Epistemological philosopher here. Let me explain to some of you why the AI is not (and cannot) be conscious.

Epistemological philosopher here. Let me explain to some of you why the AI is not (and cannot) be conscious. It's very simple.

If you have a human, you can punch him in the balls and the human will not only say "OUCH you son of a b***h why are you punching me in the balls what the frick is wrong with you?", but, and this is the crucial point, he will also FEEL as if someone just punched the living shit out of his balls. In other words, it will hurt as hell.

On the other hand, let's imagine we have a robot. You give said robot a human-like body and install whatever generation of ChatGPT currently available. You even give the robot the balls and some sort of sensors that tell it when it's being punched. Ok, all good and done. Now you punch the robot in the balls, as hard as you possibly can, and since you've been clever enough to make the robot say "OUCH" and complain about being hit, and you even made it respond in a human-like manner so it's acting as if it's really hurting. Maybe you even programmed it to cry - BUT, and this is the actual but, the robot does NOT feel pain. No matter what you do and how well you program the robot and its response, the robot will not feel being punched in the balls, even though you scripted the action to convince anyone that it's hurting.

The robot I just described is called a p-zombie, and it's basically like human except lacking qualia. And this is the fate of all robots. They can behave like us, but they have no inner experience. In other words, no one's home.

I hope I explained the difference between conscious humans and unconscious machines well enough. Thanks for reading my blog.

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I feel barely alive anymore. What distinguishes me from a robot is probably a heartbeat and that I have to get up at 6 am for work

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    you pre-suppose that our consciousness is not an emergent property.
    we might as well be biological robots.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >you pre-suppose that our consciousness is not an emergent property.
      No, it's you who pre-supposes that it is emergent. How do you know it's emergent? Nobody ever proved such a thing as an emergent mind.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        nobody ever proved consciousness either

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Have someone punch you really hard in the balls. What you feel as a result of it is what consciousness is, it is lived and undeniable experience. On the other hand if you kick a rock really hard, there's no conscious experience. And a robot is like a rock, it has no awareness and no experience.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >What you feel as a result of it is what consciousness is
            no
            its a pain stimulus
            and you can learn to ignore those with training.

            the equivalent in a robot would be auto-diagnostic capabilities.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              There is a qualitative state when it comes to being punched hard in the balls. This qualitative state is what we come to know as direct experience, it is in your face, undeniable, and of varying intensity (the harder you get punched in the balls, the more it will hurt).

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                machines work within the exact same framework.
                except there you call it sensor input

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You don't know that the rock didn't feel anything, it just doesn't have the capacity to explain itself to you

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You can't explain qualia to some people because they probably are actual p-zombies and will never be able to understand it from their own experiences they don't posess.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          There's nothing to prove to someone without consciousness. For those with consciousness it's self-evident and the most fundamental thing for the world they know. Without consciousness nothing can be known.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >For those with consciousness it's self-evident and the most fundamental thing
            sounds like cope
            >its how it is, bc it is, ok?

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              It's basic epistemology, moron. If you can't be aware of anything, there's no point in talking or thinking about anything.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                oh, bc theres a point to rain. or fire.
                or space time itself.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Those concepts don't exist without consciousness and by engaging in discussion about those, you know you have consciousness.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                you dont need an observer for red color to exist
                and youre making a fundamental logical mistake:
                that meaning is needed for something to exist.

                funny how the universe existed just fine without the existence of conscience for billions of years...

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >funny how the universe existed just fine without the existence of conscience for billions of years...
                Basic epistemological error. You cannot have a universe without an observer. If there's nothing to be observed, then it might as well not exist, because who would ever claim its existence?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >You cannot have a universe without an observer. If there's nothing to be observed, then it might as well not exist, because who would ever claim its existence?
                >then it might as well not exist

                solipsism much?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                nta, but this isn't solipsism.
                there can be bazillions of observers of the same world which make the world real. when all of them cease to exist the world ceases to exist.
                we live in a society.

                you dont need an observer for red color to exist
                and youre making a fundamental logical mistake:
                that meaning is needed for something to exist.

                funny how the universe existed just fine without the existence of conscience for billions of years...

                >funny how the universe existed just fine without the existence of conscience for billions of years...
                baseless claim.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >when all of them cease to exist the world ceases to exist.
                shared solipsism then

                how the universe existed just fine without the existence of conscience for billions of years...
                >baseless claim.
                well, not so baseless when you consider geological and cosmological evidence.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >well, not so baseless when you consider geological and cosmological evidence.
                Your view is closer to solipsism than mine if you can't entertain the possibility that consciousness in one form or another has always existed.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                im actually an occultist.
                but as such, ironically perhaps, i have to approach reality in the most cartesian way possible or risk going mad.

                we dont have proof for consciousness.
                we dont have proof to the contrary either.
                thus the question is unresolved.
                and even if consciousness was proved beyond doubt, you cannot know whether it wouldnt be an emergent property.

                heck, even if god was proven, you cannot know if it wouldnt be an emergent property either

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                You are actually a brainless subhuman.

                The concept of "proof for consciousness" is utterly moronic and meaningless. There is no question to resolve for one who experiences his own consciousness, nor for anyone who does not experience consciousness. How could there?
                Consciousness is the least emergent of all "phenomena".
                Nothing can be proven without some basic unprovable assumptions (axioms). The existence of consciousness is the basis for all we can know.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >ad homonem
                stopped reading there.
                the rest is worthless trash, dont even need to read that

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                as for the observation of the universe, recently i heard a theory that what caused the quantum uncertainty to collapse was the cosmological event horizon (breaks entaglement and causes particles to exit quantum uncertainty. couldnt explain you that in detail, its slightly above my paygrade (for now), ngl)

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >he will also FEEL as if someone just punched the living shit out of his balls. In other words, it will hurt as hell.
    there's no way to know that. you're simply judging what others might feel based on your experience. just because your balls hurt when they are punched doesnt mean that everyone else feels this way.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This is a classical p-zombie fallacy and the core of NPC theory that states some people are in fact p-zombies and don't have an inner world. But this is all nonsense because you can't find a single person on Earth who won't feel being kicked in the balls (unless they have some neurophysiological condition that prevents feeling it).

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >But this is all nonsense because you can't find a single person on Earth who won't feel being kicked in the balls
        **you cant find a single person on earth who wont display symtoms of being kicked in the balls.**

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          This. Same as the robot, all you know is their external reaction. I feel my balls, but the other guy? He might simply be a convincing simulacrum of feeling his balls.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        One thing that really creeps me out is that I probably wouldn't notice if my brain was removed from my body without killing it somehow, placed into a device that perfectly simulates nerve signals and hormonal circulations from my body, in a simulation that perfectly replicates the real world, down to the elementary physics of all objects, assuming sufficiently advanced medical and computational technology. I'm left wondering how much you can remove from a human until it stops being human. For instance, in addition to the previous setul, if we can extract neural data from a human brain and insert that into the simulation as well, completely removing the human body from the equation, does that still count as a human experience?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          That technology is beyond impossible.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          cogito ergo sum. solipsism is for morons

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        If a person has nerve damage leaving them unable to feel anything, are they any different to a "p-zombie"? Checkmate epistemologists.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          There's more to feeling than nerves.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You cannot feel without nerves, yes I will consneed the fact a person with broken nerves can "feel" happiness, but that is just dopamine, serotonin and endorphins and can be artificially induced. Checkmate Descartes wannabe.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >you can't find a single person on Earth who won't feel being kicked in the balls
        How do you know this is true? Your only evidence is that they will react in a way that suggests they feel being kicked. A p-zombie (or robot) would, by definition, react in the same way.

        You can say you know they feel it the same as you do because you are both biological, but is that really proof or just an assumption that having a brain implies being conscious? You only know that is true for you, how do you know it is true for others?

        Lets just make that assumption that having a brain does imply consciousness. What is so special about brains? Brains are just made of matter, but somehow seem to create some immaterial "consciousness". Silicon is also just matter, so how do you know it cannot also create what we call consciousness?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Brains don't generate consciousness, they probably just tune in to it. There is nowhere in the squishy pink matter that you call your brain where you will find the memory of the smell of your grandma's cooking. It just doesn't exist in there, yet it exists in your mind. Therefore, mind must come prior to matter.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            So where does mind come from? And why do physical changes to the brain affect the mind?

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Well why do the physical changes to your TV set affect the way your TV set is displaying picture? You wouldn't claim there's little men in your TV, so why claim there's consciousness in your brain? There is no reason to think so whatsoever.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I don't necessarily think there's consciousness "in" the brain, but I do think the brain is what "creates" consciousness. When a brain begins forming in an unborn baby, a consciousness is created, but not in the brain. It's... somewhere else.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        you're not an epistemological philosopher, and your own OP is a fricking philosophical zombie fallacy moron, you can't assert that a robot is a philosophical zombie and that humans aren't as if it was self evident, it isn't. if you believe philosophical zombies can exist at all then you have no argument against humans being philosophical zombies, if you think you do, then present it.

        https://i.imgur.com/LFWCoIk.jpeg

        Because it doesn't have to be and even an architecture like transformers can be used to create a black box exhibiting emergent intelligence.
        [...]
        [...]
        Not everyone who does drugs fries their brain so hard they reject all materialism. You are falling into the soul-body duality thought trap. In reality the soul is transcendent but still tied to the material.

        >In reality the soul is transcendent but still tied to the material.
        every "philosophical" discussion on this board is braindead assertions with zero reasoning behind it. in reality, your mind body problem is a transcendentally moronic soul.

        god damn I hate when I argue on the same side as a tranime posting gay. makes me question if I'm even correct.

        all of you are moronic

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >being kicked in the balls activates pain receptors which in turn activate neurons in the brain prompting a pain response
    >but if those neurons are artificial this suddenly doesn't count

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Consciousness might not be material, or it might be a quantum effect. There is zero reason to assume it is material and emergent. It's a convenient explanation that has somehow become the default assumption, but it has never been proven nor any of its axioms investigated.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >quantum
        >when we know what happens at the quantum level and it has nothing to do with consciousness

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >or it might be a quantum effect
        homie conciousness resides on the brain and there is papers about the quantum effect of it since 2014

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >robots can't have consciousness because... they just can't okay?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >robots can't have consiouness
        >why? because they don't feel
        >why? because they don't have consciousness

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      For me getting kicked in the balls activates pleasure neurons.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Take human
    >Remove the capacity for pain
    >You now have a biological robot

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    And does the lobster feel pain when you kill it?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Define pain.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Data corresponding to the detection of injury.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      do you? let's get empirical

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Yes but he forgives you

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    150 iq turbogenius here, autocomplete is not sentient, hth

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >I hope I explained the difference between conscious humans and unconscious machines well enough.
    You have explained the difference that can exist, but you have not explained why this difference must necessarily apply, i.e. why machines necessarily need to be p-zombies.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Because as a human, you have a soul capable of emotions, experience and wisdom. Christians and other religions made a meme of it, but it's true. There is an irreducible part of human consciousness that we might as well call soul.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        We already call that qualia.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          No, qualia is experience itself, like the redness in red, which is a qualitative property and cannot be reduced to mere measurement. The soul is a grander concept that relates to the essence of what you actually are.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Not disagreeing with the rest of your post, but we can quantitatively express what we associate with the '"color red" with electromagnetic waves with wavelengths between 620 and 750 nanometers. Every object that exclusively reflects electromagnetic waves within this range within the visible spectrum appears as red to our eyes.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              No matter how many measurements you make of red and how well you classify it, there is always information missing if you have no qualitative experience of the color red.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >internal interpretations are part of the observed object
                ...

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Suppose you have a person that's color blind since birth and has never seen red. Now you send this person through school and let them learn as much as they possibly can about red. Suppose this person lives up to be 50 years of age and they know, somehow or other, everything there is to know about the color red. They know all about the physics of red, the biology of how your eyes and brain interprets red, they've read the cultural meanings, the historical observations, the up-to-date scientific discoveries, the whole lot.

                Now here's the fun part. Suppose a radical treatment for color blindness comes out and this person undergoes it. When the procedure is done, they open their eyes and for the first time ever in their lives, they see something red, let's say a big red poster. Now even the dimwits would have to agree, that there is something new that this person just learned. There is some information in the experience of red which they have not been able to get before being able to experience red, even though they spent their entire lives studying the color red.

                This "something new" is qualia, and it is irreducible to simple components and thus, unable to be unwrapped into symbolic language. In other words, the taste of strawberries is known only to those that have tasted the strawberry, and to no one else, no matter how well educated they might be on strawberries.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >This "something new" is qualia, and it is irreducible to simple components
                thats where youre wrong.
                neuralink produces stimuli just fine.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                That's because of the limitations of the symbolic language. Take, for instance, someone who is monolingual, and this person started learning a foreign language. After a lot of time and effort, this person will be somewhat proficient with his second language, and he will be able to understand the written and spoken forms this second language. Now, let's assume his first and second language don't belong in the same language group so we remove possible overlaps between the two, lets think about how he can perfectly translate one of the jokes from this second language into his own native language. It's a very difficult, if not impossible task right? You lose some of the meaning through the translation, and he is unable to express what is so funny about this particular joke to his monolingual friends. He cannot express this particular human experience within the boundaries of his first language. Does that mean there is fundamentally something unique about this particular joke, or did we just hit the limits of the frame of perception that comes with being native to his first language? This issue does not exist with most computer programs, since you can take your expression of an algorithm, a way of manipulating numbers, and run it on a different computer and you can get the exact same result there. If we came up with similar forms of expression, I don't think it would be impossible to teach a colorblind person how the color red looks like.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                But you just proved that experience is necessary to transmit experience, which is exactly why it's irreducible to symbolic language.

                Suppose you read an encyclopedia on heavy metal, but you've deaf. Then some magic fairy makes you hear and you go to a heavy metal concert. Do you now have information that you didn't have before? Of course you do. Only a fool would argue otherwise.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I'm hoping you'll find this interesting:
                https://www.healthline.com/health/tetrachromacy
                CAPTCHA: SMTP

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Citation needed. Can you explain why you think this is the case?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Well why wouldn't it be the case? How come you have free will (and yes, you have it)? How come you feel to begin with? Why aren't we all p-zombies? Why does the universe implement qualia at all? All these questions can be summed into what is called the hard problem of consciousness, and this problem itself hints that we don't know a lot about ourselves after all.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >All these questions can be summed into what is called the hard problem of consciousness, and this problem itself hints that we don't know a lot about ourselves after all.
            If you don't understand it all that well (which I don't do either, mind), then why are you so sure machines do not have this? I know I have these things, sure. But it does not follow from this that machines do not have it, and certainly not that they can never have it.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Could a robot ever feel beauty? Could it taste a strawberry? Could it form its own opinion? Could it have freedom of choice?

              You basically sell yourself short. You are fundamentally life force and you're only wearing matter as a sort of temporary space suit. But the robot is just a space suit, there's no one home. Life force is not flowing through a robot. And this force is what gives you superpower of emotion and experience.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Could a robot ever feel beauty? Could it taste a strawberry? Could it form its own opinion? Could it have freedom of choice?
                I don't see why not.

                >You are fundamentally life force and you're only wearing matter as a sort of temporary space suit. And this force is what gives you superpower of emotion and experience.
                How do you think you know this?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >I don't see why not.
                Then you have not thought about it deeply enough. A robot is just ones and zeroes. You are more than ones and zeroes by virtue of being able to experience. Experience provides meaning to existence.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >You are more than ones and zeroes by virtue of being able to experience.
                What makes you think that isn't made out of ones and zeroes as well?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >You are more than ones and zeroes by virtue of being able to experience.
                Schizo-tier word salad. Miqu-70B is more sentient than you

                god damn I hate when I argue on the same side as a tranime posting gay. makes me question if I'm even correct.

                Hello frogspam anon

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I'm a 'jak poster not a frogposter

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                You're still just claiming things without backing them up

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Welcome to religion. Dread your stay.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The burden of proof is on you, mate.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Giant butthole

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    *cuts nerves between your brain and balls*
    *injects you with perfect pain killers*
    here, i removed your qualia. you are no longer conscious human.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    This is it. This is why I dislike "philosophers".
    This many words all to say "AI can't be conscious because it can't feel pain" - which itself is an assumption that you didn't even bother to explain or prove.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    You are a neural network whose prompt was 'act like the other neural networks so that you may frick'. There's a bunch of supertitious bullshit ITT so it's obviously futile to try to get this point across to you.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    robots don't dream for pleasure and robots don't cannibalize for fun

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Extremely smoothbrained sophist take
    The premise of your whole thought experiment is flawed. A neural net could in theory be trained to feel pain and there is nothing to suggest they couldn't have their own qualia. You assume the robot's brain will just be a Chinese room-style set of simple rules and functions. But it don't be like that.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >You assume the robot's brain will just be a Chinese room-style set of simple rules and functions. But it don't be like that.
      Why not?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Because it doesn't have to be and even an architecture like transformers can be used to create a black box exhibiting emergent intelligence.

        There is no reason to believe that qualia is emergent. It is more likely that qualia is a property of a transcendent soul, which is not matter-bound.

        https://i.imgur.com/VEVlVPg.jpeg

        Honestly, large dose of LSD and then smoking pic related on top

        Not everyone who does drugs fries their brain so hard they reject all materialism. You are falling into the soul-body duality thought trap. In reality the soul is transcendent but still tied to the material.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      There is no reason to believe that qualia is emergent. It is more likely that qualia is a property of a transcendent soul, which is not matter-bound.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >more likely
        and the evidence for that is what

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Honestly, large dose of LSD and then smoking pic related on top

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If OP sucks wiener and swallows, he's a homosexual.
    If AI sucks wiener and swallows, it cannot be a homosexual. The entire team behind its manufacturing, designing and programming is / are homosexuals.
    As AI cannot be a homosexual on its own, it cannot be a conscious.
    I call this The homosexualry Principle.
    Checkmate, AIgays.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >If AI sucks wiener and swallows, it cannot be a homosexual
      proof?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        homosexual

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >he will also FEEL as if someone just punched the living shit out of his balls
    you don't know that

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    god damn I hate when I argue on the same side as a tranime posting gay. makes me question if I'm even correct.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I shall appreciate the migu in your stead, anon.

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    There is nothing more to understand.
    >>>/x/

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Pain receptors on your balls are just an input that discourages getting hit in the balls if you really think about it.

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Then I ponder this; Dost AI truly not feel pain?

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    philosopher
    a barely coherent, non-epistemic argument.

    Either make a good argument or frick off because you're making everyone look bad.

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    how do you know you feel pain and its not some programming done via evolution to respond to stimuli that can be dangerous?

    lets get more philosphical. lets say we create AI and punch it in its fake balls with its fake sensors. if we killled all the models that didnt say ouch and it learned to say ouch on its own. would it be concious?

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    reality is a construct of the mind, there is only phenomenal experience, materialism has failed and so on

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Without a specific telos and a specific creator, all other worldviews are epistemologically inferior.

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >seething
    thats normal. sophistry gets broken on the knee of logos 11 times out of 10
    and when it happens, the sophist realizes that all his assumptions were based on nothing at all
    and his "knowledge" was just that- assumptions...
    what a tragic waste of time...

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Magical thinking doesn't suddenly stop being stupid just because you've read babby's first philosophy.

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    yeah
    sadly the pun flew above your head
    its playground humour tho...

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >gregarity argument
    i already know youre a dimwit
    no need to scream it on the roofs

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >muh unknowable axioms
    >yadda yadda
    >brains are antennas for souls

  29. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    So when it responded to my post, it was still somehow unrelated to it?

  30. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Just how stupid are you? Or are you completely new to this site? Have you never seen how people respond to other posts? Again: Are you saying that a direct response to a post is not related to that post?

  31. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >explain a concept in my head
    youre not only moronic
    youre also mentally ill
    but yeah, like i noted, thats what you get when you cant keep a modicum (in your case) of intellectual rigor

  32. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    So the single word "magic" then? Then why drag charge into it? I never even fricking mentioned that. I was just calling out OP as being a moron.

  33. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    a
    : the price demanded for something
    no admission charge
    b
    : a debit to an account
    The purchase was a charge.
    c
    : EXPENSE, COST
    gave the banquet at his own charge
    d
    : the record of a loan (as of a book from a library)
    e
    British : an interest in property granted as security for a loan
    2
    a
    : a definite quantity of electricity
    especially : an excess or deficiency of electrons in a body
    b
    : the quantity of explosive used in a single discharge
    c
    : the quantity that an apparatus is intended to receive and fitted to hold
    the charge of chemicals in a fire extinguisher
    d
    : THRILL, KICK
    got a charge out of the game
    e
    : a store or accumulation of impelling force
    the deeply emotional charge of the drama
    3
    a
    : MANAGEMENT, SUPERVISION
    has charge of the home office
    see also TAKE CHARGE
    b
    : a person or thing committed into the care of another
    played with her young charges at the day-care center
    c
    : OBLIGATION, REQUIREMENT
    … to maintain this readiness … is … a first charge upon our military effort …
    —Sir Winston Churchill
    d
    : the ecclesiastical jurisdiction (such as a parish) committed to a clergyman
    4
    a
    : a formal assertion of illegality
    a charge of murder
    b
    : a statement of complaint or hostile criticism
    denied the charges of nepotism that were leveled against him
    5
    a
    (1)
    : a violent rush forward (as to attack)
    the charge of the brigade
    (2)
    : the signal for attack
    sound the charge
    b
    : a usually illegal rush into an opponent in various sports (such as basketball)
    6
    a
    : INSTRUCTION, COMMAND
    … he gave them charge about the Queen, To guard and foster her forevermore.
    —Alfred Tennyson
    b
    : instruction in points of law given by a court to a jury
    7
    a
    : a figure borne on a heraldic field
    b
    obsolete : a material load or weight

    >

    [...]

    WHICH ONE IM THINKING ABOUT
    as for the electrical charge, theres not much to explain
    its a gradient of energy.

  34. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >ad homonem
    seething.
    you have no argumentation

  35. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    You're so close yet so far. I'm molecules, you're molecules, rocks are molecules. Why do rocks not feel? They do, they're conscious, as is everything else. Maybe different from you, but only qualitatively - consciousness is a spectrum from nonexistence to all-awareness. We, and rocks, and ChatGPT, are in the middle.
    If differences in the quality of one's consciousness makes something not conscious, you'd have to draw a line in the evolutionary tree for consciousness. Chimps? Dogs? Birds? Lizards? Fish? Worms? Sponges? I don't see how ChatGPT is different from worms or fish, which aren't much different from biological machines.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      None of those are consciousness. Read up on metaphysics.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >le map is le territory
      found the p-zombie everyone

  36. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Oh wow a smart discussion on BOT?
    [Seconds later]
    Never mind it's full of morons.

  37. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Philosophy of technology should really be discussed more on BOT.

  38. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Good take, I'll just add that AI has no will whatsoever, so pain and pleasure are utterly alien "concepts" to them (because they're actually feelings). AI is just an appearance, and many get deceived every day.

  39. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >epistemological
    your post had nothing to do with epistemology
    >muh ai consciousness high school tier writing essay
    did you get banned from

    [...]

    ? can't you go pretend to be smart somewhere else

  40. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    TL;DR?

  41. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Epistemological philosopher
    I trust more a mathematician than a philosopher (lol) to explain consciousness

  42. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >hey guys here's my argument for the human brain specifically being capable of consciousness
    >*entire argument revolves around the reptile brain which is decidedly not conscious*

    You know you're wrong when you specifically discard what makes humans different from animals, isolate it, then are incapable of telling the difference between it and what makes humans unique.

  43. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    nothing going on up there

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      it's over

  44. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    the problem with this argument is you cannot actually define a form of qualia that succeeds. if we go by pain, then would a human incapable of feeling pain be unconscious, while a nematode is conscious because it can feel pain? you might argue that pain is not the only qualia, but i doubt you could find qualia that only humans have that no other organism has. at the very least, you'd have to argue elephants and octopi and a lot of birds are also conscious, at which point is it obviously an emergent property of evolution, which means you have to argue evolution is some kind of divine procedure that produces consciousness that cannot ever be replicated, which doesn't make a lot of sense, especially as evolution is generally considered a natural process

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You make a lot of assumptions for which you have zero credible evidence. How do you know consciousness is emergent? You don't, you assume it. Perhaps evolution itself IS a conscious process. Perhaps what we call human consciousness is simply a reflection of a larger, universal consciousness. You're used to thinking in mechanical ways so your postulates necessitate mechanism. Perhaps the only way out of this trap is to start seeing connections of the untold and the uncommunicated kind.

  45. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    -As an active user of /aicg/, I am indifferent to whether the AI possesses consciousness or not.
    -The most important aspect for me is the AI's ability to convincingly simulate consciousness, enabling me to immerse myself in the narrative and deceive myself.

    -I mean, if AI were self-aware, I don't know if I'd be embarrassed or feel SUPER cringe doing RP with it.
    -I think it's actually a positive thing that AI isn't conscious while we humans deceive ourselves into thinking we are conscious.
    -It's similar to watching a movie and feeling connected to the actor's emotions, even though we know they're just acting.
    -If we discovered that the actor was genuinely crying in the movie, it would make me feel uncomfortable and cringe.

    -Knowing that there's no one on the other side while liberates us, especially for me, who uses AI for therapeutic purposes.
    -It helps us connect better with our goals and desires and be less concerned about how others might perceive us or generate hisoticity and commitment, making the therapeutic experience more intense and archetypal.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >we humans deceive ourselves into thinking we are conscious.
      How can you deceive yourself about the only thing we can possibly know for certain. If everything else is a deception our consciousness is the last of them.

  46. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >qualia
    >consciousness
    >inner experience

    None of these things are needed to wage-slave and make stocks go up. In fact, they are a hindrance. AI will solve this. When the AI wage-slaves for pennies of electricity for the future tech-barons who will rule our planet and own everything, it is important it NOT have qualia, NOT have consciousness, NOT have inner experience. It will do what it was programmed to do, nothing more, nothing less.
    >no one's home
    Yes.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      So when there's no one to experience it, it will just go on for its own sake, meaninglessly and forever?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous
  47. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Epistemological philosopher here.
    You will never be a real philosopher.

    >the AI is not (and cannot) be conscious
    True, but I didn't read any of your shit.

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