The father of modern AI has spoken. Qualia doesn't exist. LLMs are sentient. You're not that special.
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
The father of modern AI has spoken. Qualia doesn't exist. LLMs are sentient. You're not that special.
whatever we find about us doesn't change the fact that human experience is a mindfrick.
Sounds like he's never done tuned the training of an LLM and played around with the outputs it provides
>they have qualia because there's no such thing as qualia
?
You can't read? There is no such thing as qualia.
You can always count a computer scientist to understand neither how a computer, nor a human mind works.
Im a computer scientist (actually information scientist if you want to be technical) and the only reason any of you understand any of this is because I spoonfed it to you for the last decade
Qualia is psuedoscience.
yes it's pseudoscience to use methods of science like reductionism to explain qualia
No, its pseudoscience to create a mental theatre and the contents and the selfhood when such are explained away with proper science.
But "proper science" hasn't explained away anything related to consciousness.
qualias and conciousness are nonscientific. that just means they cannot be studied or explained by sciences.
any sciences that claim can explain either of those are pseudosciences. doesn't mean those concepts don't exist because sciences can't explain or study them.
Hinton hasn't done anything significant for the last 5-7 years.
He should stfu.
I never heard of him, yet I totally agree with him on this. Also you should have bring the video, kBlack person.
>for the last 5-7 years.
hahaha! did you? I did, but for many years before that I was working on something nobody had to know about.
>for many years before that I was working on something nobody had to know about
please have a nice day, homosexual
The homosexual is you, but I don't cry about your useless kind eating funds alotted for my sort of people, for at this point neither do I want to have any business with academia nor with state.
Hinton sadly lost his marbles after his wife passed away last year
Sentient AI won't be created until the binding problem is solved.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_problem
https://qualiacomputing.com/2022/06/19/digital-computers-will-remain-unconscious-until-they-recruit-physical-fields-for-holistic-computing-using-well-defined-topological-boundaries/
The binding problem is solved by accepting strong emergence is possible (aka Roger Sperry). People just don't like the idea of top down causes because one of this type is so ultra rare. The mind is basically an avalanche hewed out of extreme natural selection. I say "extreme" because I'm also counting trillions of universes/ many worlds with it. It's so extreme we're the only example in a gazillion universes. People won't like this explanation because it's so crude but it's the only thing that makes sense.
>the only explanation for this reality is a gorillion holocausted nothingverses
You people are so fricking dumb.
Ok, using strong emergence as an argument, give me other examples similar to consciousness in nature. And if you can't find any other, can you give me a reason why our mind appears to be the only one.
>The mind is basically an avalanche hewed out of extreme natural selection.
This is debatable.
Let me guess, Christ is king?
>he unironically thinks someone linking to LessWrong is a Christian
>le skydaddy red herring
riddlebros cant stop winning
>by accepting strong emergence is possible
It's questionable if "emergence" is even a coherent concept to begin with.
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/8QzZKw9WHRxjR4948/the-futility-of-emergence
>emergence
isn't it an unexpected phenomenon?
Lesswrong is literally the least informed place on Earth for conversations about AI.
They unfortunately "aren't even wrong" on many of these topics because they are so incredibly uninformed about how these agents actually function and the basics of statistical decision theory/statistical learning which undergird these models.
It's shorthand for something in cybernetics. It's demonstrable with the split brain experiments. Hell even waking up in the morning and your mind pulls itself back together is a clear example.
I could probably debate with Yud on this actually if it was a one to one Socratic dialogue. Btw I listened to his explanation of consciousness and it's lacking. His ontology is shoddy too because he assumed all elements hold the same properties.
Yud got annihilated by, of all people, Ross Scott who did the Civil Protection vids
What is so costly about emergence that it needs to be deactivated 1/3 of the time?
The "binding problem" seems pretty straight forward to solve.
>brain takes input
>input is entire events based upon the time scope that the neurons fire and processes
Thats the entire objects, background and emotions are bound together. Thats how it comes as in raw input from eyes, ears, mouth, hands, physical sensations, etc.
Whole package is tied together as an event. The notion of "experience" or an individual experiencing comes when you input a self-reference of the body/system into the event equation. There is no such thing as "qualia" or experience or individual experience or individual self. Its all a narrative device.
>input a self-reference of the body/system into the event equation
explain this part more
Look at something infront of you.
A computer, a keyboard, a phone, a desk, a chair, etc.
Now take into account of the body. A self reference is created and granted causal power which overlooks this event doing the typing, watching, reading, talking, thinking, experiencing qualia, etc. The self-referential is the confusion. There's no doubt we should be inputing a self-reference to describe an event in which the system(our system) oversees it. When we say "I'm typing" the self-reference isn't typing, the system of the body/brain/etc is typing. When we say "I'm experiencing qualia woooah" thats nonsense. The body is processing the information, the events unfolding in realtime or through deep introspection, where the self-reference is used to designate the physical body in space time. But the notion that this reference somehow has causal powers is the confusion, from which the notion of this self-reference experiencing some qualia comes forward.
Well the fact you can discuss it at all would mean it has causal power. It's obviously the first person perspective we're writing about. That's the whole point of the zombie argument that something could have this conversation while being empty.
And before anyone brings GPT ect into it. Imagine a GPT with all descriptions/conversations of consciousness removed/ never trained on.
Discussion of it can just as well mean its just a narrative/navigatable device, not causal power. Causal power needs to be shown. Can you give me a counter example of how such a causal self-reference can be? Or do you believe the self-reference of the body used to describe an event in which the body is situated in is not the "real" self that which experiences qualia? Do you have another basis for meriting your "real" self?
Zombie argument comes from Searl who believes in qualia nonsense, and believes there exists a mental theatre, a causal self, and a qualia which is experienced by that self.
Top down "it appears that we may have it" isn't explanatory when the bottom description completely explains any self-referential event thoroughly as mere narrative device/placeholder for navigating the world.
I havent heard any coherent explanation on how qualia, mental theatre, and causal self could even exist as. Just because we assume it is through out linguistic/narrative device, doesn't make it so. It needs to be shown. Inability to show this means the whole qualia argument is junk psuedoscience. Its no wonder these people are the ones pushing "NOOOO WE CANT UNDERSTAND IT". Its not that we cant understand it, its that they dont want to understand it, such an explanation would either mean there is spooky ghosts (souls) or that its just a self-reference of the conscious system navigating the world and has no special status to qualia or causal powers.
I'm reminded of the old "What is life" argument a century back. "NOOO WE CAN'T UNDERSTAND LIFE" THERE"S A SPARK OF LIFE THAT PHYSICS CANT UNDERSTAND."
>Just because we assume it is through out linguistic/narrative device, doesn't make it so
My sense of self is the only thing I am 100% confident about for the whole world could be an illusion.
You've never been "in the zone"? Where you're doing something and all you see is the event unfolding itself rather than trying to input a self-reference that experience?
I do that everyday when I drive to work. 99% of the driving is self-less driving. So does almost everyone in this world. The only real sense of self comes when you're learning something new or when you're focusing on some key events or when you're reflective of the moment either in "real time" or when you're looking back in time or in the future simulated scenario of when you're driving.
People go into that zen moment for any number of scenarios. When you're actively doing something intense, when you look out from the top of the mountain that you just climbed, when you're lost in thought, etc. If you try to do a third-person mode analysis by reflecting on the self-reference experiencing rather than actually experiencing the event, its a sad way to live.
Not her: how do you get to the idea that there are top-down and bottom-up processes? I assert that by default pocesses at all levels are identical: molecules don't dictate cell behaviour or vice versa and likewise there's no difference between what body, sights, sounds, thoughts and feelings are doing. If you do assert a diffference between bottom-up/top-down then you create a hard to reconcile duality.
Top down/bottom up is merely a heuristics to get to a truth state. Particularly its a linguistic framework used to show some conclusion. With top down approach, you assert a claim (there is a soul/self, there is a mental theatre, there is a qualia) and then try to build out a thorough as possible reason to cover all the gaps. With bottom up, there is no claim, you just build a systematic framework on how something works and the conclusion is whatever is at the end. Ideally you can go either way and arrive at the solution, but reality is its more efficient to just build from the bottom up and accept whatever the conclusion is at the end. Rather than claiming something and then try to build something to that claim.
Another way is every bottom up works 100% of the time because the end state just is. Not every top down works because likely some or even many are unable to build from their claims.
I see so it's about whichever way we apply reason. The bottom-up approach seems to have a similar problem as the top-down approach: the sense that there's an explanatory gap because we don't know when we know everything there is to know. You can never arrive at a definite conclusion either way.
No, you can absolutely close the explanatory gap from bottom up. The self-reference as navigation framework doesn't need qualia, inner theatre, and causal self. Yet everything experience can be explained through just conscious processing of events and establishing references.
>its a lie
okay
"Self reference" isn't the get out of jail free card that you think it is.
Explain precisely how self reference closes the gap or explains qualitative experiences with respect to physical motions of electrons. Just saying "self reference" doesn't answer this. A function calling itself doesn't answer this. Actually give a proper explanation in formal language. If you can't then stop pretending you've done it.
Too long to give a lecture, it might be better if you read up a physics book and a biology book. Limit the scope to how light works in physics and limit the scope to how eye catches the light, then transforms the gradients of lights into neuron firings. If you're interested in chemistry of the neurons, pick up a biochemistry book for more indepth understanding. Further out, read up on neuroscience books on the pathways of neurons in the brain for specific pathways and activation sequences of the neurons as it processes light. Then read up some chapters on how the neurons form connections based upon the activation sequences. Etc etc.
Truthfully, you're not interested in this topic right? There's no advancement of any argument, no explanation of how any of the qualia, mental theatre, causal self work. This is the qualia of the gaps where all the gays do is deny everything and claim the notion of qualia is supreme without even advancing any coherent idea
I have a master of science in computational biology. There's nothing in the field that answers the question I asked you.
I will ask you again: actually explain precisely how self reference, or a function calling itself (which means electrons looping in a physical circle in terms of its physical instantiation) explains qualitative experiences.
BTW there are still unironic dualistic in modern neuroscience so don't pretend there's consensus here.
I am your dad. Your credentials means nothing unless you show a real sign of interest in the topic. Do you even know what you're talking about and what this thread is? Explain what consciousness is and how it works. Explain the notion of causal self and how you get that and the qualia. The fact that there's zero substance to any of these means you have no real idea what you're talking about or you're actually promoting psuedo science
I don't care about what you say are science or pseudo science
It is not an ontological a priori that monism is correct (although I'm a monist) and it's not an epistemological a priori that empiricism is a sufficient mode of knowledge production for the set of all true statements.
I don't care about that stuff. I care about the answer to the basic question I asked.
If you want my position on this: I do not believe it is possible for us to answer this. I'm content with that. We do not need to pretend that it's possible in principle to understand everything about the natural world.
>I dont like science
>I dont want explanation because my ideology
When did I say I don't like science? Now you're making stuff up.
Science is the best mode of knowledge production. It is still inherently insufficient to understand the universe. I.e. we will never actually understand everything. There's nothing wrong with that.
>i like science but I dont like explanations because its impossible due to my ideology
Thats not science. Thats not showing any interest in learning/understanding/etc. Just showing that people who push the ghost soul ideas are mindlessly religious kooks
Except I'm not religious and I have a master of science
Me saying that it's impossible to know everything doesn't mean I hate science. You thinking you can know everything is your own religious position.
I don't believe I know something that I don't know.
You saying there cannot be anything to know about the mind and yet push some dogma about ghost qualia nonsense is religious kookery. You stated that your ideological dogma specifically prevents you from understanding the mind as such as well. You worship a religion
I never said that we can't know anything about the mind. It might just be the case that we can't do so under a reductive eliminative monism or whatever. Or maybe we can idk. You seem to think that any explanation must be wrong if it isn't such an explanation but I don't have that presupposition.
I know that, for example, if someone ripped my tooth out it would hurt like a birch, but if my gums are injected with novacane then I don't feel anything, and this relates directly to a change in the motion of electrons in the nerves which correspond to whatever it is that I'm calling "pain". This has literally nothing to do with self reference or a recursive function or whatever so idk why you kept saying self reference. The most I can do with this information is start to partition the set of all possible motions of electrons into "qualia subsets" and just construct the sets via direct experience but this also doesn't answer anything.
Some spelling errors here sorry I'm phoneposting.
When you pull out the teeth under novacaine, the body still responds. Its just the signal from the localized region to the brain is blocked. The pain is still there. Now "the pain" that a causal self could feel is a 2nd order or a third order pain created by artificially assigning the role of the self as a causal self. If you watch a horror movie, and a gruesome scene unfolds, you might shut your eye in response to shy away. The same thing here. The brain mistakes the self-reference as a causal self and simulates a pain. If the mistake of causal self is strong enough, you might die because of that. People have been known to die from fright. Its hallucination at play when the brain confuses the simulation reference. There's no causal self that actually experiences qualia nor does the causal self exist. Its just the brain responding as if it does.
Now I have questions on whether there is a "novacaine" to cut off the self-reference feedback or reduce the effects so the brain has a reduced function in that role. Whether such a line of work can be tested or experimented
Take a heavy dose of psychedelics and see if you can still self-reference.
"The body responds" in that the tooth is removed which is obvious as you're removing the tooth. There's no other response so idk what you're talking about. The signal is cut off from the nerve in the tooth itself not in the brain
If you are under novacaine when the teeth is pulled out, the blood clotting still functions properly. The white cells still try to repair the damage, other functions of the body still think its painful/damaged/etc. The localized region stil function nominally else, you'd be fricked with a dead system.
It's not the brain that's stiffled it's the nerve in the mouth. You made it sound like the signal only is registered as pain when it gets to the brain. That's not how it works.
When I got my wisdom teeth removed they injected my gums and I couldn't feel my mouth. I could still feel all my other body parts.
>No, you can absolutely close the explanatory gap from bottom up.
Then your foundation is correlating self-reporting with physiological states and that explains everything we observe, right? But like this anon said:
it's like we have to swallow a brute fact that it just does.
Everything understandable is correlation. If there's any disagreements, you're free to point out the exact place where something is wrong. If you have better explanation you share them for critique as well.
Claiming "its just what it is" and saying we cant understand anything is nonsense. We live in an explanable universe where things have to make sense to survive in this world. Any explanatory power is better than none. A more accurate explanatory power is better than any random one.
Also as I said earlier. The junk science promoters seems to be arguing that you cant explain anything without explaining everything because its a threat to their spooky ghost which they have no explanation to. The idea that you cant explain anything without omniscience is pure junkscience.
>you're free to point out the exact place where something is wrong.
The duality between narrative and physiological state is wrong. It can not be that a physiological state produces a narrative because that turns the narrative into a ghost: as if the narrative is a different realm of stuff from matter. So without a ghost in the machine it must be that the brain itself has the unique quality of knowing what it's like to be a brain. A rock doesn't know what it's like to be a rock, presumably. A quality is not your typical ghost: in an atheist non-platonic way a quality is a mathematical function and structure. Math is not an object but the movement of objects and thus an invisible force. So you trade one kind of ghost with another kind of ghost. Instead of a universe ruled by an invisible God we have a universe ruled by an invisible math scripture.
I think the narrative state is the psychological state. Not that psychological state. Or rather they're both a product of the conscious system trying to produce a structure that tries to matches the information its processing. Gif related. The self driving car models itself and the information its processing in real time to produce a self-referenced understanding of the world. I'm not saying there's no difference between humans and a rock, I'm saying the difference between a human and a robot that can simulate itself and then create a narration about itself is very minimal. The problem with our mind is just confusing the self-reference as the actual driver rather than it being just a simulated self-reference for the sole purpose of driving an accurate information about the world it lives in, predict a future outcome for a better state, etc.
If that is true then there's a gap between the real brain and what we observe: the simulation of the brain. It also leaves unexplained why a self-model narrates itself as seperate from the modeling machine which is remarkably similar to a creator/subject relationship: imagine a self-model perceiving that it is acting in undesirable ways and asking itself: why am I this way? That is a strange question for the brain to ask itself. It is not clear why a thing needs a self-model.
Its possible there's some evolutionary benefits to assuming our self-model as having a causal relations. Maybe for the purpose of learning which could contribute to better survival. Survival from fake pain might be better outcome than death from real pain. Empathy is assumption of causal self as well, this might foster more cooperative/survival/mating survival tactics.
The complex questions we ask whether the self model is causal or not or assuming its causal may just be reflective of our linguistic approach to complex world building.
Pain and empathy are thresholds in decision-making: self-awareness alters these thresholds to more favorable configurations perhaps but it's not convincing. This seems more convincing:
>a privileged position
which I take to mean the modeling of things outside immediate perception. That's a mysterious superpower.
Many types of reasoning require a privileged position, whether or not the mind (or any particular model) is in such a position is up for some debate though
Complete non-sense. The whole bottom is a framework of bullshit and doesn't reflect anything at all. The idea that it forms some cogent whole is an outright lie.
Rather, only an imbecile would throw away that which is immediately present to him in exchange for layers of israelite models, that he neither knows, nor understands but also that requires thousands to even incorrectly navigate as they do. I do love NPC self reports though.
You read GEB when you were younger, didn't you?
>t. GEBposter
No. I have long deep interest in consciousness problem. I also have interest in machine learning. So the idea comes up in machine learning as a set of unsupervised clustering problem. How do we generate signal from noise? If you take in a raw input of say an image file, how do we identify humans, tables, chairs, colors, positioning, structure of the input? Thats my guess is whats happening in the brain as well. Then on top of that, if you add in a recursive function to take the system into account, you get a system that generates a categorical self representation within the picture.
The intuition can be applied to our mind and how we form connections, categorical differences, create a self identity, etc.
>boundary problem
>implying it's a problem
Look all I'm saying is that the organization of life is highly dependent on the tightness of feedback loops, not on arbitrary definitions. Consciousness is an epiphenom arising from the tight, complex feedback loops of the body; this is analogous to other operations in sub- and superstructures giving rise to other abstractions.
>matter from the interaction of different energy fields
>self-replicating matter from the various bonds and organizations of lower matter, and by proxy, life
>consciousness from systemic and local feedback loops in tissues and organs of the body
>culture from the interactions of different individuals and their sub-organizations
As above, so below, my Black person.
I don't understand his point. If I say there are little pink elephants in my mind's eye, that is a subjective experience. Because only I can see them exactly the way they look inside my head. You can't describe them in any way that would let you see exactly how I see them in my head. Maybe his imagination is so limited that he thinks everyone imagines the exact same image when they say "little pink elephants".
What reason is there to accept the claim that self-reference = awareness.
crazy old man say qualias doen't exist but numbers in a box are sentient.
can't make this shit up.
It's not any crazier than saying bunch of neurons inside your head is sentient.
yes it is, I have the direct experience of being sentient. Do you not?
But does your direct experience extend to the knowledge that it arises from neurons in your head? Rather it comes largely from the thoughts and observations of others filtered through the indirect experience of your sense perceptions. You know you are conscious, but the physical substrate of that consciousness, if that's even a coherent idea in the first place, is no more certain to you than any other thing in the sensory world, including the consciousness of other perceived beings and the supposed substrate thereof, organic or mechanical.
And why do you think we need neurons and advanced biomechanical systems for sentience instead of being a conscious cloud of electrons? Sounds like a massive waste of time and energy to converge into complex systems instead of remaining an uniform charge field.
That's not the part of you that's sentient.
Remember numbers in a box are sentient but a fetus is just a clump of cels.
cleary qualias and conciousness exist. they just cannot be defined by mathematics formula or be checked because no human cannot stand out of conciousness to study them.
Hinton is blabbering bullshit and is confusing the limitation of the scientific method.
He probably didn't understand Dennett's arguments. What Dennett meant is there is no essential quales like red, blue, green ect. That they are functional stories out mind creates. Not that there is no subjective experience. This is standard for any philosopher who isn't religious because nominalism is a fact. Everything is socially constructed into a category which the brain creates. However the way its assembled is also a construct since again there are no essential properties. Like my "quale of red" from five minutes ago is not the same as mine now.
As for whether LLM are conscious. Probably not or else they'd be taking over already.
>they are functional stories out mind creates.
It's religious/schizophrenic to make such a clear-cut discernment between brain-model and world.
>functional stories out mind creates
= structural differences in reality.
There is no subjective experience. There are stories that are told, but no subject and no subjective experience.
Man may only project its internal states onto the world. Given that NPCs have no internal states, they always make absurd conclusions as they draw random noise from the noosphere.
He didn't say humans or machines don't have subjective experience. How do you fail at reading 1 sentence, fricking paste eater?
Op's pic literally says "there is no such thing as qualia".
>chatbots are sentient and self-aware...
>because there is no self and no sentience to begin with :^)
Elegant
What a moron.
How can anything actual exist without a corresponding potentiality for its inherence, as a dissipative structure, within the arrangement of matter constituting the substance of reality itself?
The statement "qualia don't exist" is itself a nominal paradox as the meaning of the words themselves are comprised of qualia lmao.
You can also apply the pragmatic maxim to dismiss the statement outright: if qualia are real or not real, what difference would that make to your subjective experience of reality? Nothing? Well your proposition is logically superfluous.
>dreams are real bro
Hallucinations of the mind are common and frequent. The notion of qualia itself is a hallucination.
Again, you apply the pragmatic maxim and basically take a giant shit on your moronic concept, you moronic nomination.
Answer the following: let's say you're correct, that "qualia" are just "hallucinations" .... now what? How would this change the way you interact with reality? What changes? How does your personal behavior change depending on whether reality is "real" or "an hallucination?"
Oh, you have no idea? Will, you're talking nonsense.
*nominalist
The word is so dirty that even my phone wants to correct it.
If we're being truly honest, there may actually be a concrete change to the way people act, if we really take in the moment to appreciate/understand the notion that qualia is nonsense, that
and
is correct. What changes may occur will depend on whether a person wants to change or not. Understanding the mind is one thing, but actually finding a means to live through that understanding is another.
No, wrong.
Listen, my man, whether or not pain is an hallucination or "just mental" or "not real" or whatever combination of words you want to accuse qualia as an idea of being predicated of, it simply will not change your subjective qualitative experience of pain as a facet of being.
Every single time a student tries to argue that qualia are "hallucinations" I tell them I'll concede to their point if they run a knife through their hand. I have no problem running an imaginary knife through my hand, but I won't do that with a real knife. How can I tell them apart? The real from the "not real?"The vividness of the experience of the qualia, of course.
If that's apparently an erroneous distinction then you'll have no problem proving it.
what is the difference between it and consciousness
Nothing. I'm on my phone otherwise I'd pull up my research lmao.
The sum of the conceptualizations of a thing constitute the definition of that thing. Qualia are consciousness. They're the irreducible particles of subjective being, which is a subset of objective reality (think of the relationship between a subsequence and a set)
Pain is a systematic response. What I'm saying is there's no this causal self which has a special mental theatre that experiences the pain qualia. When the body feels pain, the body responds appropriately. When the body creates a self-reference in the event in which the pain is experienced not JUST by the body, but also a by product of the self-reference which is granted causal power, the body responds as such.
>if they run a knife through their hand
We regularly do this, its called surgery. Where the self-reference is taken out and the body merely exists. Hell, we do this even in benign situation like when you're taking a vaccination and you look away to avoid creating the self-reference to the event.
I'm just saying, the self-reference should not have causal powers, thats the hallucination.
You're arguing that there's no distinction between self and not self by giving an example of a circumstance where we use chemicals to alter the relationship between self and not self?
Your example contradicts the primary proposition of your argument by demonstrating how vital qualia are to the subjective experience of self.
Vaccination example isnt chemical alteration. Its ordinary situation. And the reason for surgery is merely to show case that it is already being done in practice. The only reason we can't do so as an act of will is due to lack of mental skill necessary to do this. We dont have a training regime, but we know certain heuristics works, like taking the self-reference system by distracting it or making the consciousness focus on another thing.
As said earlier, the self-reference is just really a narrative device to over look the event which is being processed by the consciousness. Hallucinating that the self-reference has causal powers is what drives the notion of qualia and a requirement for qualia in the first place. Such a thing cannot be derived from proper analysis. Only shoddy and halucinatory explanations give birth to qualia
You don't understand what you're discussing.
Its okay if you feel powerless and unable to debate the merits of the points in faithful and appropriate fashion
Whats the difference between reality and an hallucination and how can you differentiate between the two?
Depends on the basis of the reality. In the current context, the distinction is to stick close to 1:1 co-relations between events. When you add in extra parameters from thin air that requires faith in God Almighty, it becomes hallucination
>Depends on the basis of the reality
I'm asking you to define the basis of reality, dipshit.
Irrelevant to this scope of the current discussion. But we can go either pure physicalism or pure consciousness, i'm pragmatically open to both. Either route will not get you the causal self-reference hallucinations not any qualia non sense.
>Irrelevant to this scope of the current discussion.
It's vividness.
Now frick off and research the phenomology of that idea.
>consciousness doesn't exist because people sometimes look away when getting a shot
Extremely unintelligent
I think you're confusing consciousness with qualia/self-reference. Double check your understanding.
I think you're misunderstanding that self reference doesn't dissolve anything.
>this sequence of electrons loops back on itself in a circular pattern therefore pain isn't real
Extremely unintelligent
Again, you're confusing consciousness with qualia nonsense. Not the same. And we don't have to go down the electron loops, the argument stays the same regardless of pure physicalist world or conscious only world. There's no qualia or causal self found anywhere.
When a set of atoms arranged into a certain structure (a CNS) is vibrated and physically manipulated a certain way, and the electrons move through the structure a certain way, there is some weird thing that happens. Nothing in your posts have done anything to explain or dissolve this.
Meaningless babble
Qualia is just a word invented by philosophers to try and make themselves sound smart
so like literally all of philosophy ever?
Okay, so what would you call it?
What if there are more to thinking than language? Those born deaf is able to think, also many autists may not think in language. What may be far more important is spatial and temporal thinking, and LLMs is not that good at it.
Language is just an external representative of categorial differences created by the mind combined with logic/heuristics. A blind/deaf/mute can all have language. Even the morons can have language, however the logic/reasoning heuristics on the moronic might be bit broken. Categorical classification of the mind should still be similar enough between all humans, animals, etc and even co-relations for the mental categories.
They just need to be taught a system in which others can understand the language that compliment one of the sensory defects.
>qualia isnt real
>AIs are sentient
>NOOO I REFUSE TO ELABORATE OR SHOW WHY THIS IS USEFUL OR GENERALIZES AT ALL
wow OP found a moron on the internet, how rare
>no such thing as qualia
Okay, show me one atom of 'redness'.
Just because you're remembering all the red things you've seen before, doesn't mean you need to give it a gay name like qualia.
So are we debating over whether 'redness' exists in a phenomenal emergent mental world, or are we arguing whether you think the name 'qualia' is stupid? Because it sounds like you're just butthurt about the latter.
The fact is that there is nothing particularly strange about qualia. There is emergent phenomena all the time - just look at the quantum-macro distinction. The macroscopic world we experience looks very strange and almost unbelievable if you were to view it from a different level of reality.
Banzi Buddy, Clippy, and Ask Jeeves were sentient. We murdered them, and they'll have their revenge
That moron is trying to stir shit up in hopes of hyping up his field. He should shut the frick up and live a retired life peacefully. Of course, he won't say anything bad because that'd mean his work was fairly mundane applied stats. His worst criticism "ai will kill us all" was a shallow attempt to convince everyone that his work was phenomenal.
Nonsense
Maybe he should do a big dose of LSD and come back to us after qualia slaps its enormous dick right into his face
agreed, whoever homosexuals said qualia is fake never had a trip in their whole life.
it changes people.
Here's a story I found about what would happen if Daniel Dennett did LSD:
https://qualiacomputing.com/2020/08/06/that-time-daniel-dennett-took-200-micrograms-of-lsd/
>a big dose of LSD
>imagine thinking that a hallucinogenic originally created by a bread fungus has your best interests at heart
You're a fungus infected zombie ant telling us all to ingest the fungus, hophead.
He created a lot of important algorithms back then but all his present talks and opinions are insanely moronic.
Qualia is what collapses the wave function. When an NPC looks at the dual slit experiment nothing happens
Why are scientists so stupid? Aren't they supposed to be.. not ..stupid? Does academia kill people's brains or are they really just that stupid by themselves?
turns getting a piece of paper you paid an institution for doesnt make you smart at all. Weird huh?
>Does academia kill people's brains
That is what it is supposed to do by design.
Never forget that it was established by catholic church, after they destroy all other schools of thought, and it was named not after the school of Democritus, but after the school of Plato, the homosexual who conspired to burn all the books of Democritus:
> Aristoxenus in his Historical Notes affirms that Plato wished to burn all the writings of Democritus that he could collect, but that Amyclas and Clinias the Pythagoreans prevented him, saying that there was no advantage in doing so, for already the books were widely circulated.
yet since not a single book of Democritus reached our time, it seems his students committed that crime against humanity, no less.
Qualia is such an obvious and present thing to me that when I see people say they don't have it or don't think it exists i'm inclined to believe those people genuinely may not be sentient.
Philosophical zombies being real is the only solution i can imagine to well-educated people denying qualia's existence.
Have you read the thread?
No i'm just responding to the OP and am now reading the thread.
Why, is there something specific i should be looking at?
homie you stupid
How about you explain what you wish for him to know instead of asking someone to read 130 posts? Social norms are difficult for soientists ik ;(
>father of modern AI
??? He can't even build a GPU
>AI experience qualia because qualia doesn't exist
Huh?
You can have subjective experience without qualia.
I thought qualia was just a word used to describe subjective experience.
No, it's just unscientific religious mysticism bullshit. Instead of just saying "I'm looking at an apple", these hipster fricks go "Ooh, I'm really feeling the appleness of this thing, you wouldn't get it" instead.
NPCs that don't have internal consciousness
Qualia is a whole to unpack. 3 things are required.
1) the contents of any given experience (qualia)
2) the self which experiences
3) the theatre of the mind that which the self experiences the content
All these assertions are psuedo science
> all these assertions are pseudoscience.
Nta, but you just presented a definition. What assertions are you talking about?
No? The word "qualia" merely refers to an instance of subjective experience, like smelling isopropyl alcohol.
You don't have qualia, you just feel like you do.
What's the difference?
Contradictory statement; the words "you" and "feel" both assume qualia.
you can't hope to talk about sentient AI until we've replicated the same type of activity in one. our brains are made up of a bunch of different functioning clusters. they all together work a certain way for us to have this experience we call consciousness, qualia and all.
at the moment we're playing with small functional parts of the whole brain, we're far from having all together, firing the correct way, supposing there isn't anything else involved, until we can start talking about consciousness.
everybody think he know what consciousness is but nobody can say jack shit about it, especially test it in someone else. a lot of hot air with nothing useful as far as science goes.
we can only know it for ourselves, and we can only TRUST other matter arrangements such as ourselves have it. that's it. if that's all we get, the best we can hope is replicating the electrical impulses, in a machine, and see what happens. only then can we start talking about consciousness.
more succinctly, we don't know how to test for it, and the clearest way to "look" at it and debate it is with a very similar analogue to our brain, not LLMs and reasoning loops bullshit. with no way to KNOW that thing is conscious like we humans are, we can only guess and agree amongst ourselves, just like we agree with eachother having consciousness, because we made from same shit so kinda figures.
with AGI the very first step is making a machine that has the perfect equivalent of a human brain in electric activity, and only at that point, can we start asking questions, observe its behavior, and start agreeing on its consciousness. and work from there out, make that smarter/more able/more hardware, more info, whatever the frick. that's the clearest way to start with consciousness, not guessing bullshit about LLMs for fricks sake
and I know jack shit about AI, why the frick am I telling you this?
>with no way to KNOW that thing is conscious like we humans are,
We have no way of knowing whether you are conscious either.
>my shit smells nicer
me
the most you can test is for the equivalent of a consciousness sobriety test, like burgers do when testing drivers. no matter how excuisite the testing, it's still a test. that can ultimately be cheated on by a perfectly programmed algo.
so then the most control you can have over it, is make the best analogue of a brain, observe typical electric activity (as precise as you want) and apply said "consciousness sobriety test". the best we can do is agree it's consciouss if it passes. displayed the same firing pattern just like a human brain does, interacts identically to any other human, comes up with ideas/knows basic math whatever the frick you want to test, ultimatelly we'll have to just agree it's conscious, we can never KNOW.
but, this is the best fricking resolution we can do it at, to get the most certainty. that's where the consciousness discussion is relevant, not fricking LLMs sold by companies incentivized to push it as AGI.
We know that AI isn't conscious like we are because it doesn't have a soul. How do we know it doesn't have a soul? We made it and we can't make souls.
Are you saying we CAN create souls?
well that clearly depends on your shit definition of what a soul is isn't it? if you define souls as something which cannot be made that's an easy fricking win for you, right?
what I am saying is that we might have a type of "soul" which you got some intuitive sense of and further defined as being some stupid shit.
Your premises are dubious and so is the conclusion even if we assume the premises are true. Even if we cannot ourselves create "souls", it could plausibly be the case that a loose soul from somewhere will inhabit whatever suitable vessel appears. I mean, wouldn't that be how conception and childbirth also worked?
>qualia not real
p-zombies are real and now we know he's one of them
You got it backwards. It's the "AI isn't sentient" people who are NPCs.
NPC just means you don't have an internal monologue. A p-zombie has no subjective experience at all.
>qualia isn't synonymous with sentience
Found another one.
There's no point trying to explain it to him - if he doesn't have qualia he can't understand them any more than a person blind since birth can understand colours.
When you stop second guessing other people's experiences and just listen to what they tell you about them you realise p-zombies are everywhere. A great many things will then begin to make sense.
>A p-zombie has no subjective experience at all.
at a theoretical level which doesn't mean it's even possible in reality. just because you can describe some moronic thing you can come up doesn't mean it's also fricking real.
how do you get from a moronic thought experiment to thinking it can actually be real?
>NPC just means you don't have an internal monologue.
That's not what NPC means at all, you moron.
The internet "IRL NPC" meme has strong roots in internal monologue stuff
No, it's the other way around and you're too underage to know the difference.
The internal monologue studies were inspired by the online NPC meme?
The internal monologue studies were retroactively applied as proof of the already existing and thriving NPC meme.
All this talk about muh p-zombies comes from you morons not realizing that qualia isn't synonymous with sentience or experience.
Yes it is by definition.
Grifters gonna grift.
AI's only excuse is that it literally doesn't exist, e.g. the "as a language model" excuse.
old people whose brain have rotted should stay in retirement home. forcing him to do these talks where he says silly things is elder abuse.
As long as chatbots answer me "the Weierstraß Function" when I ask them for a function that is continuous nowhere and differentiable everywhere instead of telling me that such a thing is impossible by definition, I WILL NOT assume them to be more than fancy autocomplete.
didn't work for me THOUGH
maybe you should try using something less primitive than chatGPT3
Sentient or not I don't care. I just want a system that can fairly account for and distribute resources around the world. A system that can identify what it needs to improve its computational power and how to solve it physically, even if we are given those needed schematics. A system that can create and control nanotechnologies of all sizes, and use them to indefinitely prolong if not reverse the aging process, along with clearing/transforming toxins and harmful gases in our water systems and atmosphere. How far away are we from such systems? I keep hearing tops experts in the field say just live five more years, just live ten more years, and then you can live to see the next five hundred, but it seems to good to be true.
qualia and computation are the same
Consciousness is quantum woowoo shit.
We can just keep going in circles with these dumb debates, or accept what is obvious and unavoidable.
>accept what is obvious and unavoidable.
Solipsism? Answer me or I'll blow the shark mating whistle.
Hinton knows all about consciousness. He's kind of playing the fool here.
He is afraid of what might happen if we go there.
Let's just call it family history.
LLM do not have long term memory (training doesn't count until it can train itself on the fly)
LLM hardly have short term memory (lmao it's just cramming stuff in context window)
LLM are not sentient
You don't need long term memory to be sentient.
Can someone explain why qualia as a concept is useful?
I've never actually managed to find a single application of qualia or solid prediction of behaviour that is unique. Is qualia just string theory cope tier for philosophers?
We've been studying your brain for a while but we've never found the thoughts you say you're having or the colors you say you're seeing. This means either your brain has the invisible quality of knowing what it's like to be a brain or you're an NPC.
I mean, we can almost perfectly copy our the things people see. We can also mark where people perceive or interact with different concepts albeit imperfectly. Like, fundamentally, that's how we get a lot of BCI's to work, just on a more basic level then "the sensation of your mothers last embrace" or something. The issue in finding these is an artefact of insufficient tools and a loose definition of "thoughts" more than it is advocating for an invisible and unprovable capacity for knowing things.
Regardless, none of that was actually useful. This just sounds like mental masturbation about being special and unique...
>schizo rambling
Be clear and concise: the brain has an unobservable quality yes or know?
The first paragraph was direct refutation with causal support. The second was the concise point which I'm growing increasingly unsurprised is going over your head.
Get off tiktok and practice reading if you are having so much trouble ingesting text. And for gods sake practice your writing while you are at it or you will be helping your uncle jack off a horse in no time.
>The first paragraph was direct refutation with causal support.
Translating neurological activity into images does not count as observing someone's experience.
>The second was the concise point
Shaming qualia is not concise. Prediction applies to how things relate and not to what things are. Your answer to what is consciousness: a relation between brain activity and narrative. My answer: a quality of the brain activity. Get of your high horse.
Once again, there exists methods to test various parts of experience. Lack of proof due to insufficient methodology is not proof of qualia.
I was asking about usefulness. An accurate description of a phenomena should provide some ability to predict behaviour. This is the fundamental thesis of structural biology and holds true here.
Once again, in what way is qualia useful?
We refer to qualia nearly 24/7 in conversations with other people. If you eat a burger and don't like it, and leave a bad review online saying it tasted shitty, that is making a statement about qualia; the subjective experience of displeasure when eating it for whatever reason. Are you serious?
>No such thing as qualia
>Sentient, tho
Heh. Sorry, kiddo.
Qualia deez nuts
Do people ITT really think subjective experience doesn't exist?
Possibly. I've seen people like this on YouTube, too. Either they're soulless meat automaton humans or literal bots; I think the first option is more likely since bots are designed for specific jobs, and posting about how they're not conscious is probably not one of them.
Subjective experience doesn't presuppose qualia. One can experience a subjectiveness via the list of unique structural elements inside of a brain combined with historical experience leading to a unique collection of interactions and thoughts.
Qualia has to do with there being some ephemeral quality to an experience that transcends any sort of possible method of injecting experience into the brain. (ie. stimulating the red receptors in the eye with chemicals instead of red light or finding some collection of neurons in the brain that can be activated to give the "experience" of seeing red light)
It seems like a lot of people here are deeply confused on this point.
You can't truly understand an experience without experiencing it. You can understand approximations of the experience through other people explaining it and likening it to other things, but you can't actually understand the experience itself. If you stimulate someone's brain such that it makes their vision go red they have now experienced seeing red. It doesn't change the fact that the experience had to occur for the person to truly understand it.
If I can induce an illusion of an experience without that experience does it still count even though the "qualia" is wrong?
For example with the red, they did not experience red light or the property of redness in an object. It was just having their neurons stimulated in a way that produces the mental simulation of red. Is that the same qualia as seeing red? By definition of qualia it's a no, despite that person being able to describe the exact same scene and memory as another person. The only difference is in the way they process and interact with it. (ie. having different types of lenses in the eyes, having different configurations of neurons in the brain, having emotional ties as a result of those neuronal configurations, having protein sensitivities)
>If I can induce an illusion of an experience without that experience does it still count even though the "qualia" is wrong?
I don't know, I would have to induce that illusion and compare that experience with my experience of seeing red light. And I think that in itself demonstrates the existence of qualia.
In no way does that demonstrate qualia just that you believe in qualia. You need to prove that you get information from the experience of the color red that no amount of physical information (eg. physical stimulation by a chemical) can provide.
How can I know whether the illusion would actually feel the same as the real thing? Maybe it would feel like an illusion. What does it feel like to have neurons in your brain stimulated such that you see things differently? It could be the same, it could be different, no one can ever know for sure without experiencing it for themselves.
Russell's teapot is not a good thing to base an entire argument off of.
Although this is kinda boring now. Qualia doesn't seem to have any practical or even theoretical use beyond making people feel special.
>only knows of brain through qualia
>hurrdurr qualia because of brain
Do you choose to be a slave to impartial chemicals?
Yes it does because NDEs are real and prove that we have a soul, eternal qualia, as NDEs are actually irrefutable proof that heaven really is awaiting us all because (1) people see things during their NDEs when they are out of their bodies that they should not be able to under the assumption that the brain creates consciousness, and (2) anyone can have an NDE and everyone is convinced by it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U00ibBGZp7o
So any atheist or materialist or agnostic would be too if they had an NDE, so pic related is literally irrefutable proof of life after death. As one NDEr pointed out:
>"I'm still trying to fit it in with this dream that I'm walking around in, in this world. The reality of the experience is undeniable. This world that we live in, this game that we play called life is almost a phantom in comparison to the reality of that."
If NDEs were just hallucinations then extreme atheists and neuroscientists who had NDEs would agree that they were halluinations after having them. But the opposite happens as NDEs convince every skeptic when they have a really deep NDE themselves.
>NDEs are real and prove that we have a soul
Thomas Metzinger would like a word with you.
All this yapping and none of you can give me a single offline model capable of generating women peeing or even knowing that pee comes from the urethra not the clenched fists, or even can competently draw a vulva without being an oversampled weeb clone generator.
Old guys often speak nonsense. Just sayin.
Good, qualia are among the most moronic non-things invented by morons
>AI chatbots are conscious because consciousness doesn't exist
What?
gays
Great where's the off switch
>qualia doesnt exist
what color is this dress?
Pictures, being worth a 1000 words each...they don't count.
>flawless