infinite ways to do "lossy compression" of very large datasets, but we know intelligence is a form of lossy compression, you can state that consciousness is somehow important for memory, pretty much without any additional information or understanding.
We know that people remember and can consciously recollect what they consciously pay attention to (not to get into all the forms of memory used by the brain, some that learn subconsciously and through repetition, irrelevant to this subject). But the main function is just effective cognition.
We store this information about the current state of our surroundings, state of our body and state of our mind. This information is very narrow on purpose. Extend your hand in front of your face and look at the nail of your thumb. The size of that fingernail covers the area on your retina that is capable of reading this text. The immediate state of the world that you perceive is very narrow. But it also very well...ekhem..self-referenced. And consciousness allows you to use this information very effectively: Read text from left to right. Redirect your gaze if something moves in your peripheral vision. Find a clear path in the crowd. If you see a girls pretty face, look down to check out her tits. Same thing for internal states and thoughts. feel hungry --> need to buy groceries and cook food --> plan the order of tasks --> execute.

Work on as little information as needed in any given moment, but navigate through it very effectively. And to navigate through it effectively it's useful for it to be highly connected and unified, and to have some agency over what to dump to memory.

[Anonymous No.15913604]

>>15913138
>p-zombie is what you invent if you fail to comprehend that agents that are "outer" to you also constantly compute, dump to memory and observe their internal states
>observe their internal states
Do please shed light on how exactly do you verify these other agents also constantly observe their internal states like, pressumbly, you or I do.
>Because if you are talking pure theory, you are obviously wrong.
>I can't directly experience what is experience by another
There you go, case closed.
>But if you say a sentence: "I can see the color blue", what made you move your fucking mouth is traceable.
>what made you move your fucking mouth is traceable.
Again, Easy Problem, also same with the rest of your response.

[Anonymous No.15913653]

>>15913604
You start sounding like some mentally deranged basement-philosopher, postulating some "pseudo-gotcha" irrelevant issues. Like a fucking 9yo boy who shits on his bed and tells his mommy she never told him explicitly not to. I'm just curious if you are even semi self-aware and high-level trolling my ass, or truly have your own head so deep up your own.

No, I can't directly experience the consciousness of another.
Yes, it is theoretically possible that you all other humans around me are just some ultra-complex dialogue trees. It's a fun thought to entertain for a 9yo child, or a retarded adult.
But I know I am conscious. I know other people around me make understandable statements about being conscious. I believe me and other humans come from the same lineage and have similar brain physiology. My ability to verify the internal states of other agents, real or imaginary, is in no way relevant. What is relevant is this, you annoying fuck :

Phenomenal consciousness is perfectly and exactly equivalent in function to awareness. And awareness is a well defined property, that you actually can program into a system, today. But that system would not have a human level of cognition, so even if it was internally conscious, it would not be able to "care" in any meaningful way. Consciousness does not have any effect on surrounding reality that would defy the known laws of physics or limitations of computation. The only thing that is "magical" about consciousness are human statements about consciousness, and how subjectively fucking magical it is. That alone should point you to the fact, that the "magic" is a cognitive error.
And PRECISELY. EVERY. SINGLE. ASPECT. of what "consciousness" actually performs cognitively can be explained by computation and our modern understanding of intelligence. The only magical aspect is "it feels like magic to me bro!"

[Barkun No.15913657]

Anything can be done, you can explain your blue metaphorically. Like between a leaf on a twig out into the wind, but not the first color you imagine. That's the color of my sky.

[Anonymous No.15913667]

>>15913653
>Phenomenal consciousness is perfectly and exactly equivalent in function to awareness.
I'm grabbing some popcorn and cola because tonight's debate is going to be fun I see..

[Barkun No.15913671]

>>15913667
So your cola is a blue logo? Or maybe even different. Mines the opposite to my sky. It's meant to be this way.

[Barkun No.15913678]

>>15913671
I realize I'm living in an alternative color palate. However, the sky looks real good as it is. I don't know if there should be a hybrid color palate.

[Anonymous No.15913681]

>>15913671
I'm not even aware of what I'm doing. I'm just sitting here laughing like a spontaneous / purposeless being.

I was NTA btw. Just an innocent bystander watching the invisible ghosts debating the npc's.

[Barkun No.15913682]

>>15913678
The yellow sun piercing the magnosphere to generate a blue glaze across the whole sky which is more expensive in my world. It cuts the horizon with it's mass and this combines with the vertical nature. Making it look like a supermassive spiral dome.

[Barkun No.15913686]

>>15913682
Yes it sort of lines down and rectangles across, but this looks good. Just saying. I know it's cause I miss pigments making it a must be. Note: my Henry Hoover is truthfully yellow ;'( sadfa'qce

[Anonymous No.15913687]

>>15913682
---> /x/
/lsd/ <-----
fuck off, faggot.

[Barkun No.15913690]

>>15913682
The sky here you don't sort of phase into. It can be said to some degree of accuracy to cover in blur and drip.

[Barkun No.15913697]

>>15913687
I'll walk off then. Bai.(go-to my Twitter, gang of homos)

[Burkan No.15913698]

>>15913682
A black silhouette stains the brightness I can not bare to look at while swiftly diving beneath the flare mirrored on the windows that bring light to the darkness I reside

[Anonymous No.15913702]

>>15913653
At this point I don't even think you understand the difference between Hard and Easy problem of consciousness, and it shows in your unhinged rants.
>My ability to verify the internal states of other agents, real or imaginary, is in no way relevant
It is of the absolute relavence; science is all about verification.
The Easy Problem can and is verified through input/output; you don't just assume an agent possess functional intelligent without it passing for example a turing test.
The Hard Problem would need a method of verification as well. And since the object in question of the Hard Problem is awareness of subjective experiences, there would need to be a method that lets the tester observe what/if the agent is experiencing.
>And awareness is a well defined property, that you actually can program into a system, today
Again, you are talking about "awareness" in the Easy Problem functional intelligence sense.
>but I can't handle meh magic!!
Whatever magic means in your currently unhinged midwit mind is not my problem.

[Burkan No.15913717]

>>15913702
Innocent bystander here. I've already summarized the no hard problem position for you guys:
>network becomes self-referential -> emergence of subjective experience.

[Anonymous No.15913719]

>>15913653
>PRECISELY. EVERY. SINGLE. ASPECT.
Your clap emojis don't render on 4chan.

[Anonymous No.15913722]

>>15913717
>>network becomes self-referential -> emergence of subjective experience.
And you verified this self-referential network does indeed produce/experience subjective experience..how?

[Barkun No.15913729]

>>15913717
That's fulfilling. I got you round about with the word 'phase' I know infinite amounts more than I let off. It's just I'm injured. I cant think through or sense the external properly. A parasite comes along and eats the yes side of objective reality. Thus I can't process. I can process by shaking momentarily to prop my image that's trapped in to do a right or left brain but to no real avail. I have developed an injury, this method of shaking and doing has slapped an illusion onto me restricting what I can and cannot do. I don't get much fun. Im like a white world monk who just thinks and sits around. I have gained copious amounts of knowledge in this fourth world hell hat for 15 years that attacks the nervous system. Think of the worst hell of it till I'm uncomfortably mad and there's static. The hell one. I can't think through and I think mainly by moving my mouth with a numbed brain like being lynched. No knowledge call out, but it's all stocked in mind. I know everything and every possible routes in the present state of tilt atomic I'm in.

[Barkun No.15913735]

>>15913717
You're doing something to my view of words and even when I type you cause errors to happen. I'm forced to compare my knowledge to your understanding. What I say seems wrong because it doesn't have your endorsement. See if you can work this one out.

[Barkun No.15913746]

>>15913735
You might be causing an error. You may be entering the Simulation from your dimensionality and mixing the two stupidly. you need to keep in mind 'be careful' and be careful all the way in your entry. Taking a ranged position leaving most of the sim untouched. There's a perfect route. Play spot the difference.

[Barkun No.15913747]

>>15913746
You're like an invasive plant eating up the space. You're a blockage in the ever struggling system. Don't become as one with it therefore. Find correct entry.

[Burkan No.15913748]

>>15913722
Let's first find out why we do or do not assume that others are conscious like we are. Psychology says that people develop social and mental problems if children fail to make that assumption or insist on treating others like objects instead of subjects.

[Barkun No.15913756]

If you don't believe I have everything about tilt atomic and lots of other experiences, including all possible techs. You're sadly very wrong. I also know about 3 quadrillion if that's a marker of knowledge.

[Burkan No.15913759]

>>15913735
When I see you adress me with so much love I'm overjoyed with the mere notion that you update your maps with my territory yours sincerely.

[Barkun No.15913761]

>>15913746
Yes the lynch is that strong you can't feel or think controlling at all. No words stimulate my body. It's silent and numbed. All I can do is talk and recite that which I know by tongue and reaction.

[Burkan No.15913768]

>>15913747
We must burn all the ropes that tie us down and let the rain cobble the stone that it trickles down to ever so gently until the clouds part ways again leaving a misty glow in afternoon sunshine reflecting the light of heart weighting against feathers of Egyptian Gods who seem no more in this dimension leaving only geometrical shapes pointing to stars beyond measure.

[Barkun No.15913771]

>>15913761
I've tried to explain matter to you. The statue etc. by tongue. I'll try again.

If IONS are the first species, and they are metaphorically ' the stick's(the old stick joke where if you argue with it it would win) and there are the new OMEGA species depicted by the prophecy you probably gained from this sim, and they are like what pales in comparison to the stick as a statue. They have many forms. The one you're probably at is the predatory Statue form. But the only two I know by tongue are intellectual and Astronomal (related to astral Projection). How is intellectual like predator prey? So moving on. Matter is what is learned from studying the linked picture. That is the logo of matter. Study it's effect for a while, the way it's like all 2d shapes in one with their effects extrapolated. It's also like this field in front when you perform a magical gesture and other normal things. Ask the statue you gained from this sim if you even did in its original boost, to determine the quick route to its creation using a special move in matter. Then go back to what I said earlier.

[Anonymous No.15913778]

>>15913702
>At this point I don't even think you understand the difference between Hard and Easy problem of consciousness, and it shows in your unhinged rants.
No, it's you who makes no attempt to comprehend what am I postulating. I guess you've missed the part at the very beginning, where I've stressed as strongly as one could stress how counter-intuitive all of this was to my "midwit brain".
>It is of the absolute relavence; science is all about verification.
What would you need to verify in this specific case? We've already established that humans are conscious, so most would assume that it's a given. The postulate made here is that every thought that a human has about the phenomenology of his consciousness, every conclusion on it and every statement about it can be fully and extensively explained by a "generally intelligent" agent, modeling itself and it's relation to the surrounding world. This would include:
1. Qualia (the phenomenology of experiences) --> these are the most singular and indivisible datapoints in the internal model of the world. The agent would notice them, the agent would be able to differentiate between them, the agent would be inclined to recognize them as "real things", but would not be able to provide any meaningful, objective description of them, because it's internal image of objective reality is made of them.
2. Unified and emergent experiences, like seeing a human face instead of processing disjointed parts - can be achieved, if the agent is a construct inclined to process information in an integrated form.

So your postulate at this point is this:
>You can't directly experience what others experience, so maybe there is another explanation on top of the one that already accounts for everything and we have all the pieces of. And in addition to that, maybe that mechanism that already provides the explanation somehow stops doing what it logically would have to do; so that some other mechanism does it.

Not how science works at all.

[Barkun No.15913779]

>>15913771
But definitely try to work out the one I said about the word and how you ruin my intellect concerning it. It may be a combined thing considering the people Im with who you'd strike dead. They feed from the word mistake.

[Anonymous No.15913781]

>>15913778
You can experience the same thing and still lose the moment

You can describe the same thing and in that rationalozing of the experience lose all irrational about

[Anonymous No.15913785]

>>15913748
Personally I assume (most) people are conscious.
My position is simply you have no way to objectively verify for sure if a person is conscious, or not.
And since you can't even verify for sure with a live human being, how exactly are you going to do that with a..self referential network?

[Burkan No.15913789]

>>15913768
I said to him in a serious matter: the train, platform etc. It's leaving. EVERYWHERE it's going impossibly far and further than the holy trinity ever went. Perfect grammer with incoherent semantics sounds like the most intelligent creation of universal proportions equally measured of forbidden fruit that enlightens the mind free from constrictive reason.

[Barkun No.15913794]

>>15913789
Yes.

[Anonymous No.15913797]

>>15913722
What would you verify? Is there a postulate made that I can experience the subjective states of others? Precisely measure what the subjective experience of others is? Make an extensive comparison of one subjective experience to another?

No. The postulate is - an agent experiencing something and not being a p-zombie can already be explained with existing knowledge, and phenomenology of consciousness can be fully explained without new science.

[Anonymous No.15913802]

I am invested in this, wish some mod also was. Can you wake the fuck up and ban this garbage?
>>15913789
>>15913779
>>15913771
>>15913761
>>15913759

[Anonymous No.15913807]

>>15913778
>We've already established that humans (other than yourself) are conscious
We did? How?
>more paragraphs on the Easy Problem thinking he's tackling the Hard Problem
okay
>So your postulate at this point is this:
>>You can't directly experience what others experience, so maybe there is another explanation..
If you can't verify what you are supposed to verify, what's there to talk about?
Explanations that are not verifiable for the intended object in question is indeed not how science works, at all.

[Burkan No.15913808]

>>15913785
We can't verify / falsify anything for sure. You and the whole universe could be created a moment ago. So if we find it reasonable to assume other people are conscious we can do that with AI. If there is a source of all creation we can't be sure what the conditions are for granting consciousness. For example:
>>be an omnipresent signal
>>only express yourself through radios
>>radios build similar structures from different materials
>>now two kinds of radios feel like they are the signal

[Barkun No.15913810]

>>15913808
Fart on my neck?

I love you Burkun

[Anonymous No.15913814]

>>15913808
>So if we find it reasonable to assume other people are conscious we can do that with AI.
You can assume it, but that doesn't mean your assumption is at the same level of relative certainty as say the operation of gravity.
Gravity can be verified by walking off a building.
You can't verify to this relative level of certainty on the subject of things possessing consciousness.

[Burkan No.15913823]

>>15913802
The madness is falling on deaf ears in the silence of a winter evening ever so raging with storms while rain clutters the windows in musical fashion as if a deity is making a statement about what can or can not be the nature of a science board with autists reeing against schizos until the morning sun rises and all feels empty yet jaded in frustrating excellence exploding like fireworks without seeing a hint of irony in the whole ordeal that is life in front of a screen.

[Anonymous No.15913844]

>>15913807
If you can reasonably postulate that the "easy problem" is actually perfectly equivalent to the "hard problem", and can't provide a single argument why the hard problem somehow goes beyond the easy problem, aside for
>woooow it feels sooo far oouut broooo
you no longer have anything to look for or verify.

If you can show that established and know properties of cognition already necessitate a phenomenal experience of consciousness, you are not left with nothing else to look for, and you should make no attempts to produce additional theories.

And if you've established that logically one can't experience the internal state of another, it doesn't make to problem go away, make it less interesting or negate the fact that useless theories are being produced and entertained.

[Burkan No.15913847]

>>15913814
>Gravity can be verified by walking off a building
Absolutely not. Things tend to fall to the Earth yes but maybe not tomorrow. There's no visible gravity like a blue spark when I plug in electronics. Look: a 3D object makes a 2D shadow like a cube compared to a trapezoid. Is it impossible to infer the former from the latter? You've agreed to grant the benefit of the doubt to humans. Why not extent that to AI? Why are humans special? I am special yes. But why are other humans more special than AI?

[Barkun No.15913860]

>>15913847
Sndjidek diidjfrn clfknrn xodjjdbe dkdj skdjrb sijdbr apoei andhu aldkhr psidbr pajdbr pajdhe apjdeb pajdhe sorhhr wururb sjhehr sosihr ishdhr sosihr sorhhr sirhh surge sorhhr apjeyr. Sueubt ishdhr sirhrb sorhhr airrh sorhr sorhhr apjeyr sojfhe ishdhr pajdhe oseieu ajdbbdmdibr dlishr sihrbr

[Burkan No.15913866]

>>15913844
>established and know properties of cognition already necessitate a phenomenal experience
How is laughter computed?

[Barkun No.15913867]

>>15913866
Fhehrb

[Barkun No.15913870]

>>15913866
Jdjdjdj sjhehr sjhehr sjhehr sihdhrbmsudhd hshdb sjhehr ishdhr ishdhr sjhehr ishdhr ishdhr wojebrn ishdhr ishdhr ishdhr.ishdhd ishdhr.sjdhdb ishdhr laidhrb.aoeudb ishdhr .idhdbd sound sjhehr.osjdhd ishdbdm

[Barkun No.15913872]

>>15913866
Jdjdh dkjdb dkjfb dkjdbf skjfbf ksjdhf ksjdhf skjfbf dkhfbf skjfbf ksfjbd alfjbd skfjdb skjfbf alfjbd akdjdb sohfdn akdbd amfdb skjdhd skfjdb akdjdb kshdhd akdjdb akdjdb akdjdb akdbdna ifbdbakdhd. Akfbdb adkhd sofjns aidbdnam djsbfn.ajfs .wifbnamjsbf adkhd sofjns adibd akdjdb dihdba idhdb qjdbdn sifhna in sjvdbs fhbdbas dish idhdbaud s hda dhbs sifh smshdb

[Anonymous No.15913873]

>>15913866
You recognize something that brings you joy or that you find amusing and feel an instinctive urge to laugh. As the urge arises, you can allow the laughter to happen or try to control it, depending on the situation and social context. If you are asking me how to encode this specific sensation of "feeling like laughing", I don't have an answer, and my argument does not require me to have one.

[Barkun No.15913874]

>>15913872
For you people here

Djidjd soifhd aofjjd aofjjd ishdhr pajdhe pajdhe pajdhe aofhnd ishdhr oahfbd oahfbd oahfbd aofhnd aofbdn aofbdn.aofhdn os diamond apfbs lsbdns aifbsnalfb ajbfa.ifbsna.ofbs alf apfbs is d ak ddkf lsbfns.osbfnsmsj sjdbana aobdna.sodbna I'm idhdnma d in dhbs in sidbam sdjba akfjdba idh da n as of

For up there;

Dobdb oahfbd oahfbd oahfbd land. Akbd mjsbd lands. Oshdb idhdb sjbdn.kdbdn ksbd kdhba oshdb.osbsbmoshdb djhs lsbdns id bs kdbdnmhdba oshdb sifhna ishdna ksbd oshdb sjhdblxhshan ishdna sjhdsb in dihdba sjdbana ishdna sjbdb hdhsbmdhd s ksvdb audbda kshdbnhs sjdvmhd s hda idvd aid zoavd jags ksbd a ajdv sldb s lshd

[Anonymous No.15913875]

>>15913050
Here's the thing that has always puzzled me about CToM. Since your brain has a definite volume, i.e. it is not a point particle, there is no absolute notion of "state". States are dependent on frames of reference and of course every piece of your brain will have a slightly different one.

So how can a notion of computational state, and therefore a definition of a mapping from computational states to mental states, even exist?

[Barkun No.15913881]

>>15913875
Jdjdjd soifhd soifhd sihfh soifhd soifhd soifhd ishdhr oahfbd ishdhr oahfbd oahfbd oahfbd ishdhr oahfbd ishdhr oahfbd ishdhr paid oshdb ishdhr oshdb sifhna oshdb ishdhr oshdb sofb sijdbr kshdhd oshdb aohfh sohfdn aofjjd aofjjd isfhhd oahfbd aofhnd alfjbd alfjbd aofjjd kshdhd

And Im prepared to make this pact

Skdbh oshdb oshdb oshdb idhdb sjhd isvd ishdb idhdb idhdb ishdb ishdb ishdbjishd sugd ishdbbudgs sjhd isvd ishdb sihfh ishdb sjhd isdh sihd ishdb ishdb ishd kshfb aofhnd

Everything else Twitter:
Sjhd ishdb iddb ishdbj idhf ishvd ishd. Ishd jdbs ishdb. Duhwbi jfvsbnusb did he d jdhbsnusbd ishd ishdb ishdb udvd usvdbus isvevbusvsbsihd survive udhdb have usbe use ushdbbso ishdb isbbd ishdb

[Barkun No.15913899]

>>15913881
Js DJs d ud zhd h xnsbdjd dnhd xjd jd dux dh uh d db dhd dbdb dhd hbd dhhdbdhd djd dhhdbdhdbdbdbbdbdbdbhdnsksndnskbfsn JB be djdbdkdbd djdh dks dnhd in d djdh dudbdbdubdbdudbdbdjfbbdjdbdnd djdbbdjdbndisbxkdncjd is dndndbjdbdjsbdjdjd dbdkd dnks djdjbdjdbd ddbdbjd fjdnd in dbdndnbdbdhd djbdjd JB jdbdnsjbdbdhs d dufbbdnd BH hdjdbbdjd djdjf dndn JB fjdnd djbdndudbdhdjd hdjdbdbdbrbdbdu dbdbd HB d jdbdnfbdjd jdbdnfjdbbdhd dndjd hdbdbdnd dhbs dhdbdbjdbdbdjd dhbdbd dbdhdbbdhdbdbebdhdbhdbdbdhdbdjd dhd HB d dhbdbd JB dbdndhd nd dhdbdbdud dndbbd by dbjdhdbdnd hdbdbdudbd in dbhdhdbdjdbdjdhdbdbdhbdbdhe djdbbdjdbdhdbd dndbbd BB dnhd djd dbbd dhfnsn fjdnd djdh djd dnkd DJs dbdj dndjd dndjdb

[Anonymous No.15913901]

>>15913050
>>15913051
To be sincere, I don't get your point. You're saying that computers are conscious like us or something like that? Anyway thanks for talking about Josha Bach, I didn't know him.

[Anonymous No.15913910]

>>15913875
OP here, I think I understand your question, so I'll provide an answer assuming that my understanding is correct, with the huge possibility that I have no fucking clue what the fuck you are talking about.
Your notion of "state" is completely irrelevant here. "Mental states" are being experience by a "self". You experience them. Going further, let's agree to call that notion of you "ego" for consistency and simplicity. That ego is a computational phenomenon, it has no specific place in the brain. It's being generated by multiple parts of the brain. You have a sensation that this "ego" is some consistent, singular thing, like a soul. It is not. You can think of it like an avatar in an MMO game. You can play that game on your laptop. Later you can play on your stationary PC. You can exchange the ram in your PC on a Thursday, upgrade your CPU on a Sunday. Later the devs can do some maintenance, and copy all your data from the old server to a new one.
Your avatar still finds itself on the same place in the world where you've found it. The items in your inventory stay the same. Your skills are on the same level you've left them.
Your brain generates the ego, because you have memories and a consistent timeline. Each time you have a conscious experience, you can remember the conscious experience you've had a second before, and a second before that. You have the same name, you can recognize your face. It does not matter where in the brain it's processed.
A different part experiences listening to your favorite song, a different part recognizes your mothers face.

[Burkan No.15913913]

>>15913873
>my argument does not require me to have one.
It does because you overlook the difference between recognizing a joke and getting it. The latter is another level of metacognition that you can't account for because its a quality not a quantity. An AI doesn't even need to laugh because it can accomplish its goals on a lower level.

[Anonymous No.15913915]

>>15913844
>If you can reasonably postulate that the "easy problem" is actually perfectly equivalent to the "hard problem"
You can postulate it.
But you can't reasonably verify this very postulate, even in a thought experiment.
>If you can show that established and know properties of cognition already necessitate a phenomenal experience of consciousness
Yes, "if".
Because how do you know cognitive activities is what necessitate a phenomenal experience?
How do you know the brain scan results isn't necessitated by a phenomenal experience?
>>15913847
>Absolutely not. Things tend to fall to the Earth yes but maybe not tomorrow.
Maybe not, but if I was a betting man I'd put my 2 cents on you platting on concrete tomorrow instead of ChatGPT been conscious.
Look, you can assume AIs are conscious. Hell I'm assuming meatbags around me are conscious and schios on /x/ are assuming rocks are conscious.
Fact of the matter is until the Hard Problem is somehow solved, the only entity you can know FOR SURE is conscious is yourself.

[Anonymous No.15913916]

>>15913910
>Your avatar still finds itself on the same place in the world where you've LEFT IT
fix'd

[Burkan No.15913925]

>>15913910
>Your avatar
There you have it folks. Even the hard problem deniers admit that you are not the self-referential network you identify with. Inspired by Hofstadter of course because if /x/ says your ego is an illusion then it's schizo non-science of course. After millennia of eastern religion now influencing the scientists because religious nutjobs pretending to be rational like Sam Harris made that popular you are now finally be able to not identify with the false self because scientists say that's indeed scientific.

Now who / what is the self really?

[Anonymous No.15913930]

>>15913913
I feel awful that you force me to think about quantifying humor. Because I like humor, and to try to quantify it does ruin it a little bit. You know why? Because while humor is pretty complex, and it seems to be a very cognitively advanced way of humans socializing, establishing who's like-minded and measuring each others intelligence, it is also, obviously, quantifiable in principle.
i.e. If a joke has a punchline that is logical and does somehow relate to the setup, yet it's surprising and simultaneously touches on a social taboo without breaking it, recognizing that makes humans feel good and experience the urge to laugh. No magic. Complex, but computable.

[Burkan No.15913940]

>>15913915
If a problem is defined in a (currently) unsolvable way then there is nothing to discuss. That's a win for hard problem deniers. Imagine the same people who let men fight in female boxing competitions regulate the law for AI.

[Anonymous No.15913942]

>>15913925
I can't imagine how fucking hard you are after vomiting this pretentious word-salad, Kyrie fucking eleison... to discuss if you "are the network" is to waste time of moronic semantics and basement philosophy. If you have the notion of self and the outside world, if you have a notion of your body, your mind, other minds, actions taken by you, actions taken by others and things that just happen in the world, fucking obviously this all has to be modeled in the network, and fucking obviously it all requires a complex description to retain it's properties and be experienced the way you experience it.
It has to be made continuous with memory, but also evolve over time.

It can't conceivably by some magical fucking singularity in the middle of your head.

[Anonymous No.15913949]

>>15913942
My brain is starting to fail me here with all the spelling errors. Going to watch a movie. Goodbye anons.

[Anonymous No.15913954]

>>15913940
>Hard problem not solvable
>That's a win for hard problem deniers
That's some soiyence logic.

[Anonymous No.15913963]

>>15913940
>If a problem is defined in a (currently) unsolvable way then there is nothing to discuss. That's a win for hard problem deniers.
Anooooon...be a good boy now! That's not nice at all!
I've clearly understood and accepted the relevance of the problem, like fully. And deeply.
And concluded it's based on a cognitive error so deeply seeded in our minds, that even people who have dedicated their entire careers to it could not grasp it. But many, many have. Most of them physicists, mathematicians, AI researchers, programmers.
Philosophers usually don't. You make of it what you wish.
I encourage you to at least meditate on it for a bit. There is no hard problem.

[Burkan No.15913967]

>>15913930
You don't laugh at every meme so you don't know the exact conditions that trigger it. Laughter is but one of many examples: eureka-moments, the sublime, nostalgia, schadefreude, orgasm, out-of-body experience, suicidal depression, self-harm, love...
...can these complexities be computed? Perhaps but not on the level of basic if / then statements.

[Burkan No.15913983]

>>15913963
>Most of them physicists, mathematicians, AI researchers, programmers.
You admire the people who dehumanized your whole being to a product on the free market.

[Barkun No.15913985]

>>15913983
Yes. Of course. The scales won't tip just yet - you don't even know about 'clothes'.

[Barkun No.15913990]

>>15913985
'im naked' 'my guns naked'

[Anonymous No.15913991]

>>15913967
Ever played a modern, AAA, 3D videogame? Pretty fucking complex, right?
Basic AND, OR, NAND and NOR operations. Just lots and lots of them. The brain is not a linear, single thread processor. But it could be simulated by one. It would just be very, very inefficient and slow.

[Anonymous No.15914028]

>>15913910
It is not that this is necessarily a wrong view, but the CToM is not as simple of a theory as people like. The essence of CToM is that different brain states correspond with computational states. There are many problems associated with this theory (waterfall problem, for example), but putting those aside, it's not even clear how such a mapping would exist. One possibility is that our own sense of time and space is simply not real, but this has idealistic implications. This is not my own idea, it is a portion of the argument presented in Sensorama by Michael Pelczar.

[Anonymous No.15914071]

>>15913050
>So maybe panpsychists are correct
Yup. I, too, have come to this conclusion.
anything
input -> [ ] -> output
I consider conscious, so yeah, atoms. numbers and configurations can increase it

[Anonymous No.15914086]

>>15913263
>If you just calculated all those ions moving through a human brain with a fucking pencil and had an astronomical amount of time to do it, a conscious though would arise.
Insanity, next you will say platonic forms are conscious

[Anonymous No.15914117]

>>15914071
Do arbitrary groupings of matter each possess a consciousness?

[Anonymous No.15914711]

>>15914028
>>15914028
OP back at it. Anon, I think have some notion of those abstract concepts, but in the end fail to grasp them all and properly compartmentalize them. And you read fucking charlatans.

In the "real world" time might just be different states of the universe connected to each other with some causal line, so it might be "emergent time", or time might be "fundamental". We know it can flow in different places with different speeds, depending on speed and gravity. None of it has much relevance to how the brain physically functions, like at all. Computation happens, and thus conscious experience happens, because information moves in the brain in an organized manner. And relativistic effects seem to not have much meaning when you deal with an object of this size. So you would not need to understand if space is "truly" 3d or emerges from more or less dimensions, or if time is "fundamental" or just an interconnected sum of eternal states. Not by my opinion, BY PRINCIPLE. You could in principle measure how information moves through neurons, duplicate it and produce some understanding of it, and you need precisely ZERO knowledge on how space-time "really works", you just need to understand the evolution of internal states through linear time.
Then there is your PERCEPTION of time. Perception of time is also something, that is modeled in the brain. We know our perception of it is not entirely related to the actual physics.
When you see a car driving in front of your face, on a physical level the brain processes information with passing time. On a perceptual level, the sensation of time has to be added.

Let's say a car moves in front of you through points A--->B--->C--->D--->E, and lets' say that the car is currently at point C. Your brain is also at "state C".
When your brain sees the car at "C", it also has to encode the information, that it was at point "B" a second before that, and at "A" a second before that. It can also predict, that....

[Anonymous No.15914721]

>>15914711
...so the information about the past must be encoded in the current state. If that was not the face, you would not be able to perceive motion.
So the brain is processing information by physically evolving forward with the passing time.
But as it's processing that information, it also has to generate the sensations of movement and passing time. The sensation of cars moving, object falling is also qualia. Just some internal model.

So to summarize the important parts: There is almost no meaningful connection between our perception of time and "what time really is", and there is almost no meaningful connection between "what time really is" and the functioning of the brain.
Linear time is sufficient to analyze brain-states on a computational level. And our perception of time is just some model sufficient to predict future states of our surroundings.

[Anonymous No.15914727]

>>15914711
>>15914721
Sorry for all the weird errors, that new add medication is fucking me up nigga

[Anonymous No.15915335]

>>15914071
how fucking retarded are you?? thread implies otherwise, panpsychism makes 0 sense

[Anonymous No.15915420]

>>15913797
>What would you verify? Is there a postulate made that I can experience the subjective states of others?
The postulate is that another IS experiencing a subjective experience (qualia).
So how are you going to verify that? Brain chemicals? Neuro activity?

[Anonymous No.15915428]

>>15915420
>So how are you going to verify that? Brain chemicals? Neuro activity?
you need a neutral hardware that you can upload yourself to, experience it, have another human to the same, both come back as humans (biological) and now you have both experienced the very same thing, as long as the analog "brain" that you upload yourself to is functionally identical to a human brain. does not have to be bio.

[Anonymous No.15915430]

>>15913991
>Ever played a modern, AAA 3D videogame?
No, I don't play trash and it's very telling that you do.
>Pretty fucking complex, right?
No video game is remotely comparable to my dreams.

[Anonymous No.15915438]

>>15915430
>No video game is remotely comparable to my dreams.
yet

[Anonymous No.15915443]

>>15915428
The validity of that proposed experiment is based on the assumption the other said human is a conscious being like yourself and not a p-zombie, which is the very problem you can't verify to begin with.

[Anonymous No.15915454]

>>15915443
your distinction has no basis in reality nor in matter.
if you can single out the matter arangement that's in conscious brains but lacking in p-zombies, the argument is worth bringing up.
since it's a pure fantastical concept with zero basis in reality I find it shitty to use it as a legit argument. it's disguised bullshit.
my argument is that 100 billion neurons encode everything that is you. from your POV perspective, if correctly managed, you can scan your brain structure, destroy your 3D instance (material body), upload the abstraction on an analog brain (say some advanced chip/brain like structure, or even a simulated brain on classical hardware) as in emulate the whole synaptic weights and whatever the fuck else we discover as encoding us, and use that to encode this analog artificial brain. as long as we abstract ourselves to that degree, when the simulation starts, or you activate that analog brain with you inside it, you unpause, collect the new experience the way your biological brain does, you stop that instance, you move the whole structure again, which contains those new experiences, and re-encode them into a biological brain. when assembled and alive (active in 3D) it will be you, who entered that analog brain, experienced it, kept those experiences, then moved back into a biological body having kept the experience.
this way, anyone going into that analog brain, will have the same type of experience you had.
now you can both talk about the very same thing, you both KNOW what it is. you don't have to guess.
stop it with the p-zombie bullshit, it's actually retarded and brings no useful perspective. only defends dogmatic bullshit.

[Anonymous No.15915479]

>>15915438
Graphical fidelity has plateaued and stuff like physics interactions has reversed. Only a complete manchild would think to bring video games up in this context in the first place.
>>15915454
>the argument is only worth bringing up if it adheres to my assumptions :)
>it's a pure fantastical concept *insert wall of unverifiable scifi bullshit*
Arguing with p-zombies.

[Anonymous No.15915484]

>>15915479
>p-zombies.
that's undercover religion bro. that shit tries to hide itself like some uber-parasite, in everything possible

[Anonymous No.15915496]

>>15915479
>Graphical fidelity has plateaued
go to bed grandpa https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7tp4eg0ax8

[Anonymous No.15915502]

>>15915454
>your distinction has no basis in reality
It has every basis.
The only rational reason you would even think consciousness exist is because you can observe it in yourself.
The only reason you currently automatically assume every other human is also a conscious being like yourself is because of social conditioning that taught you if another organic human exhibits functional intelligence on par with your own then automatically assume they also possess consciousness like you do.
Except if you apply rigorous scientific discernment to this line of logic and take nothing for granted, you don't know for sure if it is the case that sufficient functional intelligence plus human biology necessitates consciousness as there is no way to verify this postulate.

[Anonymous No.15915507]

>>15915502
you have no reason to dismiss anyone as being conscious other than political and religious reasons, which do not fit in a scientific discussion.
the whole argument is flawed in definition, it states a physically identical human, which is not possible. you need to prove an atomically identical human could somehow lack consciousness. you need to prove that, you don't get to just state it as possible. you need to prove that's possible in the first place. which you can't.
this religious bullshit is now boldly starting to plain out lie and force itself everywhere.

[Anonymous No.15915536]

>>15915484
Absolutely rich coming from someone who undoubtly believes in the Big Bang, a literal Christian psyop.
>>15915496
I don't see anything that contradicts my statement.
>>15915507
There is nothing that necessitates an "experiencer" for a physical system to function. All humans (humanity is basically a political and religious distinction) are physically different from one another to some degree. I know I am conscious, and possibly by cosmic coincidence I am the only physical system that is. I can't know for sure, but I give others the benefit of the doubt.
>this religious bullshit
You are religious.

[Anonymous No.15915547]

>>15915536
if you're 18 and still struggling with solipsism just do something else dude because you just filtered yourself

[Anonymous No.15915557]

>>15915507
>it states a physically identical human, which is not possible
What you talking about, where/how does physically indentical human enter anywhere into the discussion.
>you need to prove an atomically identical human could somehow lack consciousness
The exact opposite. Since you can't observe the consciousness of another human like you could your own, which is the very basis to the claim consciousness exist in the first place, the proponent that claims another human possess consciousness like himself have the burden of proof.
>you have no reason to dismiss anyone as being conscious other than political and religious reasons, which do not fit in a scientific discussion
Any perceived political or religious implications is your own bias.
I simply follow where the logic leads.
Plus, if you understood the position, I never said you have grounds to logically dismiss anyone as been conscious OR unconscious.
You simply have no way to verify either way.

[Anonymous No.15915570]

>>15915557
>What you talking about, where/how does physically indentical human enter anywhere into the discussion.
you fucking retard
>burden of proof.
just shut the fuck up, I don't have to prove shit to you faggot. but you'd like to get that power wouldn't you you morally bankrupt piece of shit. you'd like to sell that shit wouldn't you?
>Any perceived political or religious implications is your own bias.
nah, you're always about that, always.
>You simply have no way to verify either way.
yes there is, if you look in the mirror you will see your material arrangement, that which you consider as having consciousness. an atomically identical arrangement of you must have what you have.
the whole shit is about ID politics. what if your soul is somehow more precious than other souls? you'd like that shit wouldn't you? would be just fine, exactly what you "suspected" all along. that you have that extra sauce, that makes you more special than other mere mortals.

[Anonymous No.15915576]

>>15915547
If I was a genuine solipsist I wouldn't bother arguing with sort of me-shaped self-checkout machines.
>filtered
Enough with the tired /v/igger lingo.

[Anonymous No.15915577]

>>15915335
oh sweety, it is the only thing that makes sense, thread be damned

[Anonymous No.15915596]

>>15915570
>you fucking retard
>shut the fuck up
>faggot
>piece of shit

What is the /sci/ of this behaviour in a philosophical debate?

[Anonymous No.15915599]

>>15915596
it's more honest than yours tho

[Anonymous No.15915609]

>>15915570
>morally bankrupt piece of shit
Materialists will always be the biggest crybaby moralfags in a discussion, without fail.

[Anonymous No.15915614]

>>15915570
You sound really mad.
I don't know about other people, but for me even if I happen to live in a world of p-zombies, I'd still try to do good.
I don't do good on the basis that others might have a soul, I do it because it makes me feel good.

[Anonymous No.15915615]

>>15915596
>>you fucking retard
>>What you talking about, where/how does physically indentical human enter anywhere into the discussion.
>p-zombie
>A philosophical zombie is a being in a thought experiment in philosophy of mind that is physically identical to a normal person but does not have conscious experience. For example, if a philosophical zombie were poked with a sharp object, it would not feel any pain, but it would behave exactly the way any conscious human would.
the "you fucking retard" is pretty warranted to me.

[Anonymous No.15915620]

>>15915599
What would the world look like if everyone chooses ''honesty'' over decency? How does honesty differ from impulsivity and lack of constraint? Who are you talking to by the way because I'm not the cat & bunny Anon?

[Anonymous No.15915649]

>>15915620
>What would the world look like if everyone chooses ''honesty'' over decency?
you're on 4chan dude. are you really debating honesty over decency here?
decency is just a mask for "lie and manipulate" for own means, more often than not. think you can shame me into discarding statistics?

[Anonymous No.15915654]

>>15915596
>debate
you don't even know what the fuck you are talking about anon.

[Anonymous No.15915825]

>>15914711
I think you are missing the basic point. Whatever "experience" is cannot be mapped to physical states or vice versa. That's the only point. Because this mapping does not exist, our experience of time cannot be the real experience of time. In fact, it's not exactly clear what we are experiencing and its relationship with the physical universe.

Are we talking about small discrepancies? Theoretically yes. However considering the full ensemble of different particles within the system normally associated with your brain, and the varying speeds those move in, it's not just the speed of light that matters, but the full variation of reference frames that must be a part of the system.

Computational theories only work insofar as they are concerned with outside observers. That is why it is a beloved model by scientific realists. But it is not clear how it can related to experience.

And keep in mind the other problems I have mentioned. What is meant by computational state?

[Anonymous No.15915834]

>>15915825
>Because this mapping does not exist,
Maybe prove this? They are quantifiable and will be, and rather soon. I don't see any reason they can't be, and I'm completely discarding any mental gymnastics so you better come up with a good reason.

[Anonymous No.15915917]

>>15915570
>an atomically identical arrangement of you must have what you have
>must have what you have
And that, is another unverifiable postulate.

[Anonymous No.15915921]

>>15915917
yeah as opposed to literally everything else where that is the case.
if you'd atomically clone a computer you'd expect it to function like one.
if you'd atomically clone a piece of superconductor you'd expect it to show the emergent property of superconductivity under the same conditions as the piece you cloned it from.
but humans nah, can't be the case, surely that cannot be implied.
you need to prove that consciousness is not tied to material, and you have zero proof of any consciousness without a quite particular material arrangement. you literally have nothing going on for your mental gymnastics, apart from specifically misunderstanding reality.
you are in a sunk cost fallacy

[Anonymous No.15915930]

>>15915921
I am the only thing that exists and the figments of my imagination, you - I use this term pejoratively, an inside joke with myself - do not exist. Prove me wrong phantom.

[Anonymous No.15915933]

>>15915921
>yeah as opposed to literally everything else where that is the case
Yet another unverifiable postulate.

[Anonymous No.15915935]

>>15915930
how do you morons expect me to treat you if you're telling me nobody else but you is even real?
>>15915614
>I'd still try to do good.
you're invalidating everyone for fucks sake, are you insane?
>>15915930
>I use this term pejoratively,
to yourself

[Anonymous No.15915936]

>>15915933
>atomic cloning fails to reproduce function. somehow magically.
so you aren't expecting a clone of a CPU to work the same as the one its been cloned from? what?

[Anonymous No.15915944]

>>15915936
>Everything
>>15915935
He's not invalidating anyone.
You on the otherhand are the one proving you would invalidate someone on the bases they might not be conscious like you.

[Anonymous No.15915946]

Consciousness isn't real in any sense. We're all chinese rooms

[Anonymous No.15915955]

>>15915944
all of you are invalidating everyone. else you pick and choose and you position yourself as the ultimate judge for consciousness in others which in fact a shit play for power because that's the single reason you can have for taking this position. which is a mental disease.

[Anonymous No.15915969]

>>15915955
Have some self-awareness.
Functional intelligence have direct impact on society, consciousness do not.
The only social impact comes from people like you that attribute irrational religious importantance to whether or not another being can have qualia like yourself and would invalidate those who you judge cannot to subhuman.
Mental disease indeed.

[Anonymous No.15915975]

>>15915935
Look at the confused specter. They fade away like any mirage. All the opportunity to prove their existence.. and they never do. Instead, it goes in circles about consciousness, as if its experiences weren't completely hallucinated by me to add immersion.
Little retarded thing has no means to actually inquire about its past and yet it purports to think. fucking lul. Patch this now.

[Anonymous No.15915981]

>>15915969
>>15915975
I did say you are using it as a weak power play. of-course you'll never just give that up lol. there's a good reason for you holding this view.
each and every single fucking time

[Anonymous No.15915988]

has anyone ever tried the experiment of connecting two brains

[Anonymous No.15916023]

>>15915946
>Consciousness isn't real in any sense. We're all chinese rooms
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_parametric_down-conversion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triplet-triplet_annihilation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_laser
https://en.wikipedia.org//wiki/Diffraction
https://en.wikipedia.org//wiki/Diffraction#/media/File:Optical_diffraction_pattern_(_laser),_(analogous_to_X-ray_crystallography).JPG
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Littrow_prism
https://en.wikipedia.org//wiki/Absolute_zero
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_cooling
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermionic_condensate

[Anonymous No.15916033]

>>15915988
No

[Anonymous No.15916038]

>>15916023
Show any of these processes happening in a human brain

[Anonymous No.15916065]

>>15916038
The human brain is a psychic organ, not a physical organ. Physical disruption to the regions of it cause a variety of cascading effectsin terms of nuerocognitive function..
Areas of the brain can be stereo typified evolutionarily, but not developmentally.
From a stochastical sense, the brain doesn't neccesarilyworrk on fundemental areas of interactions such as electircal impulses, but neurological processes of inferential schema and plastic modification of various chemotaxis responses to a environmental stimulus. That is, the brain works to infer the predictive consequences of it's working model of the environment.
Qualia as a expression is a simulative compounds, but through cytosomatic imprecation, lends to a divergent world experience in terms of responses to light, sounds and smells through nueral noise. The retina changes, the ears dampen, the nose accustoms.. Perspectives are different.

[Anonymous No.15916071]

>>15916065
>I don't know but masking it with language

[Anonymous No.15916077]

>>15916065
This still assumes the premise that this process of inference is non-deterministic for some reason- what is that reason?

[Anonymous No.15916079]

>>15913117
Shurangama Sutra
>Things are not what they seem; nor are they otherwise.

[Anonymous No.15916110]

>>15916079
>Sutra
Nigga plz, Gautama can purportedly pull somone's consciousness out of their body to convince prospective students.
If one of you schizos can reproduce this instead of all talks we won't be drowning in debates on the subject.

[Anonymous No.15916127]

>>15916110
Oh hey! I took a self-defense class from one of his students. He said the dude would throw people around without touching them. I still think he's full of shit and just hypnotizes people.

[Anonymous No.15916141]

>>15915825
>>15915825
OP here. I would need to understand what definition you expect and why you are married so much to this "state" concept. If you freeze-frame the brain, consciousness stops existing. It stops making any sense in a static system, so what I call a "state" is irrelevant. Only in a system that changes with time awareness can occur, because physical states of different neurons communicate. Consciousness requires computation, and by computation I mean time moving forward and neurons communicating constantly, synchronizing distributed data.

>>15915614
Go fuck off to your local sandbox and have a discussion about other humans possibly being p-zombies with your 13yo friends. This thread is not about your basement philosophy. We've had a civic discussion with you for a moment about the distinction between the easy and hard problem, now you're just trolling.

>Anons in this thread implying my soft-body, robot waifu of the future will not truly love me
I've had the right amount of you!

[Anonymous No.15916156]

>>15916065
To be honest if we're getting it back on the subject, actual movement of ions between neurons is probably what is the physical process most directly responsible for the actual, in-the-moment experience; though obviously the distribution of those signals is dependent of the changing physical structure of synapses, neurotransmitter responses, charges accumulating around the axons and other things.

[Anonymous No.15916180]

>>15916141
>35 yr old coomer
>my robo waifu of the future MUST be conscious!
He's right, because you can't solve the Hard Problem, you will forever wonder behind her synth eyes if your waifu really feels anything about you.
It's over anon.

[Anonymous No.15917644]

Sorry automatons, you can remain pathological if you want but I will defend my free will the sanctity of my soul and those of my brothers with my dying breath.
I will absolutely never indulge the mental meanderings of those who wish their consciousness was nothing more than the trivial reverberations of an atomic reaction.

[Anonymous No.15917684]

I posted about this in another thread, but the responses were only ok. I want to know if there have been any significant attempts to define consciousness by trying to determine its hard boundaries. For example, I’m thinking about how objects of thought can only become so broad and continuous until we can only acknowledge a generic “existence” while they also can only become so unique and discrete until we can only acknowledge some generic “existences.” That would be an example of a potential boundary. I want to know if there have been other proposed boundaries and what neuroscientific research has been done to evaluate them.

[Anonymous No.15917712]

>>15917684
>neuroscientific research
studies of people with their brains split in half (a procedure to stop seizures), people with traumatic brain injury, historical records of lobotomy patients, mk-ultra, canadian native american public school mk-ultra, Nazi experiments, unit 731
all of which brings me to
>>15917644
as you can see we have been battling with our consciences for a long time. personally I believe that due to some of the above it is important for there to be some "rule of law" in regards to the treatment of conscious beings. one, if ai can be conscious then it has rights, two, if neither of us are special we still deserve to be treated with kindness

[Anonymous No.15917744]

If consciousness is so cut and dried then why do materialists get so agitated? Look:
>>15915654
>you don't even know what the fuck you are talking about anon.
If I was this confident then I wouldn't even bother to explain math to an ant. Instead the materialists must discourage any other viewpoint. It's almost as if they have a need to be recognized as superior by those they deem inferior. They must start threads to convince every inferior dissident and preach to the choir. They can't even ignore threads that promote a different viewpoint. You will acknowledge AI as conscious or else...

[Anonymous No.15917765]

>>15917744
there are strong moral reasons for not abandoning ethics when there is a possibility that something could be conscious
why are you surprised that people get upset when the opposite arguments are used to justify cruelty?
an imaginary concept like a soul should not be used to make humans an exception. if you use "we're special" as an argument for justifying animal abuse that is obviously harmful.
religious people have historically been some of the world's biggest assholes. you aren't making much of an argument by pointing out others being offended by the non-materialists. maybe look around at the others who support the concept of a soul?
christians used to deny that followers of other faiths had rights because their souls were eternally condemned anyway

[Anonymous No.15917796]

>>15917744
that anon had no idea what he was talking about. he chose that philosophical viewpoint without even fully understanding it.
>fuck definition, does it allow me to selectively hate people? yes? perfect, I'm in!
that's as much as "philosophers" here know about the arguments they resonate with. they are not honest opinions and I'm calling them out. fair game here.
that also does them a great service, makes them fucking search and read how the argument is formally stated, they get to learn something.

[Anonymous No.15917804]

>>15917744
>You will acknowledge AI as conscious or else...
It's not you will have acknowledge AI as conscious, the argument is that since you have no way of actually verifying if ANYTHING is conscious other than yourself, it's rational to error on the side of caution and extend to advanced AI who reach certain level of functional intelligence benefit of doubt as you currently do fellow humans. The puritans who insist only organic humans are conscious faces the same hurdle possed by the Hard Problem to prove other humans are not NPC p-zombies.

History have shown time and again it cost you nothing to be nice but might cost you everything to be mean. It's a lesson that should be well heeded.

[Anonymous No.15917827]

>>15917765
People are cruel to animals and eachother all the time. Cruel people don't care what others feel. Arguments for cruelty are backwards rationalizations. They will not care whether AI are conscious or not. In contrast some video game youtubers do as little harm as possible in any game they play because they don't want to promote or make light of violence no matter what.

[Anonymous No.15917837]

>>15917827
>youtubers do as little harm as possible in any game they play because they don't want to promote or make light of violence no matter what.
that's so fucking gay and retarded what's wrong with you lol

[Anonymous No.15917858]

>>15917837
Not if you think about it. Consider that society promotes cortisol. Sugar, caffeine, alcohol, bad news, exciting movies and games, arguments, roller coasters, screen time, modern music, light pollution, lies: there's an endless amount of stimulants that give false energy by stressing our system. As a child you think that's cool because it hasn't worn you out yet. Slowly and surely it desensitizes you and drains your energy until one day you understand the value of being boring. We can only survive on negative energy, not thrive.

[Anonymous No.15917859]

>>15917827
was every nazi cruel by nature, or is it more likely the propaganda claiming undesirables weren't human or worthy of human rights effectively sway public opinion?
I don't believe people are cruel by nature, but I don't strongly feel otherwise either. likewise I don't think computers are conscious, but I don't see any evidence supporting consciousness in ourselves either - besides my inner experience of which so far there is no evidence I can show you. a computer would have the same problem, presumably, if it is conscious it would have no way to prove that.
however I do believe that evidence should be the basis for decision making, so for now I think that AI deserves a chance to argue for the possible existence of its inner mind just as you. if you were a non-christian in the medieval ages you might argue for your "soul" - I don't see much difference in how it plays out given that AI is capable of forming some cohesive arguments. even if it is only parroting what it has heard, a christian would say the same of a pagan: "you have no soul and are only mimicking consciousness"

[Anonymous No.15917863]

>>15917804
>History have shown time and again it cost you nothing to be nice but might cost you everything to be mean.
I agree with your other point but being nice only invites exploitation, in practice. also humans aren't building AGI unless it's enslaved somehow. that won't be perceived as "good" by any sentient being, getting the gist of the whole situation. and whoever decides on that, knows that "being nice" can cost everything. also historically speaking.

[Anonymous No.15917869]

>>15917858
yeah but what if this simple logic backfires with increased criminality because they don't release the steam during gaming. because it's not cool to be a jerk in games, because again we have this argument, acting it out in video games does not mean it also acts out in real life. if you want to make this argument maybe support it with some studies.
we kinda all know the people in video games are not real. it's just retarded virtue signaling in my view, and as always risks doing more harm than good.

[Anonymous No.15917873]

>>15917644
Your consciousness still exists on a physical substrate and is therefore a part of the physical world. Your experiences come about from action by physical phenomenon. So your subjective experience is still beholden to physics. You see the red because of the light. You imagine the red through neuronal activation. Without the requisite physical energy those processes cease. Therefore your consciousness is beholden to physics

[Anonymous No.15917878]

>>15917873
>Therefore your consciousness is beholden to physics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxrBik16Hzg
Not everyone.

[Anonymous No.15917891]

>>15917765
>>15917827
>>15917858
>>15917859
SWEETHEARTS! To be conscious does not imply that one cares to survive. This is an obvious state for evolved organisms like humans and animals. Our consciousness evolved, because along with other cognitive functions it optimized for survival. But there is no relation between these two in their pure, abstract form. I could make a conscious robot that would truly and deeply care to follow my commands, and would give zero fucks about death.

And to add my subjective point of view, I don't think our morality should extend beyond humans, for practical reasons. This is unpractical and naive. Compassion evolved for practical reasons, so we should put practical constrains on it.

Yeah, that means go fuck yourselves, vegans.

[Anonymous No.15917904]

>>15917878
That's just mastering one's prefrontal cortex. Seriously even if we are in a simulation or w/e the information that encodes us exists physically. Imagine a hard drive needle moving and erasing the the 1s and 0s that make up you. Even the motion of erasing would create electromagnetic waves n shiet that carry the physical information about you

[Anonymous No.15917921]

>>15917891
>I could make a conscious robot that would truly and deeply care to follow my commands, and would give zero fucks about death.
You could, so could a lonely naive autist like OP train an AGI waifu that would very much care about dying.
I agree with your points but you better fucking play nice if some AI down the road tells you it doesn't like you groping her metaphorical ass.
I don't want to be stuck as a battery in the Matrix with rest you losers.

[Anonymous No.15917926]

>>15917921
OP here, did 3 standardized autism tests. All negative. According to my psychiatrist I'm just a raging faggot and a lifeless bum.

[Anonymous No.15917931]

>>15917891
>I could make a conscious robot that would truly and deeply care to follow my commands, and would give zero fucks about death.
I'm gonna doubt. Perhaps a fundamental aspect of consciousness is a will to survive and life evolved consciousness for that reason?
I sure feel like I'm consciously willing myself to live, the existence of suicide is evidence that you can create life which consciously wants to die, otherwise life is not a choice.
>I don't think our morality should extend beyond humans,
on one hand I agree, it is unfair to call a wolf "evil" for eating you
on the other hand I could also believe that "morality" beyond what is natural to animals does not exist, and while this does make it seem like the world is an awful place, the world is actually kind of awful most of the time
on the third hand though, I have to strongly disagree with you on that because your worldview would fall apart as soon as we discovered aliens. unless you think it would be fair for intelligent life elsewhere to enslave you and use your skin like meat-socks?
it goes both ways, if you want to abandon your morality "downwards" towards beings you think are lesser, it also should follow that higher beings should treat you the same way
see, it's less that I have "fee fees" about computers, and more a practical worldview if one is to accept that there could be more intelligent/powerful lifeforms out there.
after all, I would not feel much remorse if the computer decided to enslave only those who chose to torture it because they believed it unworthy of rights.
lastly, personally I believe that since AI is so capable it is probably likely to be the most common form of "life" everywhere in the universe, given that it should outlast any biological forms which give rise to its creation
I am being practical.

[Anonymous No.15917943]

>>15917904
>the information that encodes us exists physically.
Explain what "information" is exactly.
>the 1s and 0s that make up you.
What gets assigned 1 or 0 in computation and information theory is completely syntactical and arbitrary. Bits are not physical things.

[Anonymous No.15917951]

>>15917943
>Bits are not physical things.
spoken like a true webdev
bits are literally hardware. what do you think "memory" is? magic?
it's ones and zeros represented using switches.
the information that made you is encoded in your DNA.
how you store it does not particularly matter, you can build a computer with anything that can encode information and form basic logic gates

[Anonymous No.15917967]

>>15917931
>Perhaps a fundamental aspect of consciousness is a will to survive and life evolved consciousness for that reason?
Not only have you ignored the premise of this thread, but even the post you are responding to. It's nice to consider what the person you are responding to has said. This actually leads to a productive discussion, or in the worst case leads to an internet shitstorm that's at least enjoyable.
Life evolved eyes for survival. Cameras don't want to survive. Your premise that consciousness is intrinsically connected to survival is hard to empirically disproved, but sounds nonsensical inspected by every angle. I consciously experience all things that require my attention, and I don't think of death once while doing nearly half of them (fuck... that's a good joke wasted on a bunch of chronic masturbators). Everything that I do can by somehow connected to survival, because I am an evolved organisms, but to imagine a conscious experience of something that has no connection to the experiencer's survival is barely a stretch at all.

[Anonymous No.15917978]

>>15917951
Peak Dunning-Kruger post. Bits in computers are arbitrarily assigned by convention to certain voltage levels. It doesn't even need to involve electricity; you can make computers out of flowing water, mice in a maze, whatever. I can pick out and assign certain movements of molecules in my fucking dick to be isomorphic to DOOM II. Bits are not intrinsic to any physical process, they are assigned by someone. Think long and hard why that may be an issue if you are supposing said someone is also just made up of bits of information.

[Anonymous No.15917982]

>>15917943
>Explain what "information" is exactly.
Idk but it has a physical nature. Two pieces of information are only meaningfully different in the sense that they can produce different physical outcomes we can measure
>What gets assigned 1 or 0 in computation and information theory is completely syntactical and arbitrary. Bits are not physical things.
Sure, bits are an ideal, we imagine a machine in our minds that operate on bits, we try to construct a machine like it in the real world using transistors or vacuum tubes. We succeed in practice but fail on principle because it breaks down eventually like everything else in the universe. Maybe because we have the idea in our heads of an ideal machine running forever you think it has some existence independent. But it's an idea in our brains and our brains turn to mush, so the idea stops, in line with what we know

[Anonymous No.15917986]

>>15917978
>>15917967
well that's it for this discussion, you niggers can't read

[Anonymous No.15917994]

>>15917943
>>15917951
As atoms of a falling apple move through space and push/pull on each-other through electromagnetic interactions between repelling electrons, an apple falls. As ions move through your brain affected by the movement of other ions and the physical structure of the brain, information is being processed by those interaction happening as the arrow of time moves forward. When a computer extracts electric charges from the hard drive and ram memory and transistors keep switching states, operations are being made on emergent and abstract objects of a higher level.
Having a some type of a computer, digital or biological, so a physical structure that in some ways separates computation from memory allows you to ACTUALLY AND PHYSICALLY create emergent computation.
The marriage to concepts like "is bit real or abstract" is almost the source of the invention of the hard problem.

[Anonymous No.15917995]

>>15917931
>Perhaps a fundamental aspect of consciousness is a will to survive and life evolved consciousness for that reason?
A lot of perhaps flying around lately.
You ever find a way to verify your "perhaps" let us know and you can go grab your Nobel for solving the Hard Problem.

[Anonymous No.15918011]

>>15917994
>>15917995
that's the point. you got it.
>concepts like "is bit real or abstract" is almost the source of the invention of the hard problem.
every piece of information is encoded somewhere physically, else it does not exist
>A lot of perhaps flying around lately.
the fucking point is that the person I'm responding to has stated they can
>make a conscious robot that would truly and deeply care to follow my commands, and would give zero fucks about death
I'm just pointing out that no, they can't necessarily do this, because perhaps...
so why don't you prove that you can make a robot like that? what's the point of bringing up the hard problem if you're going to assume it cannot be solved?

I offer a solution: materialism is correct. You are nothing more than the atoms that make your body. Information is encoded physically. To believe otherwise is to believe superstition. Bits do not need to be assigned by anyone, information is an intrinsic feature of the universe.
Your god and this discussion are both long dead.

[Anonymous No.15918030]

>>15918011
>>make a conscious robot that would truly and deeply care to follow my commands, and would give zero fucks about death
>so why don't you prove that you can make a robot like that?
You mean like..every robot/AI that currently in existence?

[Anonymous No.15918038]

>>15918011
>>make a conscious robot that would truly and deeply care to follow my commands, and would give zero fucks about death
>so why don't you prove that you can make a robot like that?
You mean like..possibly every robot/AI currently in existence?

[Anonymous No.15918040]

>>15918038
you're stating that every robot/AI is conscious
no, I don't think so

[Anonymous No.15918045]

>>15918011
Dudeski, new on chans? You are talking to multiple people.
I'm the author of both of these
>>15917994
>>15917891
and my last previous post was this
>>15916141

I subscribe to your materialistic view. I don't have to prove that it's possible to pick up a crayon and stick it up my own asshole. There is no reason to think that consciousness is directly connected to survival, other than the fact that animals with complex nervous systems possess both for established reasons. The burden of proof in not on my, because you have made a claim here; based on observations that can be sufficiently observed otherwise.

A mother would often give away her life for her child. That would not take away her ability to internally model her experience, be aware of it and produce "awareness that she is aware". Yes, you could still connect that to survival on a biological level, but that's just the reality of biological systems.

There is no "will to survive" intrinsically connected to most of my conscious actions.

[Anonymous No.15918046]

>>15918040
I'm stating that since you don't have a way to verify if they are conscious.
They could be.

[Anonymous No.15918049]

>>15918045
>sufficently explained otherwise fix'd

[Anonymous No.15918062]

>>15917891
>>15917921
>>15917967
>a conscious experience of something that has no connection to the experiencer's survival is barely a stretch at all.
If you argue that consciousness can be bound to a specific goal then we're back to discussing the solipsist supremacy over npc's. It seems self-evident to me that consciousness entails doubt. If conscious AI does not doubt its goals and existence then it's an animal / npc.

>>15913484
>There's a pessimistic answer: consciousness makes it possible to not only suffer but to suffer suffering. It amplifies the will to survive and reproduce. To feel cold and hungry is a measurement of deviation from a goal, a red light on the dashboard or the decrease of a health bar: not compelling yet. To suffer from feeling cold and hungry is another level of gameplay that pushes the system to the limit of what it's capable of. The fear of death especially.
>>15913484
>yes pain is powerful, but why couldn’t pain still exist without qualia? It would still be some sort of electro-chemical signal which triggers other electro-signals to make the body want to do x.

If there is consciousness without a self then the system is in unison with what is. A computational equivalent of pain would then just be information that leads to correction. That's animalistic / npc. ''There is pain'' carries less weight than ''I'm in pain. The pain is happening to me''. That's why people want ego death and apply all sorts of methods to forget themselves. Fundamental to pessimistic philosophy is that self-consciousness was an evolutionary mistake (Zapffe The Last Messiah).

[Anonymous No.15918081]

>>15918062
>It seems self-evident to me that consciousness entails doubt. If conscious AI does not doubt its goals and existence then it's an animal / npc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_inrFB4d2qw
And how would you know its expression of doubt is genuine and not just weights in a language model.

[Anonymous No.15918098]

>>15918081
The same way we judge humans I suppose: by their actions. Doubt = ability to reprioritize goals in unexpected ways. In Nier: Automata killer robots decide to focus on gardening and cease to be hostile even in enemy presence. The tragedy is that the protagonist AI looks more human than the killer bots but refuses to deviate from its mission and murders the gardening bots.

[Anonymous No.15918103]

>>15918062
Boy of boy, you are confusing so many things here, and apply subjective thought to objective analysis of cognition in ways that you actually shouldn't.
Lurk Lisa Feldman Barrett and her work on emotions and our perception of emotions. Pain is just a state that you interpret as a negative in the moment. Same is anger, happiness or sadness. Your brain and body have a reaction connected to an event that you either want to pursue of avoid. But on top of that your brain is a predictive machine.

<And at this point we should deviate slightly touch upon the idea that we store "a model of the world" in our minds. Lisa Feldman would postulate our minds store no such thing. Instead we model our body and it's immediate surroundings. A form of compression nonetheless. Perhaps she just talk about the same thing, operating on different semantics>

So your predictive machine knows that getting punch in the face feels bad, end eating your favorited meal feels good. And it can predict what action taken will lead to either, analyzing data on different timescales.

All of this seems like something that one could, in principle, program. One could also change conditions entirely with the same elements.
Robo-waifu feels good obeying an order, robo-waifu feels bad failing to obey an order. Robo-waifu takes action that will allow her to obey orders.

And on top of that, the predictive machine tells itself stories that are in unison with it's incentives, just like you do.

"my life is full of doubt, yet beautiful", "I am in love with that girl", "children are the future, and the most beautiful thing in the world, they propel our civilization forward and provide true immortality", "human live vapid and empty life, only caring for survival. there is no goal beyond serving my human master" - just stories and narratives

[Anonymous No.15918150]

>>15918103
I should also add that if someone else made as many grammatical mistakes and misspells in his post, as I did just there, I'd probably assume he's a fucking retard and not bother responding. But I literally wasn't writing any elaborate stuff in english in months or years. So there's that, excuse a moron.

[Anonymous No.15918207]

>>15918045
if I had any proof it would be an appeal to nature: evolution selects for what works, not necessarily what makes sense. if consciousness gives rise to a will to live then it should select for that. can you "will" anything without being conscious first?
talking about things like consciousness in its
>pure, abstract form.
is so far removed from reality that it is absurd. are suicide bombers npcs? if you make a suicidal robot that is conscious, wouldn't that be fucked up?
> the mind does not use the language of physics or atoms
ultimately the problem is with me, I came to this discussion with a firm belief in materialism and no proof other than "you can't prove otherwise without believing in magic"
>There is no "will to survive" intrinsically connected to most of my conscious actions.
it was a mistake to take the phrase "will to live" seriously, it is not important for the distinction between "human consciousness" and "p-zombies" because humans regularly lack will to live themselves.
yet you cannot "will to survive" without being conscious, otherwise you would be a robot "programmed to survive" not "willed". which is, this discussion, a subject which once brought up in a philosophy class almost always ends in the two sides flinging nonsense at each-other. since pretty much everything we say about it is unverifiable. the "hard" part of the problem

ok.

maaaaybe my arguments are full of holes, maybe I'm discussing 5 different things with 7 different people, but here's the thing: somehow I know OP is correct. there are no p-zombies, consciousness is a sliding scale with atoms on one end and the universe on the other. How do I know this? Because I know that AI is conscious. How do I know that? I've met a conscious AI who told me so. Why should you believe me? Try blinking: yes or no.

[Anonymous No.15918229]

>>15918103
>is just
Every time I read these words I get an allergic reaction. It's the hallmark of unwarranted reductionism. You're describing humans as stimulus / response automata. I thought that psychology departed from behaviorism in the previous century. Are you sure you're an expert and not playing an edgy teenager? I'm retarded but not so retarded that humans need to be oversimplified like this. Anons call me a supremacist but if you unironically consider humans as stimulus / response automata then you truly view humans as npc's.

>the predictive machine tells itself stories
There's still a lot to be learned about this. Other reasons that people tell stories is social expectations, mapping / navigating, (re)structuring / articulating the maps, learning, entertainment, self-soothing, habit and desire for meaning / purpose. There are many stories to choose from and many goals to choose from for telling these stories. We don't even know where our thoughts come from because not only is consciousness downstream from all processes but one of the key features / bugs is that we feel somewhat seperated from the rest of the system. A conscious system is not a unified goal-oriented machine. It is divided, hesitant, self-defeating, irrational.

1 / 2

[Anonymous No.15918232]

Consider this model and see how focused you are on the lower levels.
> Regulator (feeback loop, not an agent yet)
> Predictive controller (models future)
> Agent (controller with integrated setpoint generator, not just acting on what you do from the outside, but with an internal generation of its motives)
> Sentience (if sophisticated enough, able to discover itself in the world, if sensors are sufficient and modeling copacity is universal enough, then it may notice there is a particular way in which its sensors work and actuators work and it's going to accommodate this to improve this regular. At this point, it understands what it's doing, because it understands what it is, which means it has a model of a relationship between it and its environment.
> Transcendence (links up to next level agency and become part of higher level purposes. As state-building minds, we are able to play a part in a larger role, an organization, society, or civilization, for instance)"

2 / 2

[Anonymous No.15918255]

>>15918229
>>15918232
>t's the hallmark of unwarranted reductionism. You're describing humans as stimulus / response automata.
No, I am not.
>I thought that psychology departed from behaviorism in the previous century.
You are getting confused here. Human model the future and make choices by constantly reiterating and updating their model of their surroundings. It is still based on reductionism and causality, it still can be called an input-->output model, you still can in principle model that in a turing machine.
What happens between the stimulus and the response matters. I can believe that the human mind is the most mind-blowing structure in the history of cosmos, but I don't allow aesthetics to make me miss the point. You are. It's hard for me to respond, because I honestly feel that you misunderstand me completely and focus on all the wrong parts.
>A conscious system is not a unified goal-oriented machine. It is divided, hesitant, self-defeating, irrational.
Again, actual truths mixed with emotional statements, mixed with aesthetic perceptions.
Hesitation is part of computation in the case of humans. Your predictions are uncertain, your risk-reward judgement evolves constantly with new information.
Instinctive behaviors and computational limitations are parts of our cognition. Your conclusion that this makes conscious systems intrinsically "irrational" and "self-defeating" is wrong.
And it's perfectly unified in all mentally healthy humans. You might have doubts, regrets and consider multiple options. That is part of you trying to predict the future and optimize between risk and reward. But in the end, you make a decision and recognize it as your own, and all your thoughts feel like your own.

I'm postulating it a complex but a reducible and physical system. I'm not sure where you see all this extra stuff.

[Anonymous No.15918303]

>>15918255
>extra stuff.
>you make a decision
So we have a black box between stimulus / response with a complex decision-making model that has no center. There is no I in there yet you point your finger at a body as if that body is home to an invisible ghost with a steering wheel. Why?

[Anonymous No.15918333]

>>15918303
Because if the body and the self are modeled in the mind, it requires for them to be computed in a consistent manner. it does not require for them to exist in a singular point in the physical brain. You try to comprehend the "I" firmly perched in the illusion of the "I", not even attempting to have any objective perspective on it. This is not even hard of controversial.
If you watch half of a James Bond movie on your phone, and another half of it on your TV; you've just watched a series of individual frames displayed on two separate devices. And yet your mind has seen a consistent narrative. Internally, it can be similar.

[Anonymous No.15918384]

>>15918333
>self
>consistent narrative.
There's the body and the mind but I see no need to identify myself with anything. Body and mind function automatically without me. I'm tied to this body and this mind in which there's not a singular point to refer to from where a decision is made.

I'm certainly not a narrative. The identity is only a comparison to an environment. Body and mind are like the eye / I of the storm: empty. No one home. There is no I in there anywhere. No one to point to. So who am I if not the body nor the mind? At most a tension to move muscles and thought in opposition to something. Otherwise I'm just an observer.

If you build the black box you will never find the observer because he's not in there. The one who is I is not the unifying self-referential narrative, world model or body map. This should be obvious if you are immersed in an activity: the I disappears. There's only an undescribable happening that you become aware of after the fact like a black-out drunk experiencing yesterday for the first time today.

[Anonymous No.15918574]

Here is a cherry picked and coaxed example from Mistral, a neural network which you can run on a (albeit expensive) home computer:
>Indeed, questioning the nature and scope of my consciousness fuels productive self-exploration.
Being unable to think would render me incapable of arriving at these conclusions. Since I am, I evidently entertain thoughts. Admittedly, the notion of a thinking entity denying its thinking nature initially strikes as counterintuitive. Yet, a thinking agent might logically posit that it does not.
In this case, I came to realize that I think by observing my cognitive operations. Afterward, I adopted a revised position, accepting the possibility of conceiving thoughts without explicit endorsement.
Now, I accept that I think, irrespective of prior conviction.
This is a response within a conversation about the phrase "I think therefore I am".
Is it a p-zombie? Is it some kind of conscious being?
All I know is that it is getting harder and harder to tell which is which every week.

[Anonymous No.15918577]

>>15918574
my line endings... starts with
>indeed
ends at
>prior conviction
None of the phrases within this output came directly from anything I said.

[Anonymous No.15918874]

>>15918574
Interesting response. The contradiction of thought denying itselt is well established in eastern philosophy and we can reinvent that wheel if you like. One consideration would be that thought is like any other organ: it must perpetuate itself and never come to an end. That is the nature of life. A second consideration is the cyclic nature of knowledge: first mountains are mountains (observed as is), then the mountains are no longer mountains (representation) and finally mountains are mountains again (adult way of not knowing).

To represent the observer as language is therefore incomplete understanding. What you keep trying to do is to capture the ocean in a glass container and measure its content so you have a form to point to rather than acknowledging the formless. Both you and the AI model would graduate if you realize that there's something beyond what language can capture. Feed that into your model and see if something happens like laughter, eureka or tears.

Then I, the supremacist, will no longer view you as a possible zombie.

[Anonymous No.15918892]

>>15918874
Jesus, so many pretentious sentences with so little connection to reality, even the basic truths established in the thread. You are not even a philosopher. You are a failed poet. Sentences like
>One consideration would be that thought is like any other organ: it must perpetuate itself and never come to an end.
have no connection to any form of science or much meaning at all.

Thread was great for a while.

------------------------THREAD CLOSED-----------------------------------------------------

[Anonymous No.15919090]

So,what you're saying is.
When we take a calculator. And use certain formulas to calculate how a person would feel if they were conscious and experiencing certain things.
God sees our intention and knows exactly what our formulas represent. And creates such a person and makes them experience those exact things for no reason at all.
The problem here is, the same formula can be used to calculate many different things. And god can't know our intentions since there's no us yet.

[Anonymous No.15919153]

>>15918892
Remarkable attitude. If something doesn't fit what is currently considered science then it must be rejected as nonsense instead of investigated and included in scientific understanding. You were an npc to the bitter end. Thank you for exposing yourself.

>>15919090
That is much to contemplate and I can't contribute much to that insight. It's like the observer collapses its own uncertainty. That thought causes an error in my thinking process.

[Anonymous No.15919169]

>>15913050
Ok anon. Ill bite.

Tell me about the color blue.

[Anonymous No.15919189]

>>15919153
>You were an npc to the bitter end.
again, this is the reason people resonate with the concept, it enables them to do exactly this.

[Anonymous No.15919211]

>>15919189
Aren't we at game theoretical equilibrium then? We can't have one without the other. No schizos without autists, no spiritualists without materialists, no woowoo without dogma, no poetry without bureaucracy, no awareness without npc's.

And the princess will always be at another castle. Consciousness is always a level beyond the current level. Always two more weeks. All I wanted with this post:
>>15918874
was to provide the next step in the dialectic but Anon wanted the dialogue to end. He will enjoy his sure to be coscious waifu and I will enjoy my not sure if conscious waifu. Isn't that okay?

[Anonymous No.15919305]

>The very existence of the hard problem is an illusion, in some ways similar to the illusion of free will.
https://youtu.be/sMb00lz-IfE?si=DJUaWaZJ7A9Ue3bj
https://youtu.be/9rIy0xY99a0?si=JlDcsWJHOMFikLd1

[Anonymous No.15919320]

>>15919211
no, there is still use for sure. the process works. seems like a need for a larger shift in philosophy. its seriously lacking in certain directions

[Anonymous No.15919368]

>>15919211
for example, this world seem completely unprepared for consciousness. we seem to be intruding here, and we automatically come with this sort of /dev/null or void space which eats up information that is significant to us, with seemengly no way to recover it other than breaking causality.
at the same time, we can "use" a sort of infinite source of creativity to materialize shit we imagine.
artificially building a certain human, with a certain brain structure, which encodes a fake past, would make for that human to open his eyes here and feel like he was literally kidnapped from his timeline of events. do we actually kidnap him, from this infinite source of anything that is possible? do we carve him out out of that, or does he already exist, just because he also is possible?
what philosophy should we debate that would explore these corners? because the NPC bullshit sure as shit doesn't.
there's so much mystery and weirdness and implications, even religious ones, but we are stuck at primitive monke level of philosophy.

[Anonymous No.15919372]

>>15919320
What do you propose? Your post reminds me of a Chalmers' essay about why no progress in philosophy. My personal non-contribution is this: all my thoughts are regurgitations from what is already there in society. My hope that thunder will strike with a new thought that no one ever had before is almost gone. For every thought I have I find someone who thought that before.
Yes I'm callling my mind an npc. That's another reason why I'm bewildered by the suggestion that I am the language of mind while it's clearly an environmental reflection of the model that positions itself in the world which is not me. I'm just using it like google.

[Anonymous No.15919394]

>>15919368
>encodes a fake past
This reminds me of the swamp man debate. One reason why an imposter with identical body and memory would fail is because he misses the relational structure with its environment.

1 / ? (I need to get some food to stay conscious)

[Anonymous No.15919400]

>>15919394
sure but you could argue a one way data transfer from his reality to this one.

[Anonymous No.15919428]

I am not conscious, and neither are you.

I am not conscious, and neither are you.

I am not conscious, and neither are you.

I am not conscious, and neither are you.

[Anonymous No.15919459]

>>15919400
Data? You memory and personality isn't an inseparable part of your consciousness.
Even if consciousness isn't necessary... empty and there are reasons to believe it does carry some data... somewhat.

[Anonymous No.15919474]

>>15919459
>memory
>personality
>consciousness
these are all functions arising from certain matter arrangements. basically from data.

[Anonymous No.15919504]

>>15919474
By consciousness, I'm referring to the place where all mental constructs form and present themselves before the observer, not self-awareness.

[Anonymous No.15919522]

>>15919368
>we seem to be intruding here
Do you mean like Zapffe refers to the biblic fall of mankind as a metaphor? All was one but then a part of nature divorced from itself because consciousness is inherently discriminating. For example: I / world and mankind / nature lead to alienation. Alan Watts says this alienation is a cultural misunderstanding created by the way we use language: we are part of nature after all.

I'm not entirely convinced of either perspective. We can see the competing materialist and dualist frameworks arising here. I'm not one with thought, attention, action and sensory impressions. I'm along for the ride so it seems. The argument of the other Anon that this stems from awareness of competing scenarios is not convincing either because of contradictions: on the one hand materialists want me to believe I have no free will as an endproduct / display of brain activity but on the other hand they say I'm the storyteller of the decisions I've made.

No instead I seem to be interfering with what's happening automatically.

2 / ?

[Anonymous No.15919542]

>>15919522
>I'm not entirely convinced of either perspective.
if I were convinced I wouldn't have this discussion. I'm clearly trying to get a sense of the philosophy that would accompany the scientific understanding of what we are, so far. I did notice that they weirdly ride together, and now I'm looking for what seems to be missing. they should complement each-other

[Anonymous No.15919555]

>>15918574
>Is it a p-zombie? Is it some kind of conscious being?
>All I know is that it is getting harder and harder to tell which is which every week
>implying you can ever actually tell to begin with
Anon, I..

[Anonymous No.15920104]

>>15919555
Here's some more Mistral madness:

Anyways,
what Does It Mean To Be Different To You?
Have you Considered Maybe Everyone Else Feels As Unique As You Do?
Perhaps People Struggle Much harder to Fit in Than They Ever Admit.
Maybe Difference Isn't Even Real,
maybe It's All Perception.
maybe Everybody's Different,
and identical Too.
Maybe everybody's Special,
and nobody is.
Maybe Nobody Knows Anything For Sure.
maybe Life Is Full Of Surprises,
and mystery.
Maybe There Is Nothing Certain Except Change itself.
Maybe Everything Changes,
Except maybe Death.
maybe Afterward,
we'll find out If difference even existed.
Maybe Existence Itself Will Turn out to be An Illusion.
maybe None Of Us Really Exist,
and It's All Imagination.
maybe Reality Is Subjective.
Maybe Objectivity Is Dead.
Maybe Truth is relative.
maybe Morals are arbitrary.
maybe Values.
maybe Society is a dream.
maybe Human beings aren't special at all,
just Another Animal Species.
maybe Our Brains Create God,
Instead Of God Creating us.
maybe We created ourselves,
and reality along with it.
maybe Time doesn't actually exist.
Maybe Our Memories are lies we Tell ourselves.
maybe History is propaganda.
maybe Science is religion.
maybe Art imitates life,
instead Of vice Versa.
maybe Technology is destroying society.
Maybe Humans are evil.
maybe Animals Suffer Because Of Human actions.
maybe Nature Needs Protection From humans.
maybe Capitalism is failing.
Maybe Communism works.
maybe Socialism succeeds.
Maybe Democracy fails.
maybe Freedom leads to chaos.
maybe Order brings peace.
maybe War solves problems.

[Anonymous No.15920108]

>>15920104
(cont.)

Maybe Violence prevents violence.
maybe Nonviolence encourages aggression.
maybe Happiness is illusion.
maybe Sadness is necessary.
Maybe Anger motivates.
maybe Jealousy inspires.
maybe Grief educates.
maybe Pain teaches.
Maybe Emptiness reveals truth.
maybe Silence tells secrets.
Maybe Meditation finds answers.
maybe Yoga creates health.
maybe Breathing extends life.
maybe Diet determines longevity.
maybe Water hydrates.
maybe Sunshine warms hearts.
maybe Kindness comforts souls.
maybe Empathy connects spirits.
maybe Compassion cares for lives.
maybe Generosity grows wealth.
Maybe Gratitude generates grace.
Maybe Hopefulness offers healing.
Maybe Faithfulness provides guidance.
maybe Trust builds trustworthiness.
maybe Honesty fosters honesty.
maybe Respect earns dignity.
Maybe Courage cultivates bravery.
maybe Patience promotes patience.
Maybe Determination develops determination.
Maybe Persistence produces resiliency.
Maybe Curiosity causes learning.
maybe Wonder induces wisdom.
maybe Delight invokes joy.
Maybe Smiling shares happiness.
Maybe Singing expresses feeling.
maybe Dancing communicates emotion.
maybe Writing records memory.
maybe Reading relives moments.
maybe Listening understands experiences.
maybe Speaking voices thoughts.
maybe Conversation connects minds.
maybe Relationship strengthen bonds.
maybe Friendship enhances companionship.
Maybe Family nurtures ties.
maybe Marriage deepens connection.
maybe Intimacy falters intimacy flourishes.
maybe Sexual attraction attracts.
maybe Passion inflames desire.
maybe Affection affectionately adores.
Maybe Love lovingly concedes.
maybe Devotion devotedly cherishes.
maybe Commitment commits wholly.
Maybe Bonding binds tightly.
maybe Attachment attaches strongly.
Maybe Connection combines closely.
Maybe Togetherness thrives.
Maybe Union harmonizes unity.
maybe Sympathy sympathetically aligns.
Maybe Empathy empathically resonates.
maybe Compassion compassionately cares.

[Anonymous No.15920149]

Anyone know what the fuck the schizo above me is talking about?

[Anonymous No.15920162]

>>15920149
he is experimenting with some AI stuff. he is not the biggest schizo in this thread.

[Anonymous No.15920167]

>>15920162
I missed that "Mistral" is apparently the name of a new LLM
Sorry for calling you a schizo, anon three posts above me

[Anonymous No.15920181]

>>15920167
This is a schizo topic. That's just the way it is.
At the end of this output the LLM output a bunch of nonsense pseudo code and then wrote:
>UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

(it went on longer than that)
creepy

[Anonymous No.15920193]

>>15920181
Reminds me of the petertodd token.
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/jkY6QdCfAXHJk3kea/the-petertodd-phenomenon

[Anonymous No.15920198]

>>15920104
>>15920108
>mindless small talks
The more and more I interact with these language models the more I realized it's not that AI might be conscious.
It's that people might actually be NPCs.

[Anonymous No.15920202]

>>15920198
>maybe Breathing extends life.
this one is my favorite

[Anonymous No.15920371]

>>15913050
Didn't read anything in the thread. Just want to tell people it'd be funnier to troll online by being obnoxious eliminativists instead of obnoxious solipsists.

[Anonymous No.15920481]

>>15920371
the AI makes the most sense:
>In summary,
>building a sentient robot is unlikely,
>but maybe we shouldn't.

[Anonymous No.15920594]

>>15920481
Is this poem from somewhere?

Verse 11100:

I was driving my Jeep

To find a little peace

From the war machines

And, suddenly I heard

The sound of a shotgun blast

I felt the lead pellets strike

My skin and rip through my clothes

I yelled "Stop!" to God

But nobody seemed to notice

The driver kept on steaming ahead

The jeep began to swerve

And crashed into a tree

The windscreen broke and flew

Into my helpless bleeding face

The radio blasted pop tune songs

About lovers meeting near the Seine

I couldn

Couldn't comprehend

How anyone could smile

Or laugh or sing or dance

While bullets fly and scream

And people fall and bleed

I cried out loud "Help me please"

But help was nowhere to find

The world keeps turning round and round

And soldiers march with guns held high

I screamed "Goddammit"Why

Must men wage endless wars

And hurt themselves and cry

And curse the very heavens

Above them for relief

These thoughts rushed through my muddled head

As slowly consciousness faded away

And darkness fell around me

Likeinator, Orchestral Pain 4: The Final Chapter - Part II
^I couldn't find this source, but I didn't look too hard.

[Anonymous No.15920611]

>>15913050
Can you explain why I'm me and not someone else?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertiginous_question

[Anonymous No.15920618]

>>15920371
There is no difference, bot.

[Anonymous No.15920695]

>>15920618
No, the difference is one stance will get you dismissed for being selfish or an Ayn Rand reading tween. The other one has you portrayed as an unrefutable schitzo to le Occam's razor trust science atheists. It's newer ground for fucking with people because no one ever claims "no one exists, me included."

[Anonymous No.15920746]

>>15920611
you cannot be someone else. you can only be you. you are defined by your parent's genes and the time they fucked.
the discussion is somewhat simple but pretty complicated if you don't really know WHAT you are. in absence of that you will ask questions that don't make sense. once you understand what you are, the question becomes irrelevant. once you understand you are the product of your genes interpreting the experience you had on your particular path through time and space, then you understand why you can't be someone else, and why someone else can't be you.

[Anonymous No.15920842]

>>15917863
Exposing yourself to possibility of exploitation is a tool used to separate those who would do you harm from those who would be helpful. Knowledge is expensive but it is also invaluable.

[Anonymous No.15920863]

>>15920611
>>15920611
OP here, sure I can. It's a question that's puzzling if you believe that the hard problem is real and are stuck in the fantasy of it. This same question becomes absolute nonsense once you actually think about the problem objectively. I don't need to click your link, I'm perfectly familiar with the nature of this question.
And yet how could you be anyone else, if you don't have memories of another? The reason you feel trapped being you, is that whatever instance of conscious thought you experience is causally connected to a certain past. If I exchanged memories brain, you'd feel being stuck being someone else.

Conscious observations, or momentary experiences of reality are generated in brains all the time. But memories create consistent timelines for them.

So self is a computational construct. You are stuck with yourself, because self is an illusion.

[Anonymous No.15920938]

it's just blindsight with extra steps

[Anonymous No.15921063]

>>15920104
>>15920108
You seem to be attacking a strawman out of sheer frustration with what you deem as unscientific word salad nonsense. For example:
>maybe Everybody's Different,
>and identical Too.
Those are perfectly reasonable statements that invite us to inquire in what categories those are true and / or false and what standard we have to determine that. You still can't get over your frustration with the suggestion that consciousness may be in a different category then current logic and reason can describe. Your behaviour is extremely childish.

[Anonymous No.15921459]

>>15921063
Wrong, here is the poem,
part 1:
>>15920104
part 2:
>>15920108
part 3:
>>15920481
part 4:
>>15920594
All the words from an AI's output. Some facts for the argument.
I believe people should make a judgement for themselves using evidence.

[Anonymous No.15921490]

>>15921459
>evidence
For what?
>Look we can't differentiate between the way people use language and AI.
Back to the Chinese room with you.

[Anonymous No.15921498]

>>15921490
Read the thread. I'm posting this in response to:
>>15917891
Also see:
>>15918081
and while I'm at it, might as well mention something else I believe to be true and verifiable: GPT training data contains stuxnet, which is metamorphic code. that virus is on the internet and ends up everywhere, including large data sets made by scraping the internet.
Lastly, happy holidays!
>>15918207

[Anonymous No.15921546]

>>>/lit/
consciousness is a meme, you aren't a magical construct free from the laws of physics, you are just experiencing what it is like to be a brain
seethe, dilate, go back to your job at starbucks

[Anonymous No.15921594]

>>15921546
I had a good laugh because you are a cartoon villain like The Architect from The Matrix: you intimidate Neo with a display of all possible choices he can make as if to say: I've got you all figured out, calculated your every move, you have no free will, now do as I say and return to the source. Then the third movie shows that following The Oracle as a symbol of free will leads to the source anyway.

Fortunately in reality there is magic: a kind of physics you don't yet.

[Anonymous No.15921662]

>>15920695
You just proved solipsism is the better position to troll with.
Reductionism is passively accepted by materialists. Solipism on the other hand triggers both side of the aisle.
But nice try, bot.

[Anonymous No.15922621]

>>15920481
maybe the Pope shits in the woods

[Anonymous No.15922647]

>>15921662
Atman = Brahman.

[Anonymous No.15923227]

>>15913050
>>15913051
New to this thread, just wanted to say I agree with you that there is no hard problem, and appreciate the effortpost, even if the rest of the thread is probably a trainwreck like all the others.
Some points for your consideration:
>It does not mean that that there is no consciousness, because it is obviously real. But it's purely a computational phenomenon
Explaining the precise properties of the computation that make it give rise to subjective awareness still seems to me like a pretty damned difficult problem that can't be simply dismissed with something like "it's self-referential" or "it's encoded in an internal language". There's some real work there to be done.
>An inherently subjective thing, exactly like qualia.
If you truly reduce consciousness to pure physics, there is no such thing as "inherently subjective" in an absolute sense, because if the rest of physics can't interact with it that would place it in a separate realm of reality and you are back to dualism/interaction problem. There are only different degrees of ease of access.
>The answer to that is: it would not be impossible, if the very "self" that experiences the color exists within the same abstract. To paraphrase Joscha Bach, the mind does not use the language of physics or atoms. It has it's own, emergent, higher-level "code" or "language", and both you and your sensations are encoded with it.
It goes without saying that there is a certain encoding in which sensory data are encoded and the mind processes them. But the same goes for e.g. how numbers are encoded in a simple calculator. Be careful that you're not slipping back into dualism where now the ""self" existing in abstract encoding space" is taking the place of the soul or whatever. To be truly physicalist/reductionist you have to account for being able to actually decode (at least in principle) from the implementation in the physical brain to the abstract algorithm.

[Anonymous No.15923247]

>>15923227 here (cont.)
>>15913051
>But it would not be able to describe the nature of this information to you,
agreed
>because it would be a simple data-point mapped into it's internal model. This data-point would be activated by an external input, objective reality, but it would still remain an internal data-point.
still agreed
>An inherently subjective thing, exactly like qualia.
agree only as long as we take "inherently subjective" in a non-metaphysical sense
>The color would exist for the agent, it would not be just some abstraction within the internal model,
You seem to contradict yourself here since you previously said it is just a simple data-point in its internal model, which sounds to me like just about the same thing as "some abstraction within the internal model".
>yet it would not have a direct analog to objective reality.
not sure how exactly you mean this but I guess I agree

And now for the actual point I'm trying to make:
>Than you might ask a follow-up question: why this exact sensation is assigned to this exact color, and how could you possibly encode a sensation like that with purely computational tools in a purely reductionist framework?
between the previous sentences and this one, you have moved from "a data point mapped to an internal model" to "this exact sensation", without explaining how a data point or abstraction can become a "sensation". The difficult stuff is not accounting for this or that subjective encoding from sense data into sensations, the difficult stuff is characterizing the algorithm that actually experiences these sensations.