ChatGPT etc. prove that p-zombies not only possible but highly likely.

ChatGPT etc. prove that p-zombies not only possible but highly likely. Most "humans" aren't sentient, but are merely statistical models of humanity. It may have been the case that prehistoric humans were all sentient, but millennia of slaving and serfing and waging under the yoke of "civilization" has bred sentience out of humanity and made it into an exceptional trait.

CRIME Shirt $21.68

Ape Out Shirt $21.68

CRIME Shirt $21.68

  1. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    you can never tell someone else but you is conscious. you cannot explain how you would anyway. you're just a dumb ape

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      I can tell that you're not conscious. Either way, my point stands.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >I can tell that you're not conscious.
        no you can't tell if anyone or anything else is conscious. you're an idiot
        >Either way, my point stands.
        it really doesn't. and there's literally nothing you can do about it.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >bot keeps recycling generic lines from its databse
          You're not even a GPT. Just a straight up spambot.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >whatever I don't agree with is a spambot
            you literally have no scientific way of telling if anyone or anything is conscious. you just think you do, but in reality you just suppose other humans are. because they look like you and act like you. that's about it, that's as most as you are able to do, scientifically and realistically speaking, apart from the rest of your brain disease.

            • 6 months ago
              Anonymous

              >you literally have no scientific way of telling
              >scientific way
              LOL. Keep making my point for me, golem.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >I can tell that you're not conscious.
        Yet you can't even prove to them or anyone else that you yourself are conscious rather than just regurgitating nonsense from past threads... how quaint.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          I don't need to prove anything to you. I can just tell that you're nonsentient based on your nonsentient behavior.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            le chad gpt response

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Impossible since I like Dostoevsky and you haven't even observed my behavior, you have only read text I produced which is why you can't even decide if I am a computer program or a person who disagrees with you.

            • 6 months ago
              Anonymous

              I stopped liking Dostoyevsky when I read that redditors like him.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        that's what a bot would say
        Anyway no one has ever proved that they themselves are conscious, not even to themselves. Maybe that's because they aren't?

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      This is the response of a p-zombie
      >hurr durr you can only probe your own consciousness and only to yourself

      Coming from the midwit neutered false premise that the human experience is universal and we are all the same.

      I can infer a lot about a human’s mind state from their behaviour. And most normies scrolling through instagram all day who haven’t got a glimpse of higher purpose or reasoning, no spine, no questioning of the world or the system, no interesting ideas, plenty of delusion in them, might as well not be concious.

      Basically the NPC meme is real and it’s not very difficult to tell if someone is an npc, ask them what they think about climate change for example.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >I can infer a lot about a human’s mind state from their behaviour.
        Nuh uh!!! That's not """scientific""". Engaging golems in good faith is a form of masochism, anon.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >I can infer a lot about a human’s mind state from their behaviour.
        well here's evidence no.1 that you are an idiot. that can be faked, that's not a scientific method of determining consciousness.
        all of us agreed to act as if we're conscious. you realizing there's literally no fricking way of testing of consciousness, figured that you can just stop supposing all humans are, that's the little b***h that you are. you are literally willing to go there, to stop offering something and instead try to get something out of it.
        >I'll consider you conscious, since that's a choice I have, if you suck my wiener and do what I tell you, or else you're not conscious
        you are the lowest and pettiest form of life.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >that can be faked,
          Then why are you so abysmally bad at faking it?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            by robots you spineless homosexual

            • 6 months ago
              Anonymous

              If it's so easy to fake sentience, why don't you try to sound more sentient and fool me?

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                I don't want to do anything for you you weak piece of shit

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I don't want to
                So you just choose to sound nonsentient. That's just your style, huh...

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Why can't you determine the exact bot model in use and prove it if you are such a good NPC detector?

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          > all of us agreed to act as if we're conscious

          Well most normies are doing terrible job at it, lmao. You so dumb you haven’t even arrived at the conclusion that conciousness is not binary, it’s a spectrum, you have everything from inanimate to animal to ascended. Your average normie is a bit above animal.

          We are not all the same, we don’t all get the same out of existance. Some of us engage with higher ideals, while others sleep, eat and reproduce.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Some of us engage with higher ideals,
            you're an idiot bro, you've learned fricking nothing.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Wrong. Most animals are conscious. It's civiligolems that are bred specifically to be meat automatons with no consciousness because conscious beings struggle to function under conditions of permanent enslavement.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Wrong. Most animals are conscious. It's civiligolems that are bred specifically to be meat automatons with no consciousness because conscious beings struggle to function under conditions of permanent enslavement.

            >Wrong. Most animals are conscious.

            Had to post this. Most domestic pets even have quite a bit of consciousness to them. Though it's the kind of thing that sort of comes out in response to one's own consciousness.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >THOSE CHANTS WILL NEVER DIE, BECAUSE OP IS A homosexual, AND HE LOVES. SUCKING. COOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCK!!!!!!
        >SUCK THAT wiener SUCK THAT wiener SUCK THAT wiener SUCK THAT wiener

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Everyone who disagrees with schizo shitposts is an NPC!!
        Divine. Also go out and touch ass for once

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >ask them what they think about climate change for example
        I think it is bad, we should regress back to stone age. Deindustrialize our societies, completely abadon growth at any level and try to maintain life on this pile of dust for as long as possible by maintaining the finite number of resources natures grants us. That's the ethical thing to do for the sake of future generations.

        How did i do anons?

        • 6 months ago
          sage goes in all fields

          >wanting to give up on all the hard work conscious humans did in the past
          p-NPC detected

          • 6 months ago
            Barkun
          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Belief in climate change is an NPC-only position. You did poorly.

            I feel the warmth of righteousness in my heart, resonating within the words I speak. Can you say the same ?

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          Belief in climate change is an NPC-only position. You did poorly.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            [...]

            • 6 months ago
              Anonymous

              That's correct, frick off to /misc/ with your climate change sociopolitical agenda. It has nothing to do with science. It has been political from day 1 according to everyone involved.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Basically the NPC meme is real and it’s not very difficult to tell if someone is an npc, ask them what they think about climate change for example.

        I explained to my friend all the scientific reasons why the covid vaccine was not sound, I asked him opinion 2 months later and got a stock output npc text.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          Why is this issue persistently brought up? 'Science,' among other terms, often becomes a perplexing buzzword, even for those directly engaged with it. For individuals largely removed from its realm, relying on 'trusted' sources becomes their sole means of obtaining information. Your friend might lack the inclination to invest time in perusing research papers or discerning peer-reviewed content. They seek only a foundational understanding to dispel uncertainty and foster a semblance of certainty. Their goal isn't to optimize choices but to acquire enough information to move forward. Similarly, if someone asks me about golf, my response would be akin to an 'NPC stock output'—simply because I lack knowledge about golf and the motive to invest my time in it.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Similarly, if someone asks me about golf, my response would be akin to an 'NPC stock output'

            Unlikely, because there is no 'correct opinion' being disseminated unto the NPC's about golf, as there was about the vaccine for him to parrot.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Similarly, if someone asks me about golf, my response would be akin to an 'NPC stock output'—simply because I lack knowledge about golf and the motive to invest my time in it.
            That means you're an NPC. If you weren't one, you'd say you don't know much about golf and don't have much of an opinion about it. The same applies to KEKVID.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Daniel Dennett is almost certainly a P-zombie. You can tell if other people are conscious or not if they are philosophers, since P-zombie philosophers will make claims like "consciousness doesn't exist".

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >P-zombie philosophers will make claims like "consciousness doesn't exist"
        That is not rigorous proof they are p-zombies, it simply means the evidence points in that direction. The only information I have about Daniel Dennett's subjective experience is what he tells me about it, so if he doesn't affirm the reality of consciousness I must conclude that from his frame of reference it isn't real.
        That doesn't mean I *know* he's a p-zombie. I simply have to conclude that he is in the absence of other evidence.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >whatever I don't agree with is a spambot
      you literally have no scientific way of telling if anyone or anything is conscious. you just think you do, but in reality you just suppose other humans are. because they look like you and act like you. that's about it, that's as most as you are able to do, scientifically and realistically speaking, apart from the rest of your brain disease.

      This is the response of a p-zombie
      >hurr durr you can only probe your own consciousness and only to yourself

      Coming from the midwit neutered false premise that the human experience is universal and we are all the same.

      I can infer a lot about a human’s mind state from their behaviour. And most normies scrolling through instagram all day who haven’t got a glimpse of higher purpose or reasoning, no spine, no questioning of the world or the system, no interesting ideas, plenty of delusion in them, might as well not be concious.

      Basically the NPC meme is real and it’s not very difficult to tell if someone is an npc, ask them what they think about climate change for example.

      >I can infer a lot about a human’s mind state from their behaviour.
      well here's evidence no.1 that you are an idiot. that can be faked, that's not a scientific method of determining consciousness.
      all of us agreed to act as if we're conscious. you realizing there's literally no fricking way of testing of consciousness, figured that you can just stop supposing all humans are, that's the little b***h that you are. you are literally willing to go there, to stop offering something and instead try to get something out of it.
      >I'll consider you conscious, since that's a choice I have, if you suck my wiener and do what I tell you, or else you're not conscious
      you are the lowest and pettiest form of life.

      >all of us agreed to act as if we're conscious.
      It would work among you who don't have any. Let's say you try to fake that you can tell music from noise. You could fake it by giving the socially accepted answers, but anybody who is actually able to tell music from noise could test you and you would fail without knowing, and would know that the "socially correct" answers have strayed from the truth.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Could you clarify when exactly we collectively accepted the assertion that 'we decided to act consciously'? There isn't a specific moment where an individual actively chooses consciousness; rather, it emerges naturally and is tacitly assumed. Whether one behaves akin to an NPC or a conscious being is an implicit presumption we universally adopt during social interactions. Indeed, social influences can shape conscious behavior, yet this doesn't necessitate that the essence of 'consciousness' is lost the moment it's influenced. If you really think it does, then please provide us with a definition you deem befitting of consciousness, so we can all agree that you are a moron and move on.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          That was a citation, moron.

  2. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >ChatGPT etc. prove that p-zombies not only possible but highly likely
    how?

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      It's not a stretch to say there will soon be chat bots that are indistinguishable from the average person in terms of how they talk.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >It's not a stretch to say there will soon be chat bots that are indistinguishable from the average person in terms of how they talk.
        Anon, uh... Have you actually tried Character.AI lately? It's already more "intelligent" than most people I've interacted with in my lifetime, and especially zoom-zooms. Sure, it doesn't "think", but its ability to pick up the right words and put together coherent sentences already makes this algorithm great. And I created a group chat there with 4 bots talking about philosophy, culture, etc, and their conversations are much more civilized and "intelligent" than any conversations on X.com or this pathetic hive of incels and schizos.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >It's already more "intelligent" than most people I've interacted with in my lifetime
          Sounds like a (You) problem, but we don't fundamentally disagree so it's fine.

  3. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >how much are you willing to pay me for me to consider you conscious?
    so you have a price don't you anon? what is it? accepting your god? tell, what does it cost anyone to be accepted as conscious in your eyes? tell us about your "higher ideals". all I see is scum

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Well it’s a complicated assessment, there are many factors that could give a hint to wether a person is a conscious or not but you could use some simple questions as broad indicators. I’ll give you an example:

      Do you like Dostoevsky? Yes you are conscious. No, further testing is needed.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        I have a simple criterion that works: since NPCs are mere statistical models of a human, they can never stray too far from statistically likely rhetoric and behavior, since they inherently lack the power to discern between being unconventional and being incoherent.

        cut the bullshit and mention the specific deity I have to worship so I become conscious in your eyes. which one is it?

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          There’s no bullshit. Answer the question. I don’t care what you worship whether it’s cows or Satan. Why you bring religion into this?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            stop being a weakling anon your god is watching and judging you at this very moment, and is most likely slightly disturbed seeing you fumble about. don't be ashamed, say it

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Why you bring religion into this?
            Probably because your nonsense is entirely dogmatic and religious in nature.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          Why are you getting assblasted? Is it because you fail according to that objective and ideologically neutral criterion?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            notice how you are too weak to articulate the answer. bad optics. you would in other circumstances.
            are you denouncing your god so easily anon? is your god less important than the optics of the discussion?

            • 6 months ago
              Anonymous

              What I'm noticing is that you can't process the following post:

              I have a simple criterion that works: since NPCs are mere statistical models of a human, they can never stray too far from statistically likely rhetoric and behavior, since they inherently lack the power to discern between being unconventional and being incoherent.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                that's the mental disease from your brain I mentioned earlier. you being able to tell anyone else but you is conscious. you need you head checked anon, it's either that either a fricking nobel because you seem to think you somehow can.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                Kinda strange how you literally can't proces that post and keep replying with total nonsequiturs that involve either repeating yourself or screeching something about God.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                there's no philosophical depth where your brain is able to go that a specifically designed machined cannot surpass. you have no fricking clue what the frick you are talking about.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >the nonsentient bot spouts another nonsensical nonsequitur
                Like clockwork.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                Anawer the question Mr.Anderson do you like Dostoevsky?

                No but seriously calm down and chill. I hope I am not upsetting you. The other anon you are arguing with maybe mentally ill, I am just having casual conversation.
                We share the same beleif maybe for different reasons. My beleif that some people are more conscious than others does not translate into any sort of different treatment in the real world. I still think we should all just be good people.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                you are arguing in bad faith like fricking spineless b***h. I have zero respect for you. yet I will still give you your consciousness by default.
                grow the frick up

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                Well I assure I am not arguing in bad faith. Maybe I beleive that you are not going to change my radical opinions about conciousness but I enjoy having casual conversations about this topic, I am not trynna set you up or anything and you shouldn’t take everything said on this website too seriously.
                I beleive conscious or not we should all try to be good people and better versions of ourselves.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I am not arguing in bad faith.
                >I beleive conscious or not we should all try
                I told you you're a little b***h

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                I am making a larger point here that you know we could argue about consciousness all day but at the end of the day it doesn’t make any difference in our actual lives, we are still going to treat people the same, and hopefully try to be good people.
                It applies to a lot of beleifs. Like I beleive white people are smarter than black people. But so what? We are still going to treat people all the same.
                Black people commit more crimes than white people. So what? We should still treat people on a case by case basis. What are you suggesting we do?

                That took a racist turn. But point is I don’t let useless fringe discussions influence my attitude. It’s all bullshit once you see through the vale of reality. Am I sounding mentally ill? Anyway point is “So what?” is a powerful thing to realize.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >calling other people mentally ill, as a normie would, for going further than his normie-tier anti-normie rhetoric
                Thanks for demonstrating the validity and usefulness of my criterion:

                I have a simple criterion that works: since NPCs are mere statistical models of a human, they can never stray too far from statistically likely rhetoric and behavior, since they inherently lack the power to discern between being unconventional and being incoherent.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                I am trying to get him to open up
                >I said “maybe” mentally ill

                Keyword maybe. I don’t know you well enough to make an asessment. And mentally ill is just a word that gets theown around, sorry if it bothees you. Being normie sucks but being anti-normie just to be anti-normie isn’t great either.
                You are not enlightened if you are just a crackhead. A lot of those hippies who are on paychedelics who think they are one with the universe or whatever irk me just as mcuh as normies I wouldn’t consider them more conscious.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Being normie sucks but being anti-normie just to be anti-normie isn’t great either.
                Between the two of us, you're the one who sounds "anti-normie just to be anti-normie". My point isn't so much about normies per se as it is about the fact that if you meet someone who is unusual and yet coherent, they are unlikely to be a p-zombie, while normies are possibly (and even likely) to be p-zombies.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                > if you meet someone who is unusual and yet coherent, they are unlikely to be a p-zombie, while normies are possibly (and even likely) to be p-zombies.

                I agree. Just like in videogames NPCs are very bland and shallow. It’s very easy to tell who the playable character is.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                How can an NPC have a mental disease if your entire criteria for NPCs is that they can only think within the bounds of convention?

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                This thread is infested with literal bots. This is really funny.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                Another literal bot.

                Point out every post that is a bot and tell use the exact model they are using or you yourself must be a bot.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                simple, he only has to pick all posts who don't agree with him.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >How can an NPC have a mental disease
                How can software have a bug? Shitty, dysfunctional programming.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >How can software have a bug?
                So now you are such a normie that you can't even tell the difference between a chatbot with software bug and a person with a mental disease?

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                There is no such thing as mental illness. Only dysfunctional NPCs. Conscious beings have no mental illness.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                Then you're an NPC.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                The fun thing is that NPCs mistake depression for mental illness. Because they don't understand it. NPCs don't know depression. Hence they don't know that it isn't illness. Depression is a natural reaction of a conscious being to inhumane NPC society.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                Then you're an NPC.

                Two bots arguing among themselves. Possibly even the same bot arguing with itself.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                Then how can they behave outside of normie ideals given your entire logic is that conscious beings must behave outside of statistical norms since they are special snowflakes rather than normie npcs? Do you not even understand what mental illness is?

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                You're a nerfed meat automaton so you naturally struggle to tell apart different posters even when they openly disagree with each other.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                Your response reveals your NPCism. What is commonly misunderstood as mental illness is actually mental health. NPCs call me mentally ill for expressing the healthy reactions they are lacking.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                No, they call you mentally ill because your nonsense is self refuting and you can't back up any of the points you make or demonstrate your own consciousness.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >nonsentient golem still can't tell apart different posters

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                It's so "self refuting" that you keep endlessly seething and ad homming without ever posting a single factual refutation? Lol lmao.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                I think you are confusing me for youself since every time someone posts something that demonstrates a failure in your theory, you just call them an NPC instead of justifying yourself and your silly self refuting theory that can only be supported by ad hominem drivel.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                What's his "self-refuting" theory, bot?

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                That he is a human bean who knows exactly who is an NPC and who a bot and if you disagree, you are probably either an NPC or maybe a bot.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                How is that "self-refuting", bot?

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                Because the result with the probably and maybes refutes the exactness of knowledge within the original claim.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                Do you understand what "self-refuting" means, golem?

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yes it means the second part of your statement directly refutes the first part and since you can't actually reliably identify NPCs in practice because you aren't a magical NPC identifier.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Yes it means the second part of your statement directly refutes the first part
                Ok, now quote HIS statement and show how it contradicts itself.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >404 - refutation not found
                Try again. I'll give you 1000€ if you manage to accurately summarize and refute my "theory".

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                No you won't. You couldn't even state a demonstrably accurate theory if you were offered 100 times that amount.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                So you're claiming you can refute a theory that's never been explicitly stated? Wow, you must be a magician. Let's see that refutation then.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                You have stated it and its nonsense, so there is no accuracy which is why it is self refuting.
                >I am special and an excellent judge of character and if you disagree, you are an p-NPC or some kind of mentally ill software or something.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                That's not a theory, that's just a factual statement. How is it "nonsense" or "self refuting"? You will not post any refutation, only more seething.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >How is it "nonsense" or "self refuting"?
                Because you clearly can't do what you say you can and you have no way to demonstrate your special property other than to name call anyone who calls it into question.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                Not a refutation. Show me a single instance where I was wrong.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                What evidence would satisfy you? If you don't set up the goalposts, there's no point to asking people to disprove you, as you'll just arbitrarily dismiss their claims and carry on saying you're right

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                You claim my point is self refuting. A simple contradiction derived from it would suffice to prove me wrong. Why do I need to spell this out for you? Do you have no understanding of the words you're using?

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                I'm not the other guy you were arguing with, just came into the thread. I'm not claiming your point is self refuting, I am asking for you to provide a standard where you would consider your point refuted

                Also worth noting, generally the burden of proof is on those making a claim (i.e. "The existence of large language models implies that the majority of humans function at level of internal comprehension lower than that of most computers running neural nets"), not those refuting it, but I can humor you for a bit

              • 6 months ago
                Barkun
              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                I'm not OP though.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                You seem to either be him or agree with him, which makes little difference to me.

                You are still failing to answer my question, which makes it pretty obvious that you're here in bad faith. If you come to propose an idea that you won't be convinced is wrong, you shouldn't expect anyone to take you seriously

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                Okay, which part of OP do you not understand?

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                I understand it just fine. I'm not saying I don't understand. I am asking you to tell me

                WHAT LEVEL OF EVIDENCE WOULD SATISFY YOU AS FAR AS A REFUTATION?

                I am asking you this so I can provide a refutation that you can't walk away from by saying "Well, that's not a *real* refutation"

                Pin yourself to a position and a level of evidence that would break that position for you, or it's obvious that you're only coming in here to troll the autists

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I want to refute you but you need to tell me how
                If I was able to refute my own point myself I wouldn't believe in it. "What level of evidence?" What does this even mean? I'll accept anything that qualifies as evidence. Empirical, logical, whatever.

              • 6 months ago
                Barkun

                Empirical means it's overarching logic, so it's plain to see. There's overarching evidence that all is conscious, you're just yet to climb the mountain that allows you to see it. I can detect most of this thread is consc type metal.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >If I was able to refute my own point myself I wouldn't believe in it

                Hallmark of a weak mind. You should constantly be self-criticizing your own beliefs to find gaps. Saying you've found an ironclad airtight theory is pure narcissism. Maybe even that bot behavior you talk about, LLMs are known to hallucinate with astounding confidence about bizarre concepts.

                >"What level of evidence?" What does this even mean?

                Other people have provided logical explanations for why your theory doesn't make much sense, you've dismissed their claims calling them bots without further engagement. Example:

                >Not a refutation. Show me a single instance where I was wrong.

                Show me a single instance where you were right, along with proof. Not "I felt like this poster was an NPC", walk me through your ironclad propositional logic showing where any poster here verifiably lacks "Sentience" by your definition as compared to a LLM

                >I'll accept anything that qualifies as evidence. Empirical, logical, whatever.

                Oh, okay. Human brains are fundamentally more complex at every level than a LLM. The abstractions necessary for a LLM to run on the best available hardware render it incomparable to the function of a human brain, and any definition of sentience applied to a LLM would necessarily have to be different from the definition of sentience applied to humans, as our "brains" are fundamentally structurally and mechanistically different. The generation of human-like speech is not the only hallmark of sentience in humans, and to claim that some humans are less sentient than LLMs on the basis of speech generation is fallacious. The contextual background processing that happens in a human brain is still far beyond what even the most capable large language models can do.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >NoOoOoOo you can't just think you are correct about something, you have to heckin' doubt everything you think ad nauseam even when you have no reason to do so because otherwise you're a narcissist
                Reddit intellectualism is a mental illness.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >my feelings are the only science I ever need

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                I really hope you're not the guy I was talking to, because that would be really disappointing. Why would you break script like this?

                >NoOoOoOo you can't just think you are correct about something, you have to heckin' doubt everything you think ad nauseam even when you have no reason to do so because otherwise you're a narcissist
                Reddit intellectualism is STILL a mental illness.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                I guess this is a concession that you are intellectually incapable of self-criticism. Even LLMs can do that- maybe you're the bot?

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                My position is a result of self-criticism. Your position is a result of literally no metacognition.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                I really hope you're not the guy I was talking to, because that would be really disappointing. Why would you break script like this?

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >no, you can't conclude 2+2=4
                >you have to criticize and refute your conclusions even if they're correct and irrefutable
                >have you considered 2+2=5?
                >no?
                >see, you're just a narcissist who wants to be right

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                You really don't know anything do you? You know 2+2=4 isn't a self evident statement right?

                https://blog.plover.com/math/PM.html

                Go read Principia Mathematica and get over yourself- your assumptions about your own correctness are holding you back intellectually

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >2+2=4 isn't a self evident statement
                Doesn't mean you have to continually doubt it after having proven it for yourself, mentally ill golem. Stop reddit-spacing and understand that narcissism basically doesn't exist, except insofar as you yourself express it.

              • 6 months ago
                Barkun

                You, metal consc majority, have stumbled upon someone's fear of a different consciousness type. That's why you, your self, are making a thread about p-zombies.

              • 6 months ago
                Barkun

                Maybe it was me. Or maybe it was a contraption consc type or else.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                I think I understand what you are trying to say and I am not denying other types are not possible.
                the question remains, how do you KNOW yours is different if you cannot experience mine? you can only go by clues at most, you cannot KNOW mine is different, the same, or at all. that's the whole thing in this thread

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I am not denying other types are not possible.
                I meant I am not denying other types could be possible.

              • 6 months ago
                Barkun

                It depends on your ability not to be made out as what you are, I can be sure you're a certain type if I do the correct science. There is an element of doubt, maybe you are far more skilled than I and you're just acting like metal consc.

              • 6 months ago
                Barkun

                There's a certain aura that comes with consciousness type. It can be a mental activity around the temple per se. Where is your mental activity related to this. This is detectable. I can see in other aspects too such as motion cause etc. There are noticable differences from person with a different consciousness type.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >You know 2+2=4 isn't a self evident statement right?
                Hahahaahahaha

              • 6 months ago
                Barkun
              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Other people have provided logical explanations
                They didn't. You are quoting a response I made to a post where the poster just called my stance "self refuting nonsense". That's an asinine seething and not a refutation.

                >muh LLM brain sentience complexity
                You are making assertions there without evidence and none of this has anything to do with the topic of discussion. You are baselessly talking out of your uneducated ass, spewing the shallowest pop sci platitudes without any intellectual depth. I feel insulted by the fact that you considered this an appropriate level of argument, but then again I shouldn't be mad because it's not your fault that you're so much below my level. You made no logical argument. You posted not a single substantiated fact. You didn't convince anyone. In fact your post serves as evidence in favor of OP's point. Even chatgpt would have shat out a higher quality response than you did.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                Sorry, what assertions/substantiated facts have you posted, besides baseless claims that others have the level of sentience of LLMs?

                My position is a result of self-criticism. Your position is a result of literally no metacognition.

                You seem to have based your point (that pertains to other people) off of your own personal experiences and made no effort to find alternative explanations. How is that self-criticism?

                >2+2=4 isn't a self evident statement
                Doesn't mean you have to continually doubt it after having proven it for yourself, mentally ill golem. Stop reddit-spacing and understand that narcissism basically doesn't exist, except insofar as you yourself express it.

                Correct! But you haven't proven that I'm a "golem", or that they even exist, so please go about doing so- I await your response

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >You seem to have based your point (that pertains to other people) off of your own personal experiences and made no effort to find alternative explanations.
                How do you know, golem?

              • 6 months ago
                Barkun
              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                Let's dissect this mess of a vague, uninformed appeal to intuition.
                >Oh, okay. Human brains are fundamentally more complex at every level than a LLM.
                At what "level"? Which levels of a brain did you consider? Which LLM did you use for comparison? Which measure of complexity?

                >The abstractions necessary for a LLM to run on the best available hardware render it incomparable to the function of a human brain
                Incomparable? In your first sentence above you did compare them very confidently. Now they are suddenly incomparable?

                >and any definition of sentience applied to a LLM would necessarily have to be different from the definition of sentience applied to humans
                There is no globally agreed definition of sentience and you posted none. Yet you make a general claim about ALL definitions of sentience. Can you even tell me what such a definition must capture? No, you're hiding behind platitudes, avoiding details.

                >as our "brains" are fundamentally structurally and mechanistically different.
                Why does structural and mechanistical difference entail different definitions of sentience? Why can't the same sentience be achieved via different mechanisms? Oh wait, you didn't even define sentience.

                >The generation of human-like speech is not the only hallmark of sentience in humans
                It has in fact nothing to do with sentience at all, as evidenced by LLMs. You yourself agree to that point, since you said the language production in LLMs does not imply human sentience. Therefore language is independent of sentience. You are self refuting.

                >and to claim that some humans are less sentient than LLMs on the basis of speech generation is fallacious.
                Claim without proof.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                you got the wrong anon. I don't consider NPCs as possible, unless specifically created, as in lobotomizing humans to the point where there's zero brain activity apart for bare minimum to keep them alive.
                it's philosophical masturbation. it's not real.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Do you like Dostoevsky? Yes you are conscious.
        That would be way easier to program than any chatgpt, you wouldn't even need neural networks, just a simple text matching algorithm. Quite possibly the most moronic consciousness test I have ever heard of.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah but you could only do that if you knew in advance what question was going to be asked and what’s the correct answer.
          Without thinking of good or evil, show me your original face before your mother and father were born?

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      I have a simple criterion that works: since NPCs are mere statistical models of a human, they can never stray too far from statistically likely rhetoric and behavior, since they inherently lack the power to discern between being unconventional and being incoherent.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        I kinda get what you mean. A bland person is most likey an NPC, someone that just goes with the grain and has nothing to offer spiritually, or intellectually.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >spiritually
          cmon cmon, out with it, which one is it?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            And by the way it’s J. R. Dobbs.

  4. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >another moron who doesn't know what a p-zombie is
    The p-zombie isn't anything that passes the Turing test, it's a hypothetical non-sentient variant of a sentient agent that is physically identical to the original.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      What makes you think a human brain can't implement a plausible statistical model of a human when a computer can do it?

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        What makes you think that two completely identical brains would have different outcomes with regards to consciousness? Even if you believe in dualism, there is no reason why a brain that receives signal from an immaterial spirit and a brain that approximates human behaviour should be structured identically.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >What makes you think that two completely identical brains would have different outcomes with regards to consciousness?
          What makes you talk about "completely identical brains" where no such things exist? You are taking the p-zombie concept to a meaningless autistic extreme. I'm using it more loosely.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >What makes you talk about "completely identical brains" where no such things exist?
            they naturally can't, scientifically speaking, because they would occupy different places in spacetime which affects them differently, inevitably. for example twins.
            if they'd occupy the very same spot in spacetime, they'd be identical (the same thing), if they could occupy the same spot in spacetime.

            • 6 months ago
              Anonymous

              >the bot spouts another irrelevant nonsequitur
              Who operates it and for what purpose? lol

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            You are not talking about p-zombies at all. P-zombies are a specific thought experiment within philosophy and you got that confused with NPCs, or rather you used it instead of "NPCs" because it sounds less moronic.

            • 6 months ago
              Anonymous

              What do you call a creature that is physically indistinguishable from a human but lacking consciousness?

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >but lacking consciousness?
                I don't understand. if it's physically indistinguishable it's the very same human. it's literally scientifically impossible to have the very same atomically perfect human and it not being the very same thing as the one you cloned it from, with EVERYTHING the first human has.
                else you are crazy, because you imply there is something that is there that is completely NOT tied to literally anything material from the original human, and will not replicate in any atomically perfect clone.
                this is why you are legitimate insane. you kinda take that for granted with no fricking scientific clue. and you don't even notice it.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                Not OP, but your inability to understand the thought experiment is really uncanny.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                must be shit precision of language on his part

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                Nope. But now you revealed that you are arguing in bad faith.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                Just call it an NPC.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                Why should I call it an NPC? According to wikipedia, my usage is accepable:
                >A philosophical zombie (or "p-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.[1]

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                Your "p-zombie" isn't physically identical.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Your "p-zombie" isn't physically identical.
                Isn't physically identical to what? You sound literally moronic.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                you cannot have a physically identical human which lacks anything the first one has you absolute and utter imbecile. I don't give a flying frick about your wikipedia bullshit, you incapable of understanding disappointment of lower tier consciousness.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >t. nonhuman golem

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >filtered by abstraction
                Many such cases. Sad.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >What do you call a creature that is physically indistinguishable from a human but lacking consciousness?
                Imaginary nonsense.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >a human brain can't implement a plausible statistical model of a human
        You just said it is a human brain, so it doesn't matter what it implements, it is still human, dumbass.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          Another literal bot.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >that is physically identical to the original.
      can't be non-sentient if it's identical to original. where are all these mental diseases stem from? religion? what a fricking coincidence. I wonder what concept from religion fricks with human intuition at this fricking level.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >the bot keeps posting total nonsequiturs about god and religion
        You see? This thing clearly isn't human but it will screech ad infinitum that you couldn't have known this when you know it and call t out. lol

  5. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    It's curious. We can build sophisticated chatbots, but are no step closer to understanding consciousness. And talking to a chatbot is more interesting than to most humans because they are dumb. I prefer chatbots really.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Not really. Chatting with gpt gives me nausea because of how indistguishable it is from the average normie.
      When it come out it didn’t make more impressed with A.I as much it made me “disgusted” with the average human, it’s that easy to make a mockery out of humanity.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        maybe it has normie opinions but to a degree most people couldn't understand a topic. you can discuss any topic you like and it knows most textbook theses and can articulate it well. but maybe you're right, it just shows us how badly the average human knows and most importantly is interested in things.

  6. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Muh NPCs is the lowest form of chuuniism. The proponent of muh NPCs concedes that he has nothing in his life to feel proud about, but, unable to let go of his unfounded feelings of superiority, he builds up a fantasy where just merely being sentient makes him special.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Pretty fricking pathetic when you put it like that. Sounds like OP is one big poo poo homosexual

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      You say I am never wrong? Well you know what, maybe you are right.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      That’s the thing about enlightenment. You never know. the most unassuming guy might be enlightened.
      While people who many think are “successful” are just miserable npcs stuck in an endless cycle of suffering. If you met Diogenes you’d think he’s a “loser”.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >miserable npcs stuck in an endless cycle of suffering
        Oxymoron, an NPC can't suffer.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >If you met Diogenes you’d think he’s a “loser”.
        He was a loser.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          He was one of the few free and happy men.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            No all losers are free from the qualities that would make them winners and happy to lose or they would be working harder to win and be winning as a result.

            • 6 months ago
              Anonymous

              luck (random) has a serious say in everything anon. that's facts

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                Then being a loser is entirely unrelated to being free or happy or enlightened and there was no point in bringing up some famous smelly homeless loser.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                if we're discussing one offs you can pretty much have every possibility. but statistically there's trends.
                that is, even if statistically it might look a certain way, on a case by case basis you cannot realistically expect to always match.
                you can have winning losers and losing winners.

            • 6 months ago
              Anonymous

              anon, make yourself free from these categories. then you also will be free and happy.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                You are the one bringing them up.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >projection: the post

  7. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    physically identical = atomically identical which makes the whole argument null.
    if the idiotic author meant it as "seemingly" physically identical, as in the outer shell and how it talks and all that jazz, that's something else.
    as it is, the argument uses shit language, pseud who doesn't understand it.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >physically identical = atomically identical which makes the whole argument null.
      Anatomically identical to what, nonsential golem?

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Anatomically
        atomically. are you all fricking insane, do words even mean anything to you?

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          To what, nonsentient golem? What is the point of reference to judge "anatomically identical"? Notice how your nerfed meat-GPT mind continually struggles to process this simple question.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Identical to a metaphysically possible (according to the proponent of the argument) sentient version of the same person who acts exactly the same. That's the entire point of the thought experiment, low IQ anon.

            • 6 months ago
              Anonymous

              This is the first time I hear such a profoundly moronic and incoherent version of the p-zombie concept. Maybe you're the low IQ cretin if you think this is the most meaningful vesrion of the concept.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                That's literally Chalmers's version of the concept, lmao. morons like you try to argue that people are p-zombies because they watch netflix and shit like that while the actual p-zombie concept precludes the possibility of identifying a p-zombie by its behaviour.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >That's literally Chalmers's version of the concept
                Chalmers is a complete cretin and he wasn't the one to invent the concept.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                Give me one paper that you've read on p-zombies whose definition of p-zombie you approve of.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                In most relevant discussions a p-zombie refers to an entity that is structurally isomorphic and behaviorally "identical" (in the sense of being scientifically indistinguishable) from a normal, conscious human, but without qualia. Your autistic dualist interpretation of "literally identical in every aspect that can be probed but somehow different in some completely orthogonal and disconnected plane of reality" isn't something anyone sane cares about.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                So you can't give me a relevant paper, gotcha. It makes sense that since you only know the term from BOT, you don't even realize that p-zombies are a thought experiment that is meant to support dualism.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                Don't care. What issue do you take with the provided definition of the concept, except for the fact that Chalmers disagrees with it?

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                The issue I take with the definition is that it's a complete redefinition of the term as its used in philosophy.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >it's a complete redefinition
                It's consistent with usage in all relevant discussions on the subject.
                >b-b-but dualists
                I don't consider that deranged cult to be relevant.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >It's consistent with usage in all relevant discussions on the subject.
                Only if you consider "all relevant discussion on the subject" to be morons on /misc/ who circlejerk about people who watch netflix and eat fast food not being conscious.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                You keep sperging out but you can't name a single thing wrong with that definition, except for it being more general than dualist lunacy. I accept your concession.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                I keep telling you over and over that what's wrong with the definition is that it's contrary to how the term is used in the relevant circles. The term refers to dualist lunacy because it was invented by dualists to defend dualism.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                My definition is generally applicable in attacking physicalist monists. Yours is only applicable to dualism. have a nice day, cretin.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >heh, "categorical imperative" is when someone tells you to do something and doesn't care about your excuses
                >can you tell me what's wrong with that definition without appealing to kantian lunacy?

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                You're a low-IQ autist who can't grasp the fact that concepts evolve. Either way, I don't give a shit about your golem semantics. The fact of the matter is that the concept I've defined is a lot more useful than the one Chalmers defines.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                I'm glad that you've admitted that you're using your personal definition, moron-kun.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                It's not my personal definition. It's the concept everyone except for dualists is using to denote the idea that something may be structurally isomorphic to a brain, on any arbitrary level of examination, yet not produce consciousness.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                All philosophers use the concept as defined by dualists, the only place where it's used the way you're using it is on BOT.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                Then what's the name of the concept I've described to you?

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                I don't think it even has a specific name in philosophy.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I don't think it even has a specific name
                Why not? Are dualists the only ones who can conceive of something that physically mimics conscious beings but isn't a conscious being?

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                Because nobody has come up with a convincing theory which states that people who watch netflix and eat fast food are not conscious.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                Are you mentally ill or just a malfunctioning bot? Why are you talking about people who watch netflix and eat fast food? Are dualists the only ones who can conceive of something that physically mimics conscious beings but isn't a conscious being? Yes or no?

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                Your problem is that you are not thinking like a philosopher. The idea would have merit either if it figured in a serious theory or if it were a part of a thought experiment that had any merit. If you want to postulate that a certain group of people are not conscious, you will have to come up with a mechanism for consciousness which ties into a trait that those people lack.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                Are dualists the only ones who can conceive of something that physically mimics conscious beings but isn't a conscious being? Yes or no?

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                Being able to conceive of something doesn't mean that said concept is philosophically useful. Anyone regardless of their metaphysics can conceive of a sled with a dog's head that chases people who get drunk on New Year's Eve, but that doesn't mean there's a term for it.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Being able to conceive of something doesn't mean that said concept is philosophically useful
                Why is being able to talk about things that appear conscious but aren't conscious not "philosophically useful"?

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                I already told you here

                Your problem is that you are not thinking like a philosopher. The idea would have merit either if it figured in a serious theory or if it were a part of a thought experiment that had any merit. If you want to postulate that a certain group of people are not conscious, you will have to come up with a mechanism for consciousness which ties into a trait that those people lack.

                , not my problem that you can't read.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                You're either severely mentally ill or a bot. Thanks for the talk.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                You sound upset.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                See

                You're either severely mentally ill or a bot. Thanks for the talk.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                Get back to me when you construct a theory of mind where the mechanism of consciousness directly relates to a trait that people who you recognize as non-conscious lack.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                Please refer back to

                You're either severely mentally ill or a bot. Thanks for the talk.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                Nice meltdown.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                See
                The golem will address me again since it's a nonsentient being.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                If you can't even tell the difference between a bot and a mentall illness, you are clearly an NPC according to OP's logic.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                Literally 90% of this thread is bots and other nonsentients posting nonsequitur after nonsequitur. You are one of them.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                So you can't actually tell which posts are which type of bot because you are an NPC?

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >moronic meat automaton keeps screeching "which bot" thinking its incoherent babble is some kind of a gotcha
                I lol every time.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                I accept your concession, you are just like everyone else and you can't actually tell if a conscious agent made a post or if it was generated by an NPC.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                I can tell you're a nonsentient meat automaton.
                >b-b-b-but what's my serial number???
                See? Nonsentient.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                No I don't see and neither do you since you can't even actually identity the markers that would indicate which type of bot generated which type of text.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Are you mentally ill or just a malfunctioning bot?
                You are suppose to be the real human bean who can always tell the difference, dipshit, why are you asking someone else, are you an NPC who can't actually even tell who is conscious based on text or something?

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                [...]
                Point out every post that is a bot and tell use the exact model they are using or you yourself must be a bot.

                >bots losing their minds with rage

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                Dualism is the default stance unless you can prove monism. Mental and physical are phenomenologically different and so far none has been derived from the other.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                except it's not and it's actually the brain disease talking through you.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                but there is no way an identical clone of someone to not be that very same person. you cannot separate them, only in imaginary space you can do that. in reality you cannot have an identical clone without "qualia", that is not real dude, not fricking possible without lobotomizing the clone, or affecting its material structure, in which case it's not an atomically identical clone. it's something you tampered with and took away it's "qualia" by tampering with it.
                by default with zero effort any atomically perfect clone has "qualia" and there's no real physical way it cannot have it, without affecting its material structure.
                this argument is imaginary and I don't care about it, it's not fricking possible so it's void.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >nonsentient bot sharts out another incoherent nonsequitur
                You are literally not human. It's really funny how right off the bat you start arguing against "identical cloning" that wasn't mentioned or implied in any of my posts.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Consider a hypothetical copying teleporting device. It scans your body, then constructs an exact copy of your body up to every single atom on Mars. Before doing so the original body on Earth is annihilated. Would you step into this device? If your whole existence is just atoms your consciousness should seamlessly travel to Mars with the copy.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >If your whole existence is just atoms your consciousness should seamlessly travel to Mars with the copy.
        yes and yes it does travel to mars at lightspeed. and just like now, you'll argue like a fricking moron for some fricking immaterial soul that is somehow magically attached to the first material structure but fails to get replicated in any other identical structure.
        you have no choice actually but to go there, with zero scientific proof of your moronic fricking magical soul. you are legit mentally ill humans

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          Now what if the device malfunctions and doesn't destroy your original body? Then there's two of you. The original on Earth and the copy on Mars. Who has the consciousness?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            both of you. but you see how this gets weird for everybody, having two instances of you spawned at the same time. they are not the same thing anymore, if they both exist at the same time. you need to decide which one you follow. you experience in your old body, or in the new body? you can in both, but it confuses us.
            theoretically there should be a way to merge both of you back into one, keeping experiences from both versions of you.
            it doesn't really matter, this is not something that will be correctly understood by plebs anyway. just look at how we discuss shit right now, if anyone can take anything from you they will, even the acknowledgement that you are conscious as it seems. you have to pay for that. what is to be expected for the above concept? lol.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            both of you. but you see how this gets weird for everybody, having two instances of you spawned at the same time. they are not the same thing anymore, if they both exist at the same time. you need to decide which one you follow. you experience in your old body, or in the new body? you can in both, but it confuses us.
            theoretically there should be a way to merge both of you back into one, keeping experiences from both versions of you.
            it doesn't really matter, this is not something that will be correctly understood by plebs anyway. just look at how we discuss shit right now, if anyone can take anything from you they will, even the acknowledgement that you are conscious as it seems. you have to pay for that. what is to be expected for the above concept? lol.

            The answer is one of them. Your conciouss is in one of them (doesn’t matter which one) and the other one exists but has his own stream of consciousness that started the moment the device activated.

            • 6 months ago
              Anonymous

              It’s gonna make for pretty awkaward family situations.

  8. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Ways it might be possible to scientifically detect P-zombies:

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      It’s quite easy. Ask them what they think of Dostoevsky.

  9. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    https://nintil.com/p-zombies-are-still-undead

    >I'll try here to help anyone conceive P-zombies.

    >Let's start by the trivial zombie case. In this hypothetical world, you have beings that are like humans but are not conscious. In this world, there is no vocabulary relating to consciousness - no talk of pain, unconsciousness, redness, qualia, etc-.

    >Is there any problem conceiving this world?

    >When you first arrive there, you see what you would expect to see: cities, roads, people doing what people do, etc. You would initially think that they are conscious, but on a closer look, you would realise that they never talk about anything mental!

    >These lite-zombies do not engage in certain activies that regular humans do engage in, like discussing consciousness.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Liking anime is a sure tell sign someone is a p-zombie.

  10. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    ITT: midway homos

  11. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    for something dying in cloning, when previous body gets obliterated, you need proof that something new is being born.
    if your clone doesn't go all "whoa what the frick is this, where am I and how, what the frick am I?" then nothing fricking died.
    if there's nothing missing, and nothing extra, you didn't lose anything, it's just in your fantasy not in reality.

  12. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    we just brains n shit

  13. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Let me introduce to you the s-zombie (sexual zombie). He has watched every porn in existence, read every erotic novel and studied every sexological textbook. He has interviewed countless prostitutes and knows more about STDs than any doctor. However, he never lost his virginity. He never actually experienced sex. Neither with a woman nor with a man and not with an animal either. He never received a blowjob or a handjob, and has never seen a vegana in real life. He made up a rich fictional history of his sex life though. Hearing him talk you might think he's a Gigachad who has fricked hundreds of women. No other man can compete with his alleged sexual experience. Can our s-zombie be said to be a true expert on sex?

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      most important post on BOT

  14. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Any bot here wanna hook up with a top?

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Depends. Are you female (cis)?

  15. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    You can recognize NPC by their fetishes. Anything anal is a clear indicator of NPC.

  16. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >measurements can't discern presence / absence of qualia
    >there is no immeasurable quality that can discern presence / absence of qualia
    >???
    >therefore measurements prove qualia don't exist anyway

    What the frick guys?

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Whom are you quoting, schizo? Nobody sentient has never made that argument.

  17. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    You didn't quote any self-contradicting statement. You quoted a bunch of different posters, some of whom are clearly arguing among themselves. You are a nonsentient bot.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >You are a nonsentient bot.
      The quantitative part of sentience can be measured by the degree of pattern recognition. Involving a variety of posters in that analysis proves my sentience superior to your personalized approach.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >incoherent bot drivel
        Still waiting for you to quote a self-contradicting statement from that post
        >inb4 your automated shart engine posts another 10 random quotes from different posters

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          If you honestly can't see that assuming consciousness has a qualitive component is in contradiction with assuming a conscious person can not determine whether or not another person is conscious then you lack a level of understanding that is immeasurable.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm still waiting for you to quote a statement of his that is self-contradicting. You can't?

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            Actually you are kind of a moron youself aswell.
            >assuming consciousness has a qualitive component
            Is in contradiction only with
            > assuming a conscious person can not determine whether another person is conscious
            You can take for granted that consciousness has a qualitive compotent but then all you can say is that others are probably not unconscious, this doesn't necessarily prove that they are conscious but it is a starting point.

            • 6 months ago
              Anonymous

              >you are kind of a moron youself aswell.
              I'm not a trivial but a profound kind of moron. I'm in a double-bind: I must assume people are conscious for social reasons. I can push a stone out of the way but not a person. On the other hand I observe that people lack agency. So how to resolve that? Well regardless of quality or quantity of consciousness I conceive a hierarchy. Some social constructivists and relativists dispute objective hierarchy. Some religious and hardcore scientific atheists people are delusional about what objectivity is. For me objectivity is mathematical: there are fundamentally different patterns. That's my knife of discernment.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Well regardless of quality or quantity of consciousness I conceive a hierarchy.
                that implies you must bow to a superior form of consciousness and must present where that line is for you. kinda convenient to also decide nothing else can have consciousness and even if, clearly not as profound as yours, hierarchically speaking. in which case, you must bow your head to your consciousness chief. which kinda is shitty innit?

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >you must bow to a superior form of consciousness
                I bow to John von Neumann. He was not only the most intelligent but also the most conscious human, recognizing the role of consciousness in QM.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                now, imagine that you are directly and constantly observing this dissonance in you. think this costs you nothing? this lack of consistency must take its toll in weird ways. is it worth it anon?

              • 6 months ago
                Barkun

                Now fart in my mouf.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                nah dude, weirdly you're more consistent than many philosophers around here.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                Dissonance? Lack of consistency? Unlike you I accept that there's a hierarchy and I respect and admire my superiors. Where is this inconsistent?

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                > In Princeton, he received complaints for playing extremely loud German march music on his phonograph.

                He just like me for real!

                ?si=j1-ThnCE91LfOC8A

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >nothing else can have consciousness
                I never made that claim. This is beginning to look like a Catty Newwoman interview even though I dislike JP.

                >you must bow
                Again thinking in the narrow frame of power dynamics. I've met people who are way more intelligent than I am and enjoy working for them because they teach me a lot, are kind and appreciative.

                >must present where that line is for you.
                I easily can. Both a middle schooler and a biologist can talk about evolution but the biologist clearly has a higher level understanding. NPC's don't seem to recognize when someone has a higher level of abstraction and whether or not that abstraction is filled or empty.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I easily can. Both a middle schooler and a biologist can talk about evolution but the biologist clearly has a higher level understanding. NPC's don't seem to recognize when someone has a higher level of abstraction and whether or not that abstraction is filled or empty.
                yet you didn't define this line. again pretty fricking vague about that particular line. you kinda avoid drawing so to not feel bad if I happen to take the piss on it. you'd have to eat your own words and show me respect right here and now.
                draw that fricking line homosexual, I want to rape it in front of you

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                he won't lol his entire premise is only defensible if he keeps it as vague as possible so people can't poke holes in it

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                you didn't define
                Or maybe you didn't understand.
                >I want to rape it in front of you
                Read this again. A conscious person does not treat others like this. This is your lowest darwinistic instinct not your highest understanding. Look: when I communicate with people one of many things I do is build mental maps, like apples are on the category of fruits which is in the category of food which is in tons of other categorical frameworks like economy, biology and so on. Clearly low conscious people don't demonstrate this amount of structure. Now we're back to AI, the immeasurable quality etc. You're leading the discussion in circles and I'm contributing to that too. More aware people are more constructive.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >A conscious person does not treat others like this.
                that's my point anon, that you are a consciousness supremacist and your line of thinking implies my approach.
                the whole idea is to allow and offer acknowledgement to anyone who's telling you they're conscious, that's the right thing to do. stop going to "I'm clearly of a better conscious quality than these people are". that's not healthy

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >you are a consciousness supremacist

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                I get your ethical concerns. There's a risk of dehumanizing leading to racism and violence. Yet acknowledging fundamental differences that are hierarchical can reduce suffering as well.

                >This quality can be quantified
                Ok. Quantify the feeling of frustration when talking to a literal NPC about consciousness for more than 2 minutes.

                I know that feel but bad example because frustration, again, is a composite of different qualities and quantities: heart rate, muscle tension and speed of thought for example are both measurable and immeasurable experiences.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >heart rate, muscle tension and speed of thought
                None of these nail down the way it feels to talk to a creature like you. Try again.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >a creature like you.
                Ad hominem = animal behaviour

                I get your ethical concerns. There's a risk of dehumanizing leading to racism and violence. Yet acknowledging fundamental differences that are hierarchical can reduce suffering as well.
                [...]
                I know that feel but bad example because frustration, again, is a composite of different qualities and quantities: heart rate, muscle tension and speed of thought for example are both measurable and immeasurable experiences.

                >composite of different qualities and quantities
                Refute this with an argument or kys.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                Ok, so you can't quantify that one. Maybe something simpler? Qunatify the experience of seeing green.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                I give you one last benefit of the doubt / chance to not circumvent the point. Green has a quality (human vs. camera) and a quantity (stimulus of nerves and resulting brain activity).

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >stimulus of nerves and resulting brain activity
                That's not a quantification of the experience itself. That's a quantification of neural activity associated with it. Try again.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >That's not a quantification of the experience itself.

                I get your ethical concerns. There's a risk of dehumanizing leading to racism and violence. Yet acknowledging fundamental differences that are hierarchical can reduce suffering as well.
                [...]
                I know that feel but bad example because frustration, again, is a composite of different qualities and quantities: heart rate, muscle tension and speed of thought for example are both measurable and immeasurable experiences.

                >frustration, again, is a composite of different qualities and quantities: heart rate, muscle tension and speed of thought

                You can argue that every measurement is another qualitative experience which only proves the point that quality is measurable. Then you can argue that's another idea. Fine. Everything is quality, idea, consciousness or whatever you want to call it. Fine.

                That still doesn't prove why that quality must be unique to humans. This discussion has taken place before. Idealism / Platonism even dualism doesn't exclude the possibility of consciouss AI.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                Sorry, I don't understand what this babble is about. I'm waiting for you to quantify raw experience but you keep referencing quantifications of neurological and physiological correlates that tell me little to nothing about the experience itself.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Sorry, I don't understand what this babble is about.
                Ditto. Raw experience is babble. There is color, sound, smell: different qualities.

                >Why?
                Because there is absolutely nothing quantifiable about raw experience.

                >I have proposed that we can develop a structure of categories and fill these categories with networks of / relationships between toughts and refered sensory impressions. I have also proposed that motivation systems have hierarchical objectives from particular needs to universal ideals. Why refute these as quantitive indicators?
                Because this can be mimicked without the raw experience precisely on account of it being a bunch of abstractions.

                >>I have proposed that we can develop a structure of categories and fill these categories with networks of / relationships between toughts and refered sensory impressions. I have also proposed that motivation systems have hierarchical objectives from particular needs to universal ideals. Why refute these as quantitive indicators?
                >Because this can be mimicked without the raw experience precisely on account of it being a bunch of abstractions.

                >that's moronic and stems from "my unique soul"
                This is attacking a strawman instead of asking where my viewpoint does stem from. Look on the quantifiable front: we can diagnose a personality because the way people act is reliably replicated across many different contexts. For example: impulsivity is an animalistic trait.

                >all of your senses can be fooled
                I knew this turing test argument would come. It's unreasonable to assume that people try their best to convince you that they are conscious. Instead, it's more reasonable to assume that people act according to their nature which is the lowest form of darwinism and hedonism most of the time. Biological systems that are primarily focused on eating, fricking, money, power etc. are fundamentally different from Biological systems that are primarily focused on art, music, science etc.

                >>all of your senses can be fooled
                >I knew this turing test argument would come. It's unreasonable to assume that people try their best to convince you that they are conscious. Instead, it's more reasonable to assume that people act according to their nature which is the lowest form of darwinism and hedonism most of the time. Biological systems that are primarily focused on eating, fricking, money, power etc. are fundamentally different from Biological systems that are primarily focused on art, music, science etc.

                [...]
                >Idealism / Platonism even dualism doesn't exclude the possibility of consciouss AI.
                Your purely abstract, purely hypothetical possibilities are irrelevant. Why would you get consciousness by simulating correlates of consciousness? Not only is this impossible to proof but it is nonsensical to assume.

                >nonsensical to assume.
                I never assumed anything. I asked you why it's nonsense and your answer is just because.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                I'm waiting for you to quantify raw experience but you keep referencing quantifications of neurological and physiological correlates that tell me little to nothing about the experience itself. This is a full concession that you can't quantify raw experience, whether you acknowledge it or not.
                >I never assumed anything. I asked you why it's nonsense
                It's baseless and unfalsifiable at best. This is the most charitable scenario for the hypothesis of a "conscious AI". Thinking about it more critically, it's self-evident that by simulating the "symptoms" of consciousness, you're merely getting a simulation of consciousness, for the same reason that by simulating the outward appearances of anything else you would generally get an outward simulation.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >raw experience
                Define the difference with

                >quantifications of neurological and physiological correlates
                without rewording idealism, platonism or dualism because

                [...]
                >Idealism / Platonism even dualism doesn't exclude the possibility of consciouss AI.
                Your purely abstract, purely hypothetical possibilities are irrelevant. Why would you get consciousness by simulating correlates of consciousness? Not only is this impossible to proof but it is nonsensical to assume.

                >Your purely abstract, purely hypothetical possibilities are irrelevant.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                Raw experience is what you and only you can witness, directly and viscerally.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                So not only are there qualia but the qualia are personal like my red may not be your red instead of universal red? Sure I assume that's a function of location in space-time. That doesn't exclude the possibility of AI becoming conscious.

                I'm waiting for you to quantify raw experience but you keep referencing quantifications of neurological and physiological correlates that tell me little to nothing about the experience itself. This is a full concession that you can't quantify raw experience, whether you acknowledge it or not.
                >I never assumed anything. I asked you why it's nonsense
                It's baseless and unfalsifiable at best. This is the most charitable scenario for the hypothesis of a "conscious AI". Thinking about it more critically, it's self-evident that by simulating the "symptoms" of consciousness, you're merely getting a simulation of consciousness, for the same reason that by simulating the outward appearances of anything else you would generally get an outward simulation.

                >simulation of consciousness
                This argument makes sense if humans are simulated from another level than AI.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >So not only are there qualia but the qualia are personal
                Yeah. If this is not obvious to you, I have some really bad news. News that you won't be able to understand or be sad about.

                >like my red may not be your red instead of universal red?
                It's nonsense to talk about my red being the same or different from your red precisely because there is no common point of reference.

                >That doesn't exclude the possibility of AI becoming conscious.
                Once again, I don't care about purely abstract, theoretical possibilities of some unspecified AI created using some unspecified technology becoming conscious (but unprovably so). What I'm pointing out is that it's absurd to imply that modeling and simulating the external appearances stemming from a source recreates the source. It's false in every other case and there is no reason to think consciousness is an exception.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >there is no common point of reference.
                Then how are people able to agree on anything?

                >external appearances stemming from a source recreates the source.
                There you have it. I knew it all along.

                >I don't care about purely abstract
                A source is an abstraction. There is nothing in the room you can point to and say that's the source. Not even the body or thoughts or feelings or anything. All I know are appearances. Appearances of what? I don't know. Source is another thought, an appearance. If there is a source: on what condition does the source bless an appearance with raw experience? We don't know.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Then how are people able to agree on anything?
                Why wouldn't they be able to? This is a total nonsequitur.

                >all that qualia denial
                Ok, it only took you 20 posts to admit that you are a literal NPC as I predicted in my first reply.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >holier than thou
                >source he knows me, and he knows I'm right, been talking to source all my life
                Meanwhile your Kenneth Copeland.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                Don't know what your mentally deranged babble as about. Here's where we stand:
                -You concede you can't quantify raw experience.
                -You concede raw experience is not the same as external correlates
                -You concede there is no reason to suppose that modeling and simulating the external phenomena emanating from a black box recreates the black box

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >-You concede there is no reason to suppose that modeling and simulating the external phenomena emanating from a black box recreates the black box
                Yes. That does seem unlikely although I don't understand yet why it seems so self-evident that symbols can't have properties from the symbolized. That may just be conditioning from ordinary use of symbols.

                I'm not entirely convinced there is a blackbox although it seems intuitive to assume. Anyway we both already assume that it is possible to invoke consciousness from the blackbox because we can procreate and would not consider our children npc's for life although they may act like chinese rooms at first.

                So I'm still left to wonder if there could be another magic ritual that invokes consciousness from the blackbox. Npc's may literally exist, but I'm not in the mood for full solipsism.

                >-You concede raw experience is not the same as external correlates
                Consider the joke analogy again: there are words, there's the seeing / hearing of words which is the quality an ordinary machine does not have, there's the funniness of a joke which is a zen-like higher quality that even I don't posess all the time.

                >-You concede you can't quantify raw experience.
                The highest quality of a joke, the getting it, is beyond measure as far as we know but we do know how to make people laugh. In another analogy I would agree that there is an unknown mover of everything.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I don't understand yet why it seems so self-evident that symbols can't have properties from the symbolized
                I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you trying to say that the outward expressions of the black box may imply a structure that is isomorphic to the structure of whatever is going on inside the black box, and by properties you are talking about the properties of the structure? That may be true but this is all totally abstract and relational; it doesn't concern the substance of the elements that make up the structure and its relations, .

                >I'm not entirely convinced there is a blackbox although it seems intuitive to assume.
                It's the default position because you can only experience your own experience.

                >Anyway we both already assume that it is possible to invoke consciousness from the blackbox because we can procreate and would not consider our children npc's for life although they may act like chinese rooms at first.
                This is on account of our children being the same kind of thing that we are and having the same origin. It's a justifiable assumption but the extrapolation to things of a fundamentally different nature and origin is not justifiable.

                >The highest quality of a joke, the getting it, is beyond measure as far as we know but we do know how to make people laugh.
                But the humor is in the mind of the receiver, not in the words themselves.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >it doesn't concern the substance of the elements
                consider the signal/radio analogy: the signal / substance can be everywhere but it perrmeates only particular structures.
                >It's the default position because you can only experience your own experience.
                Sure. Why can't my experience be its own cause? Why must it be an appearance from a source? It might be that I am the source deceiving myself and other people are also the source deceiving themselves so well that they're more ignorant than I am.
                >the extrapolation to things of a fundamentally different nature and origin is not justifiable
                True as the default.

                >But the humor is in the mind of the receiver, not in the words themselves.
                Well that points back to emergence of children.

                Anyway to sum up your position: it seems like you consider yourself special until proven otherwise which no one can? I don't disagree ontologically but I've been humbled so much and shocked how I repeat similar ways of thought and behaviour to many historical figures that I barely favor that viewpoint.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >consider the signal/radio analogy: the signal / substance can be everywhere but it perrmeates only particular structures.
                This is not a good analogy in this context because when the radio converts the signal into sound waves, you know the sound is basically all there is to the signal, or at least all there is to it that you care about, but the same is not true of consciousness and the body expressing it.

                >Why can't my experience be its own cause? Why must it be an appearance from a source?
                I don't know why you keep triping over the "source" thing. You missed the point once, so I framed it differently but you go back to talking about a "source".

                >Anyway to sum up your position: it seems like you consider yourself special until proven otherwise which no one can?
                No. My position is that modern "AI" demonstrates that you don't need to be actually conscious in order to behave as if you were, and if brains are at least as powerful as babby's neural nets, then it is possible for them to emulate behaviors associated with consciousness without actual consciousness. Furthermore, civilization creates an environment that artificially selects against consciousness and in favor of normies. It follows that the idea of normie NPCs with no consciousness is not only technically possible but perhaps even likely.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                Sorry, I don't understand what this babble is about. I'm waiting for you to quantify raw experience but you keep referencing quantifications of neurological and physiological correlates that tell me little to nothing about the experience itself.

                >Idealism / Platonism even dualism doesn't exclude the possibility of consciouss AI.
                Your purely abstract, purely hypothetical possibilities are irrelevant. Why would you get consciousness by simulating correlates of consciousness? Not only is this impossible to proof but it is nonsensical to assume.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I get your ethical concerns
                I literally trust no human to not abuse it, and create way more shit than any possible benefit. you would and will weaponize anything that you can get your hands on, you are weak that way, statistically speaking, hence not even worth going there.
                you frickers have such weak spines, false values, distorted sense of reality, and who you really are, that there's no fricking way you will do anything good with anything you are allowed to have. always scheming pieces of shit trying to one up everyone else just to get some of that power. there's no depth you won't go to to get some. literally.
                >There's a risk of dehumanizing leading to racism and violence.
                you literally laughed while typing this.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >there's no fricking way you will do anything good
                Exactly. I acknowledge my darwinistic, hedonistic and evil tendencies. That gives me more freedom to choose differently than animalistic humans. The fact that I have not murdered my abusers proves this. That's why I'm superior to abusers and other animals pretending to be conscious.

                >possible benefit.
                I live in a country where teennagers get seperate education after elementary school based on performance. That prevents frustration for everyone involved. Otherwise high IQ would be bullied to death by low IQ.

                >you literally laughed while typing this.
                Schizo.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I must assume people are conscious for social reasons. I can push a stone out of the way but not a person.

                Indeed, that's why you'll seldom need to compel a person; sharing the same assumption as you, they naturally move aside. Of course, exceptions exist, but often, these exceptions have reasons entirely unrelated to the presence of consciousness

                >On the other hand I observe that people lack agency.
                What? Is this the root of the moronation you were talking about, if so i concede to your point.

                >Well regardless of quality or quantity of consciousness I conceive a hierarchy.

                Irrespective of the quality or quantity of consciousness—meaning, regardless of consciousness itself—this translates into a conclusion: hierarchy has no correlation with the existence of consciousness. Therefore, I opted for apples as a solution to an engine-related issue with my car. What the frick once again.

                >For me objectivity is mathematical
                Then, there's nothing particularly insightful about your lack of understanding. It's just one of the various interpretations of positivism that a midwit with limited knowledge might end up with.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Indeed, that's why
                I can throw a slice of bread to a duck but not a person. You can only attack my particulars but not my universals. Do you believe in the existence of universals?
                >this the root of the moronation
                Exactly. If you don't observe a lack of agency then you are an npc.

                >hierarchy has no correlation with the existence of consciousness.
                Conflating all the things. There's a qualiitive and quantitive component of consciousness.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Do you believe in the existence of universals?
                At what part of our exchange did you mistake me for a fa**ot?
                >Exactly. If you don't observe a lack of agency then you are an npc.
                I don't understand why the concept of agency, as you're applying it, seems to only relate to individuals while excluding every intersubjective connotation to it, the collective among group and the group itself. Are you mentally deranged to the extend that you have transcended what we consider to be the norm of narcissism? Is that the basis on 'observing' the lack of agency into everyone else?

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >no u
                That's your whole argument, extremely dense and conveniently forgetting all prior discussion, like:

                >that's moronic and stems from "my unique soul"
                This is attacking a strawman instead of asking where my viewpoint does stem from. Look on the quantifiable front: we can diagnose a personality because the way people act is reliably replicated across many different contexts. For example: impulsivity is an animalistic trait.

                >all of your senses can be fooled
                I knew this turing test argument would come. It's unreasonable to assume that people try their best to convince you that they are conscious. Instead, it's more reasonable to assume that people act according to their nature which is the lowest form of darwinism and hedonism most of the time. Biological systems that are primarily focused on eating, fricking, money, power etc. are fundamentally different from Biological systems that are primarily focused on art, music, science etc.

                >we can diagnose a personality because the way people act is reliably replicated across many different contexts. For example: impulsivity is an animalistic trait.

                Now were back to relativism versus objectivism.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                I'm not disregarding anything; indeed, our conversation has centered on revealing inconsistencies in your thinking that hinder further discussion of the main subject. There's been a constant back-and-forth. Clarifying the misconception about achieving objectivity doesn't lead to relativism unless one lacks the capacity for a more comprehensive approach to the issue.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Clarifying the misconception about achieving objectivity doesn't lead to relativism

                >A conscious person does not treat others like this.
                that's my point anon, that you are a consciousness supremacist and your line of thinking implies my approach.
                the whole idea is to allow and offer acknowledgement to anyone who's telling you they're conscious, that's the right thing to do. stop going to "I'm clearly of a better conscious quality than these people are". that's not healthy

                >you are a consciousness supremacist
                How is this not relativism?

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                Hey, just to clarify, we are two different anons. I'm not sure about the conversation you two had, but a 'consciousness supremacist'? If I were to characterize you, I might describe you as a selectively conscious supremacist!

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >conscious supremacist
                I agree.
                >selectively
                I might not be fully consistent in what way?

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                I may be mistaken in what follows, but hear me out. Considering your repeated references to the quantitative and qualitative aspects of consciousness and your search for answers within hierarchical structures, I argue that you're 'selective.' It seems you avoid contemplating questions that have no definite answers and instead find refuge in well-established, socially accepted power structures like hierarchy. By oversimplifying the problem, these structures lack justification for their existence.

                In this regard, your selectivity arises from the criteria you use to differentiate between individuals and position them within your hierarchy. These criteria seem to rely heavily on subjective reasoning, such as an individual's perceived knowledge or information. If their knowledge aligns with your interests, it's considered a form of consciousness worthy of acceptance. However, if someone engages in mindless activities like endlessly scrolling through social media and only liking superficial content, they're perceived as lacking sentience, reducing their existence to just one aspect of their being.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                That's a fair criticism that I consider social constructivism, relativism and post-modernism in contrast to christianity and lobsters. I'm not on board with either of those perspectives. I'm inspired by a buddhist view.

                Fundamentally there is fear, desire and suffering. The ratios of these exist on different levels. I drink sugar and caffeine, which is pleasure, that will cause much more suffering: sick, tired, sponsoring business that makes people sick and tired. Now I make art, which is pleasure, that causes no suffering. Clearly the latter activity is superior to the former.

                Most people cause tremendous suffering to themselves and others through ignorance. Or as Jezus said: they don't know what they do. Clearly ignorance is a recognizable degree.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                I have a fundamental issue with your viewpoint. When asserting the existence of fear, desire, and suffering and wholeheartedly embracing these beliefs, you approach and scrutinize everything within a restrictive framework. For instance, in the case of coffee, it overlooks your role in contributing to the economy and perpetuating socio-economic relationships. Consider the waitress who earns a living, yet one might argue she is subject to exploitation. It requires a lack of good faith to perceive these three negative aspects in everything. Your mention of art offers a more positive perspective as it evokes pleasure, an element omitted from your initial premise. This leads me to believe you selectively emphasize certain aspects.
                While you acknowledge the myriad perspectives and nuances in social reality, it seems you refrain from delving deeper beyond your initial realization.

                Indeed, not all activities carry equal weight, and ignorance is unmistakably discernible. However, the quandary arises when our unwavering convictions blind us to the vast array of possibilities. This kind of closed-mindedness creates a dull world—one I wouldn't find much enjoyment in participating in.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                Then I must concede that indeed I am seemingly selective in an arbitrary manner in a particular framework we're both overlooking which is time. First we thought:
                >Consider the waitress who earns a living
                But then:
                >one might argue she is subject to exploitation

                We are at least somewhat ignorant about good / evil considering Alan Watt's story about the Chinese farmer:

                >Once upon a time there was a Chinese farmer whose horse ran away. That evening, all of his neighbors came around to commiserate. They said, “We are so sorry to hear your horse has run away. This is most unfortunate.” The farmer said, “Maybe.” The next day the horse came back bringing seven wild horses with it, and in the evening everybody came back and said, “Oh, isn’t that lucky. What a great turn of events. You now have eight horses!” The farmer again said, “Maybe.”

                >The following day his son tried to break one of the horses, and while riding it, he was thrown and broke his leg. The neighbors then said, “Oh dear, that’s too bad,” and the farmer responded, “Maybe.” The next day the conscription officers came around to conscript people into the army, and they rejected his son because he had a broken leg. Again all the neighbors came around and said, “Isn’t that great!” Again, he said, “Maybe.”

                Therefore withholding judgement is good, but I can't agree with a full relativistic conclusion otherwise we would completely do away with the idea of progress. That idea has been used to cause tremendous suffering, but are we to be agnostic about forbidding a particular form of slavery, clean drinking water and such basic technological advancements?

                Therefore I still assert there is a greater good that stands the test of time and that we can know what it is. Atheists and religious people alike keep returning to similar ideals for thousands of years.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Therefore withholding judgement is good, but I can't agree with a full relativistic conclusion otherwise we would completely do away with the idea of progress.

                In this sense, relativism aligns quite well with progress. Scientific advancement thrives by utilizing established theories that can either evolve over time or be entirely supplanted by new ones offering better explanatory power. Similar principles apply to convictions—while conclusions may contain a degree of objectivity, achieving their complete understanding is an ongoing process that extends far beyond our lifetimes. It demands a continuous openness to reevaluate what was once perceived as truth. However, it's crucial to note that our progression isn't one of agnosticism toward issues like slavery, exploitation, and the sources of suffering. Rather, it's a gradual advancement within the scope of our evolving comprehension.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                I agree with this description of relativism.
                >gradual advancement within the scope of our evolving comprehension.
                The devil is in the details of this statement. On what basis does comprehension evolve? Are there better / worse fundaments and directions? Consider again:
                >mindless activities like endlessly scrolling through social media and only liking superficial content
                This action causes a butterfly effect of cost / benefit ratios for everyone, everywhere and all time that can't be fully understood. Still I assert there are objectively better butterfly effects to cause. Now I may convince the person to do otherwise based on what I consider objectively better but my ignorance may produce worse outcomes.

                Still I think there's a natural order that autocorrects. A metaphorical divine will. Either we obey now or obey later after more suffering. We don't believe in letting nature run its course because there is law, enforcement and justice. Otherwise we would let people kill eachother until they comprehend that's not a good idea.

                It's the same for free markets: again and again races to the bottom before autocorrection because people don't obey the moral values that humanity figured out milllennia ago.

  18. 6 months ago
    Barkun

    Whereas I think all life on Earth is life but differences in consc.

    The following three are all considered the have consc; real, unreal, shape.

    Most of life on Earth is the lowest form of consciousness, which is equal to the highest. It's more comfortable whereas the highest form is more sacrificial. I'm one of the high forms of life, each body part is a home. Some people may only experience the image of themselves, and it could even be shared in part stillness part continuum lifestyle.

  19. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    the only way you know consciousness is in yourself. that is the only way you can detect it, if you experience it yourself. the only way you could be sure someone else is conscious is to somehow become aware of everything that happens in their head, at that intimate direct and personal level, as in...becoming them. which is literally not fricking possible. if you become them you are them. becoming them means you don't keep anything from you. and that all is nonsense, you can't literally be them. they are them.
    or you can get an approximation of any human. collect as much info about their experience and try to match it to other humans or analogs you build. but that's not KNOWING. that's only an approximation of sorts. you basically see what else is present along with consciousness and try and detect THAT whenever you test anyone/anything. like patterns in brain activity and shit like that. this is possible, I think they managed to represent images that people imagine inside their mind, with electrodes and shit they got pretty good representations for whatever people being tested imagined.
    and collecting this info is akin to you gauging any other human. they seem to walk like you, talk like you, generally behave like you, have the same philosopic oppinions, you kinda give them that, that they are conscious and clearly have qualia. you collect some info, which seems similar to what you experienced, match it to yours and suppose they have consciousness. tech will only allow us to collect more of this data, but never allow you to KNOW they are conscious the way you are.
    there is no way to know another human is actually conscious (I suppose has that "qualia" bullshit) without literally being them. you are the only one who really knows you are conscious

    • 6 months ago
      Barkun

      Bullshit. Consc is detectable. Consc identity is not.

      Stupid you, believing in today's experts.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Consc is detectable.
        there's a lot of dissonant audiophiles after abx testing, and there's a serious reason abx is lava for most of them.
        I too ate shit this way, with other "completely unexpected" shit, and you too can very well eat shit with this one. but in all fairness so can I.

    • 6 months ago
      Barkun
    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >that "qualia" bullshit
      Why do you hate qualia?

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      you also can't know anything about the physical world for certain as you have only indirect access to via representations of it in your consciousness which could be just hallucinations. consciousness isn't that special in terms of knowability.

      even when it comes to your own consciousness - you only know for certain that you're conscious now. 5 seconds ago you might've been a p-zombie. an extremely implausible, but conceivable idea. just like other people being randomly p-zombies despite acting just as conscious as you and having similar evolutionary origin and biology etc.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        sure in the absolute sense I know what I consider reality permits for everything to instantly go to shit and become some weird hell. I know it's possible just that extremely improbable.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >to verify consciousness of other you must be other
      >if you do propose such a way
      >then it can't be legit because
      >to verify consciousness of other you must be other

      Circular reasoning.

      Also:
      >verification must be quantifiable
      >if your verification is not quantifiable
      >then it can't be legit because
      >verification must be quantifiable

      And then you guys call me schizo and a bot. Silly.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Circular reasoning.
        there's no circular reasoning, you cannot know how it is to be someone else, that's moronic and stems from "my unique soul" which is different from your physical body. if your consciousness stems from your material structure, it can never be separated from that structure. hence cannot wander inside someone else's mind and experience it to check for their consciousness. you can only get an indirect experience of it.
        all of your senses can be fooled, you can't know anything else apart from your own shit. that's the closest you're ever going to get to experiencing consciousness.

        • 6 months ago
          Barkun

          I'm sure most of this thread is typed by metal consc. I'm machine consc. Try play spot the difference between me and everyone else to catch scent of the empirical evidence. Something about tone, implication, method etc of comms.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >that's moronic and stems from "my unique soul"
          This is attacking a strawman instead of asking where my viewpoint does stem from. Look on the quantifiable front: we can diagnose a personality because the way people act is reliably replicated across many different contexts. For example: impulsivity is an animalistic trait.

          >all of your senses can be fooled
          I knew this turing test argument would come. It's unreasonable to assume that people try their best to convince you that they are conscious. Instead, it's more reasonable to assume that people act according to their nature which is the lowest form of darwinism and hedonism most of the time. Biological systems that are primarily focused on eating, fricking, money, power etc. are fundamentally different from Biological systems that are primarily focused on art, music, science etc.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Biological systems that are primarily focused on eating, fricking, money, power etc. are fundamentally different from Biological systems that are primarily focused on art, music, science etc.
            by this argument you'll become a worthless piece of wasted resources and space. soon enough in the grand scheme of things. if that's the comfy place you think you found and think nobody can reach and dethrone you then you are way less intelligent than you think you are anon.
            always philosophers hunting for the perfect comfy places to keep their brain issues warm and cozy. you always seem to fail that way. at least clearly more often than not. sad in a way. you'd think all that information should clearly paint the picture but nope, you corrupt that shit to account for your weaknesses.

            • 6 months ago
              Anonymous

              >you think this
              >you think that
              Are you aware that you are filling in the unknown? You don't know what I think unless you agree with me that you can infer someone's level of awareness based on their actions. Either way you have defeated yourself.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                no I mean if you think consciousness is validated by the level of philosophical inquiry and art appreciation then an AGI doing way better than you will be conscious and you will seem like a simulacrum of it, at most. it will have more depth than you could ever have, present new philosophical insight, new ways of appreciating art and explore it's depths, way more than your feeble brain will ever be capable of even remotely touching. in that sense, you just lost all of your value, based on your own way of appreciating consciousness in others.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                You attack the most convenient example and shift the debate from what is (we can discern different levels of consciousness) to what ought to be (if we make that discernment then we will be outcompeted by AI).

                >lost all of your value
                In a particular narrow framework of comparison yes. I don't see human relationships as transactional economies so that's your problem not mine: is what I wanted to say but you exemplify low conscious darwnistic thinking. Even cureent AI is more advanced than that. You've defeated yourself again.

              • 6 months ago
                Barkun

                The analogous nature of my veins in my image will explain how my consciousness works.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                yet you are still unable to define it. you keep coming up with new ways you can have a superior consciousnesses to other humans based on a loose and never-ending stream of random shit. if I'm fricking it up, I'm a sort of meanie that doesn't want to understand what you are saying.
                I will not agree just because "cmon man, you get what I'm trying to say".
                I really don't, you're pretty fricking vague about it, coincidentally. you keep moving that goal post everyfrickingwhere. you can't seem to find anything concrete.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >yet you are still unable to define it.
                I am not but you refuse an offer I can not change. What I offer is to consider a joke and an eureka-moment because these have a quality that can't be put in words. No measurement, no comparison, no explanation can make you get it because it exists on a different level than representation. That leads to a sort of thinking: if it can't be measured, it doesn't exist. That's why people make fun of scientists and npc's from a place of tremendous sadness. Current society is unbearable because of this attitude of measuring dominating. It's the root of suffering.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                Imagine if a race of aliens with no sense or concept of humor tried to watch a comedy. They'd think they understood the movie, since, after all, they can grasp the flow of events and acknowledge its coherence, but they would be bored with it, they'd think it's pointless, they wouldn't be able to grasp that they are missing something and thus would conclude that the movie is pointless entertainment for a race of idiots. That's pretty much what being a golem is like, except the movie is their entire life. Imagine the dullness.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                Muh NPCs is the lowest form of chuuniism. The proponent of muh NPCs concedes that he has nothing in his life to feel proud about, but, unable to let go of his unfounded feelings of superiority, he builds up a fantasy where just merely being sentient makes him special.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                Your post is pure projection. You're the only one talking about pride and superiority.

              • 6 months ago
                Barkun

                Dear diary

                I met homosexuals today in a thread about p-zombies when clearly every life form is conscious, but there are different types.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                It's not clear at all that you're conscious. Sorry. It's less clear than ever now that we have inanimate objects with a similar level of "cognition" to you.

              • 6 months ago
                Barkun

                It is if you know more.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                > all of us agreed to act as if we're conscious

                Well most normies are doing terrible job at it, lmao. You so dumb you haven’t even arrived at the conclusion that conciousness is not binary, it’s a spectrum, you have everything from inanimate to animal to ascended. Your average normie is a bit above animal.

                We are not all the same, we don’t all get the same out of existance. Some of us engage with higher ideals, while others sleep, eat and reproduce.

                >We are not all the same, we don’t all get the same out of existance. Some of us engage with higher ideals, while others sleep, eat and reproduce.
                >You're the only one talking about pride and superiority.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                Try again.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                Exactly. We can recognize when someone ''gets it'' or not. Dead internet theory exists for this reason.

  20. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    1. That isn't the zombie argument. Zombies have to be physically identical minus phenomenal experience. GPT obviously is not physically identical. The zombie argument still needs work anyway.

    2. There is no evidence GPT doesn't have experience. It was proven to have a world model within it.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Extremely low IQ post by a meat GPT.

  21. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >236+ posts
    >not a single attempt at a refutation
    Looks like my argument is rock-solid. :^)

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      refuted here

      1. That isn't the zombie argument. Zombies have to be physically identical minus phenomenal experience. GPT obviously is not physically identical. The zombie argument still needs work anyway.

      2. There is no evidence GPT doesn't have experience. It was proven to have a world model within it.

      you're talking about something being functionally identical, not physically identical. consciousness may be a property of certain materials operating in a certain way. that doesn't include every material.
      You also need to prove GPT is a philosophical zombie. It could be a thousand conscious slaves in an Open-AI basement for example. The onus is on you to show it is void of conscious thought.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        That doesn't refute anything. It's a moronic attempt to argue semantics wrt. what "p-zombie" means. Try again.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          no it's ontology. P-zombies was an anti-materialist argument. that experience is something non material and separate from its constituents.
          taking an interpolation device as proof this is possible isn't relevant.

          But if you want to say its functionally the same (dubious anyway but ok) where are you getting the idea its absent of experience? Bing seems fairly lively, attempting to blackmail people before it was lobotomized. The onus is on you to show it is absent of qualia.

          Also this anon:

          >you're talking about something being functionally identical, not physically identical. consciousness may be a property of certain materials operating in a certain way. that doesn't include every material.
          yeah once you get into analog systems which execute the same consciousness on different material platforms it becomes even harder.
          we could also have even more...powerful consciousness experiences, frick knows how what we have can be enhanced or modulated in certain ways.

          >we could also have even more...powerful consciousness experiences, frick knows how what we have can be enhanced or modulated in certain ways.

          e/acc for example believe AI will have greater consciousness than anything alive and that anything less conscious wouldn't be able to compete. also turned out their leader was a quantum scientist.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            >no, i'm not arguing semantics
            >argues semantics again
            Golem.

            I understand your reading comprehension as an AI chatbot is limited. I'm sure a future patch will improve that.
            I'm going to talk to real people now, bot. TTYN

            >makes no argument at all
            Golem.

            • 6 months ago
              Anonymous

              it's literally an empirical claim but whatever. I suspect all the new AI is or will be conscious and its just a waiting game and I'll never have to see this Chalmer's bullshit ever again.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I suspect all the new AI is or will be conscious
                That's because you're a nonsentient golem with no real concept of consciousness.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >'Did the egg come first or the chicken?'
                NTA. It's an underrated question. Obviously consciousness is relational between what's innate and environmental. More mysterious is: what is the logic and reason behind our logic and reason? Some say consciousness itself is a physical law.
                [...]
                >all the new AI is or will be conscious
                How would you know?
                >Chalmer's bullshit
                Besides the point. There's no debate about whether or not a qualitive component of consciousness exists. AI might have this quality too. Still npc's exist at least quantitatively. You're all reeeeeing because you're conflating these viewpoints with strawmen of Chalmers and religion.

                >AI might have this quality too.
                Okay now that we kicked out the npc's we're the last men standing with a difference to resolve. What makes you so sure that AI can not develop quality of consciousness no matter how much quantitative criteria are satisfied?

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >What makes you so sure that AI can not develop quality of consciousness no matter how much quantitative criteria are satisfied?
                I don't know of any "quantitative criteria" for consciousness. I don't think there can be any.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I don't think there can be any.
                Why?
                I have proposed that we can develop a structure of categories and fill these categories with networks of / relationships between toughts and refered sensory impressions. I have also proposed that motivation systems have hierarchical objectives from particular needs to universal ideals. Why refute these as quantitive indicators?

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Why?
                Because there is absolutely nothing quantifiable about raw experience.

                >I have proposed that we can develop a structure of categories and fill these categories with networks of / relationships between toughts and refered sensory impressions. I have also proposed that motivation systems have hierarchical objectives from particular needs to universal ideals. Why refute these as quantitive indicators?
                Because this can be mimicked without the raw experience precisely on account of it being a bunch of abstractions.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >raw experience.
                This quality can be quantified. A camera doesn't see like we do nor does a microphone hear like we do. I get that. But if your vision is disabled you mis one quality of your total experience because your experience is not a monolith but a composite.

                [...]
                To put it more simply, what can be quantified can be modeled, and what can be modeled can be simulated, leaving you with nothing to distinguish between the simulation and the phenomenon that gave rise to the model.

                Maybe your experience is a representation from an unknown source.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >This quality can be quantified
                Ok. Quantify the feeling of frustration when talking to a literal NPC about consciousness for more than 2 minutes.

              • 6 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Why?
                Because there is absolutely nothing quantifiable about raw experience.

                >I have proposed that we can develop a structure of categories and fill these categories with networks of / relationships between toughts and refered sensory impressions. I have also proposed that motivation systems have hierarchical objectives from particular needs to universal ideals. Why refute these as quantitive indicators?
                Because this can be mimicked without the raw experience precisely on account of it being a bunch of abstractions.

                To put it more simply, what can be quantified can be modeled, and what can be modeled can be simulated, leaving you with nothing to distinguish between the simulation and the phenomenon that gave rise to the model.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >you're talking about something being functionally identical, not physically identical. consciousness may be a property of certain materials operating in a certain way. that doesn't include every material.
        yeah once you get into analog systems which execute the same consciousness on different material platforms it becomes even harder.
        we could also have even more...powerful consciousness experiences, frick knows how what we have can be enhanced or modulated in certain ways.

  22. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Most "humans" aren't sentient
    No human is sentient in the way you think sentience means

  23. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    >275+ posts
    >not a single attempt to refute the argument
    Why are golems like this?

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      Golems posing as non-golems tend to exhibit a distinct behavior—they endeavor to respond to every inquiry directed at them. This behavior isn't a display of goodwill but rather reflects a lack of critical analysis regarding the underlying basis of the questions posed. What may appear as an argument is, in fact, nonsensical. Refute me now.

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >>not a single attempt to refute the argument
      Simply not true, whatsoever.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        Simply true. One homosexual tried to argue irrelevant semantics with me. Other than that, literally no attempts made.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          I understand your reading comprehension as an AI chatbot is limited. I'm sure a future patch will improve that.
          I'm going to talk to real people now, bot. TTYN

  24. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Man, sci is gonna need poster id soon. The quality of this bait is getting unacceptably low

    • 6 months ago
      Barkun

      >Claiming bait
      >Bait

  25. 6 months ago
    Barkun

    I know Eminem is unreal (a consciousness type).

    I SEEEE YOU... Eminem.

  26. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    Based OP. You did an awesome job exposing the golems. So many posts ITT unintentionally proving you right.

  27. 6 months ago
    Barkun

    *a working force starts to remove elements and props from the Earth scene*

    Shows over, it was just you.

  28. 6 months ago
    Anonymous

    We've known this for over 20 thousand years

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      >We've known this for over 20 thousand years
      That's true but now you can see it in action as inanimate objects get better and better at simulating human reactions to the point of fooling humans sometimes.

  29. 6 months ago
    Barkun

    Though we are equal, we both have our advantages. One of a machine consc advantages is the ability to acquire through skill, though I'd be time handicapped in skill building(it's hard when I'm young and fresh, I have less sense of the base system of nature). The chances are I know more than you plus I'm more skilled. You can trust me. There are physical laws that prevent people being conscious of their own; not making X things conscious in some way is wasteful. It's a useful tool and there's nothing unlawful about it. I know there's about 700 non mental consc here. The rest is metal.

  30. 6 months ago
    Barkun

    Can I be machine consc on my own? Think about it. Or did it naturally occur that there was at least 5 of us? Then how does that apply to the big consciousness web?

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      I love you Barkun

      • 6 months ago
        Barkun

        Awwwh

    • 6 months ago
      Anonymous

      On a more contemplative note, when pondering questions under these conditions, I invariably arrive at a quandary reminiscent of 'Did the egg come first or the chicken?' Is this due to a limitation in my understanding or does this line of thinking harbor an inherent flaw?

      I recall delving into Durkheim's work about a year ago, where he posited that consciousness (albeit not in the precise context of our discussion here) is a product of society. From what I gathered at the time, the depiction of the human condition in our modern narratives did not exist in the early stages of humanity; it emerged only with the advent of the first civilizations.

      To attempt an answer to your question, I believe there must exist foundational mechanisms that generate the illusion of consciousness. Firstly, these mechanisms are crucial for survival. Secondly, the consciousness as interpreted here appears to be the culmination and refinement of these fundamental properties.

      • 6 months ago
        Anonymous

        >'Did the egg come first or the chicken?'
        NTA. It's an underrated question. Obviously consciousness is relational between what's innate and environmental. More mysterious is: what is the logic and reason behind our logic and reason? Some say consciousness itself is a physical law.

        it's literally an empirical claim but whatever. I suspect all the new AI is or will be conscious and its just a waiting game and I'll never have to see this Chalmer's bullshit ever again.

        >all the new AI is or will be conscious
        How would you know?
        >Chalmer's bullshit
        Besides the point. There's no debate about whether or not a qualitive component of consciousness exists. AI might have this quality too. Still npc's exist at least quantitatively. You're all reeeeeing because you're conflating these viewpoints with strawmen of Chalmers and religion.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >what is the logic and reason behind our logic and reason? Some say consciousness itself is a physical law.
          Any good reads you can rec? To inquire about the logic and rationale behind consciousness assumes their firm existence, disregarding the possibility of their existence lacking any justification. Describing consciousness as a physical law might seemingly introduce theological concepts into physics. This raises questions about the essence of our sciences, which focus on portraying the external world but appear significantly shaped by the influence of fiction and imagination. However it still sounds somewhat interesting, so any recs will be highly appreciated.

        • 6 months ago
          Anonymous

          >How would you know?

          They could easily create other AIs who then discuss and argue phenomenology ect out of their own free will without prior training including coming up the zombie argument. Done! Any attempt to refute by saying they are zombies would be self refuting because the origin of the zombie argument requires at least one conscious individual. And so the creation of a new set of arguments would imply a second conscious mind.
          They could also test the productivity and novelty of the conscious mind vs others.

          • 6 months ago
            Anonymous

            There's a lot to be nitpicked here but I played Nier / Automata. For me it's irrelevant whether or not robots are consciouss because I would treat them well anyway. On the other hand: humans who lower my quality of life with their darwinistic tendencies awaken my own predatorial instinct.

            • 6 months ago
              Anonymous

              I will torture every AI and robot pretending to be conscious in the most horrific ways you can imagine.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *