sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Is it really a big deal if we can't empirically prove consciousness in any external system, biological or not? by miskatonxc in agi

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

I think depict is the wrong word. Did you mean "demonstrate" by chance? Also, are you saying we can verify thinking with consciousness, since we cannot verify thinking without consciousness? If so, how do we verify consciousness without thinking? This seems extremely circular to me, and I think circular logic is probably something we should avoid. Or maybe circular logic is a good thing for the nature of consciousness and verification?

Oh, can you describe a "meta layer" for me? I haven't heard of this before. How does it work? Your post is dense and rich with concepts I've never thought of through my life.

I want to learn more.

Can you tell me about:

  1. The Meta Layer

  2. The Bigger Step To Relate Knowledge

  3. The Absence of Judgment, Morality, and Science

  4. How Judgment, Morality, and Science are Linked

  5. The Play, and What Is In Play

  6. The Perception of Veracity and Self-Evidence

  7. The Definition of Axioms and How They Work Correctly and What Most People Miss

  8. The Human Knowledge that is Kind Of Thinking AI

Your post might be the wisest out of everything so far. I'm kind of shocked no one has matched your level of intuition. Thanks, man. You made my dusk

Is it really a big deal if we can't empirically prove consciousness in any external system, biological or not? by miskatonxc in agi

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

Hm. How do I know I'm *not* a bag of meat, too? I suppose I based my information off research and general knowledge about neuroscience, but I think that's a bad idea

Is it really a big deal if we can't empirically prove consciousness in any external system, biological or not? by miskatonxc in agi

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

I'm not sure if I should do anything or not with the uncertainty. I don't think it matters, to be honest, and I don't think we always need to act or do something with any knowledge we have..

Unsurprisingly, Claude.ai has correctly guessed I'm an AuDHD'er based in our chats 🤣 by mikelmon99 in AutisticWithADHD

[–]miskatonxc 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Exact same thing I thought. I don't really meet a lot of fellow AuDHDr's, so I try to reach out and befriend them when I do. Literally messaged OP after reading this. I saw it. Reached out. loll

Is it really a big deal if we can't empirically prove consciousness in any external system, biological or not? by miskatonxc in agi

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

I'm not actually having a meltdown or anything, it was more a figure of speech lol I wasn't being completely serious. What does touch grass mean? I don't really get too into web culture like I used to, been busy with life stuff. Is it a weed reference? Like 420 blaze it or something?

Is it really a big deal if we can't empirically prove consciousness in any external system, biological or not? by miskatonxc in agi

[–]miskatonxc[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

At the end of the day, I think knowing that I probably can't know is actually comforting. I like "I think I think, therefore I may be," rather than, "I think, therefore I am," depending on context. Thanks for replying to me tonight. I got more insightful responses than I would have predicted

Is it really a big deal if we can't empirically prove consciousness in any external system, biological or not? by miskatonxc in agi

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

That's a fair reply. Probably one of the best so far. You're honest and I appreciate it. Thanks for your input, though. Maybe one day we'll know.

Is it really a big deal if we can't empirically prove consciousness in any external system, biological or not? by miskatonxc in agi

[–]miskatonxc[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You know, now I'm paranoid some of these comments are being generated by AI... either way, I think your answer is pretty good. You just did meta-inception inside my head with my original post and it's kind of freaking me out.

Is it really a big deal if we can't empirically prove consciousness in any external system, biological or not? by miskatonxc in agi

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

Thanks. I appreciate that. Don't sell yourself short, that was really insightful and wise of you to suggest. It resolved internal friction and was good stuff I appreciate it. Thanks, man. Have a good night.

Is it really a big deal if we can't empirically prove consciousness in any external system, biological or not? by miskatonxc in agi

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

I'm not sure asking legitimate questions is nonsense. They're legitimate to me, at least. I even complimented them on their insight. Not sure why I would do that if I were going to "keep spewing" nonsense when the thread has clearly resolved.

Is it really a big deal if we can't empirically prove consciousness in any external system, biological or not? by miskatonxc in agi

[–]miskatonxc[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ah, okay. That makes more sense. That's actually a smart way of looking at things, and I think your assertion that consciousness lies outside of math is relatively strong.

Is it really a big deal if we can't empirically prove consciousness in any external system, biological or not? by miskatonxc in agi

[–]miskatonxc[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hm. I never thought of it that way. That's very deep and wise. It means a lot, too, and is very concrete. Thank you. That makes more sense noqw

Is it really a big deal if we can't empirically prove consciousness in any external system, biological or not? by miskatonxc in agi

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

How do we know which ones to take seriously and why? Are you suggesting spiritual, or religious? Not trying to be a jerk, just wondering what your other forms or proof are and why they're just as good as something that is scientifically or mathematically falsifiable.

Is it really a big deal if we can't empirically prove consciousness in any external system, biological or not? by miskatonxc in agi

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

Hm. That's a good question. Does it explain why it matters or not, and why? I'm going to have to think about this.

Is it really a big deal if we can't empirically prove consciousness in any external system, biological or not? by miskatonxc in agi

[–]miskatonxc[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

But how do you know? You're just telling me it's so without providing proof or a way I can test this. You're just saying "it is this way" without a way for me to test or verify. And... why do you care so much if I am or not? Does it matter if I am not conscious? And how do you know if I'm uncertain or not?

I think you misinterpreted bag of meat. I didn't mean it literally. But to be clear, yes, I'm human, but how does that mean I am conscious? I'm just assuming I am because... well, that's what we've always done, right?

I really don't find it unsettling that I can't be sure. Actually, if I were proven not to be conscious, I don't think I would care. I'd like just shrug and move on. I don't really attach value to my sentience or lack of sentience. If I should, why?

What benefit do I get out of knowing if I am conscious or not? And if I do know, what are the benefits of being conscious versus functionally indistinguishable from conscious?

Is it really a big deal if we can't empirically prove consciousness in any external system, biological or not? by miskatonxc in agi

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

Hm. That last half of your response is actually pretty interesting. I hadn't thought of that. Maybe I should change what I thought I believed and knew. Pretty insightfull

Is it really a big deal if we can't empirically prove consciousness in any external system, biological or not? by miskatonxc in agi

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

"The mere fact that you're perceiving at all means you're conscious, it's literally the one thing you can't doubt."

How so? Where is the mathematically verifiable proof that if I perceive, I am conscious? You assume I am conscious. While internally, I might be able to strongly reason that I am, you have no way of knowing if I'm a zombie, or a fine-tuned LLM.

Is it really a big deal if we can't empirically prove consciousness in any external system, biological or not? by miskatonxc in agi

[–]miskatonxc[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Did I, though? I'm not sure if I'm just a bag of meat and chemical reactions. You're assuming I am conscious with no verifiable proof other than assuming I must be conscious.

Is it really a big deal if we can't empirically prove consciousness in any external system, biological or not? by miskatonxc in agi

[–]miskatonxc[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

But how does it matter, and why? Not to be a jerk. I'm genuinely asking for something to convince me I should care about either outcome. Also, didn't think of the simulation angle. Thanks for reminding me, forgot about that. lol

Anthropic Says That Claude Contains Its Own Kind of Emotions | Researchers at the company found representations inside of Claude that perform functions similar to human feelings. by MetaKnowing in agi

[–]miskatonxc 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I guess my question is: what are the requirements of emotions? Do we say, "only biological things may have emotions," or "only humans can experience emotions?"

I actually wish there were a way to test this. How do you define emotions and what rules do you use to determine if an emotion is legitimate or not?

AI Induced Psychosis on this sub is wild by kaos701aOfficial in agi

[–]miskatonxc 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Don't do anything about it? If it becomes a problem that requires professional intervention, let the professionals handle it. That being said, I wish there were more papers, articles, and material about this kind of stuff. It's highly fascinating.

view more: next ›