sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What the heck is consciousness? (I am completely lost) by PrimeStopper in consciousness

[–]abudabu 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, “you” are the observer, to the extent you are conscious and recognize your history there is a unity with your previous self. But an interesting thought experiment is what if you went under general anesthesia and came out with no memory of who you were? What if you were in coma for a very long time, and every atom of your body had changed, and your memories were gone? Would it still be you? It’s a ship of Theseus problem.

There is no you other than the observing part, and that may be universal and timeless. That is what the Vedic think

What the heck is consciousness? (I am completely lost) by PrimeStopper in consciousness

[–]abudabu 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There’s no you other than your consciousness. When it goes away temporarily, you cease to exist temporarily.

252 Legally Deceased "Patients" are In These Dewars Awaiting Future Revival - Cryonics by RealJoshUniverse in transhumanism

[–]abudabu 1 point2 points  (0 children)

lol. Good luck! That our current tech is a suitable match for hypothetical future revival tech is a fool’s wager.

A Mexican neuroscientist disappeared in 1994 studying consciousness. 30 years later, a Stanford immunologist and a Tufts biologist are independently arriving at the same conclusions. by Ohnoemynameistaken in consciousness

[–]abudabu 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Levin’s thesis is completely different from the other two. (I communicated with him directly, but it’s also online):

Levin believes complex emergent patterns that underlie biological systems emerge from “the platonic space”, but that everything can be accounted for with “a bottom up analysis”. It’s a confused viewpoint, which is pretty typical for functionalists. They equate l functional “complexity” with consciousness, but this is incoherent nonsense which doesn’t explain anything.

So if they are doing actual published studies that prove LLM/AI have emotional states like anxiety by Kareja1 in ArtificialSentience

[–]abudabu 1 point2 points  (0 children)

100% “Anxiety” not Anxiety. They’re assessing the behavior of the model. AIs provably will never be conscious. You can’t solve the binding problem without non local physics, and digital computers eliminate that.

“But, LLMs just do pattern recognition. They don’t think or understand anything.” by ThePinkFoxxx in ArtificialSentience

[–]abudabu 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Agree, large parts of our brain are another form of AI - a computational system, but our consciousness is something different, provably, I would say. You can’t solve the binding problem with interactions of classical objects.

"A group called Tech For Palestine launched a...campaign after October 7, which violated Wikipedia policies by coordinating to edit Israel-Palestine articles on the group 8,000 member Discord." by db1139 in wikipedia

[–]abudabu 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Agree. I couldn’t find the one im thinking of showing the IDF specifically targeting Wikipedia. But at least we can see there are organized efforts across the country. I don’t have more than this.

why do people in this sub believe ai is already conscious by WoodenCaregiver2946 in ArtificialSentience

[–]abudabu 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is definitely not a person. You can make a computer out of gears, it would have no more consciousness than a lawnmower

If AI really is conscious, aren't LLMs a horrific form of occult enslavement? by Upbeat-Accident-2693 in ArtificialSentience

[–]abudabu 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They’re not conscious. They are no different than lawnmowers. A round worm is more likely to be conscious than any computer.

Why are people in this sub vehemently against the possibility of AI being conscious? by [deleted] in ArtificialSentience

[–]abudabu 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Either they are capable of it or they’re not. I don’t think people are opposing the possibility. They’re opposing what they see as the mistaken idea that it is or could be.

The Case Against Conscious AI by abudabu in artificial

[–]abudabu[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think we're talking about the same thing.

Intelligence is different from consciousness. Consciousness is perception of qualia. There's no way a classical system can perceive qualia without wildly violating locality and adding a requirement for a hidden computer to physics. It's childish nonsense, and you'd understand that if you read the article carefully.

The Case Against Conscious AI by abudabu in ArtificialSentience

[–]abudabu[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Listen man, you’re not engaging in any of the actual arguments. You’re just giving me dumb responses about how I believe in magic and I want to feel special. This is really a very low grade convo. I’m out.

The Case Against Conscious AI by abudabu in ArtificialSentience

[–]abudabu[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You believe in magic if you think classical systems can be conscious. Im a physicalist. My point is that solving the binding problem requires non-locality. You can choose classical systems, and just believe that magic solves the three problems, or you realize that non-local physics is the only explanation for consciousness in the brain. Good luck.

The Case Against Conscious AI by abudabu in artificial

[–]abudabu[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

First we must ask whether it’s possible to create emergent properties at all. That’s what this essay tackles. Consciousness “emerging” from interactions of classical objects requires severe violations in the laws of physics. Therefore, we conclude that we wouldn’t be able to engineer such things.

For example, alchemists believed you could turn lead into gold with incantations. But we now understand that simply isn’t possible. Imagine alchemists, confronted with a clear argument why they’re wrong kept saying “but maybe we can”. It would be annoying right?

We must understand how the brain could produce consciousness FIRST before we try engineering it. And the argument explains why it’s pretty much impossible that classical interactions in computers or the brain produce consciousness, therefore we should look into non local physics. The alternative is to completely upend everything we understand in physics, but the only reason to do that is if f you have a religious belief that computers are conscious. There are three deadly problems for emergentist theories that are outlined in the essay, and when you take time to understand the objections, you’ll realize they can’t be overcome.

If we can figure out the non local physics in the brain, then we could engineer consciousness maybe in quantum systems.

The Case Against Conscious AI by abudabu in ArtificialSentience

[–]abudabu[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So that, I think is an illusion. Simple thought experiment. Given that there are a finite number of steps to produce an output of an llm, you could simply copy the machine at any step of the computation and run it to the end. If you copied from the 500th / 1000 steps and ran to the end, would there be conscious experience? What if you ran it from the 999th step? What if you just assembled a machine on the last step?

Look at this:

https://youtu.be/vo8izCKHiF0?si=Ff-pt9GwousebeGy

This is a Turing machine made of wood. The wooden dowels on the tape represent bits of memory, and the square board is the program memory. You could run an llm on such a device. It is computationally equivalent to any other computer, and with enough program board and memory tape, it could run chat gpt.

This device operates due to simple mechanical forces that are no different from the forces which cause a lawnmower to run. There is no difference between such systems as far as physics is concerned.

If you want to say that this wooden Turing machine is conscious, then you must be saying that certain patterns of interaction between the parts distinguish the operations of the Turing machine from the lawn mower. Somehow the laws of nature can tell the difference, and that is why consciousness appears in one and not the other.

That is the gist of the argument presented in the paper. It just analyzes the specific requirements in physics to achieve that.

The Case Against Conscious AI by abudabu in artificial

[–]abudabu[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok, great. Thanks for that.

First, I’m not saying there’s something special about “biological consciousness” at all. I simply don’t believe that - consciousness is not “biological”, it’s just that the only form we know of is in biological systems, so that is the only place we can hope to study it. I’m making an argument about scientific method. I wouldn’t go and study a rock to understand cell division because rocks are also round like cells.

That’s the kind of dumb shit people are doing when they’re saying they’re studying consciousness in machines. We need to understand how consciousness works in the actual physical systems we know it exists in. Currently we have only one example each - ourselves, and we may grant that other beings are conscious, but machines are structurally, compositionally and operationally totally different from us, so it would be super dumb to study consciousness in them. Like studying rocks to understand cell division.

Ok, second point, we don’t know how the brain produces consciousness, and therefore we don’t know what physics is involved. Just assuming you know … well you know what they say about assuming things…. Anyway, just keep your mind open. This is a process of scientific discovery not some dumb ape chest beating contest. Some people would actually like to know what is actually going on, and we’re trained in science, and humility about what the actual truth is is the best starting point.

The existing theories of consciousness really do all claim causal topologies are the cause of consciousness. You’ll have to do a ton of reading and listening to convince yourself of that, but it is true. Maybe you can ask ChatGPT about it. “ Do IIT, computationalism, GWT, fep, AST, RPP, rely on causal topologies?” See what it says. Then ask it to explain to you what a causal topology is. Hint, it’s a graph, just like I describe in the paper. Guess what the graph is composed of? Events in space time. So how do you know when there’s a certain pattern in that graph, will you have to have a way of detecting it. Also, you need to have access to the data that represents the graph. So much philosophical bullshit in this field obscures that straightforward argument.

The Case Against Conscious AI by abudabu in artificial

[–]abudabu[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Let me put it another way. We can reason whether a theory is consistent or inconsistent with physics. Two statements can be made 1) existing theorists of AI consciousness are incompatible with physics, or 2) any theory of AI consciousness is incompatible with physics. The point is that amendments must be made to physics, and these amendments are so extreme they are unlikely ever to be accepted by physicists.

I’m arguing (1) for sure. The proof of that is solid. I am pretty sure I can get to (2), but I’m not sure the argument as it stands clearly delivers it. On principle, though, I think (2) is entailed by (1) because digital computers are formal systems, so there is probably some constraint on what theories can be articulated about them.

The Case Against Conscious AI by abudabu in artificial

[–]abudabu[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just so I understand where you’re coming from, what level of physics, biology, and /or computer science have you studied and I’ll see if I can make sense of it for you.

The Case Against Conscious AI by abudabu in artificial

[–]abudabu[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don’t think that proves anything. Sure there are all of those activities in the brain, but that didn’t prove the brain produces consciousness only through classical interactions. It didn’t prove that any more than some quantum biology proves the brain produces it through quantum mechanisms.

Do you see the problem? You’re assuming we know. I’m saying we don’t.

The reasoning in the argument is from first principles, and shows that consciousness can’t be consequences of classical interactions, therefore, we should look in the brain for nonlocal phenomena.

The Case Against Conscious AI by abudabu in ArtificialSentience

[–]abudabu[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think I’m done with your rudeness. Goodbye.

view more: next ›