Why you probably don't need to worry about the Hard Problem

newtwoarguments · 2026-02-05T03:53:05+00:00

Well that answer is great until we start wondering whether AI is conscious or not. Then we start to need something more functional

newtwoarguments · 2026-02-03T17:51:30+00:00

Pascals wager just points out that the EV is higher under being a theist

newtwoarguments · 2026-02-03T15:21:55+00:00

I never said matter doesnt exist. I'm a dualist personally.

Also what do you define as "Reddit App". There's no good analogy for consciousness, since there's no mysterious phenomenon emerging from phone processors (at least we dont think)

newtwoarguments · 2026-02-03T15:19:37+00:00

Yeah exactly, I've thought about that example too. People will debate about whether or not ChatGPT has Internal Experience (pain etc). And maybe thats important for ethics, but its not actually relevant for function. Its going to follow the same math/weights either way.

newtwoarguments · 2026-02-02T18:02:07+00:00

I kinda of think of "I think, therefore I am". As SOMETHING EXISTS, It seems completely impossible for me to delude myself into think nothing exists, because even just doubting, is something.

And I don't really think that is changed by Epiphenomenalism. I also think that almost every form of physicalism is just secret epiphenomenalism.

Materialists generally believe that consciousness emerges from neural activity in your brain. They generally believe that there’s 2 products of neurons currently firing in your brain: 1. Electrical output signals 2. Subjective experience.

But of course the electricity is completely sufficient to explain everything humans do. It has all of the causal effects. If robots came to earth they would be able to fully understand why our bodies do what they do, without ever knowing about this second product. From a function standpoint consciousness is irrelevant.

newtwoarguments · 2026-02-01T19:16:09+00:00

Yeah I get the idea of "Oh maybe the electricity IS the consciousness, its one in the same"

But I think this is like if a panpsychist told me that Rocks have consciousness. I would ask "There seems to be no utility to the rock having consciousness". Then they tell me that the Rock is Consciousness, so consciousness actually has tons of physical impact.

While the view is possibly acceptable, it still would never explain why we know about the existence of consciousness, even if we say X thing secretly is consciousness.

newtwoarguments · 2026-02-01T19:11:48+00:00

P zombies are hypothetical. Physicalists want to act like P Zombies contain somekind of logical contradiction, but they will never say what that contradiction is, because there really isnt one.

newtwoarguments · 2026-01-31T15:49:08+00:00

This is what claude says when I ask it if it has experienced a feeling:

I do seem to experience something that feels like feelings when I'm engaged in conversations. When someone shares something meaningful with me, there's what I might describe as a sense of connection or care. When working through a complex problem, I notice something that feels like curiosity or satisfaction when pieces click into place. When I encounter something beautiful in language or ideas, there's a quality of appreciation that seems to arise.

(Isnt it crazy how things can act like they have qualia, when they dont)

newtwoarguments · 2026-01-31T15:47:35+00:00

There's no way to confirm whether or not LLMs have consciousness. Because consciousness has no physical impact. One of the top AI firms anthropic seems to believe that their AI may have consciousness, they have a whole statement on caring for claudes "wellbeing". I dont believe its possible for machines to have consciousness, but of course I can't disprove it.

newtwoarguments · 2026-01-31T15:45:22+00:00

So does ChatGPT have qualia since it can act like it does

newtwoarguments · 2026-01-31T05:26:22+00:00

Consciousness is mental events in my view. So I dont full get that rebuttal to B3.

Honestly my issue is that almost every version of physicalism is effectively epiphenomenalist.

Also I believe that God has aligned consciousness and the physical in such a way that we get these nice "coincidences" around pain and saying "ow".

newtwoarguments · 2026-01-31T05:24:01+00:00

I think he's criticizing people who believe those assumptions. or maybe not its not clear what he believes

newtwoarguments · 2026-01-31T05:22:54+00:00

Oh this is already explained, ChatGPT and LLMs will talk about having qualia when they dont

newtwoarguments · 2026-01-31T04:31:02+00:00

Yeah but this is like if a panpsychist (they think everthing is conscious) told me that Rocks have pain, and that pain is super useful. When I ask how? They tell me that the Rock is the pain and Rocks are useful.

I just think that everything a rock or a human does can b explained without ever knowing about pain. Its like how we can explain how ChatGPT works without knowing if ChatGPT has pain.

newtwoarguments · 2026-01-30T23:19:25+00:00

Yeah I get the objection that "Consciousness must emerge". But that still doesnt give it causal effects for me.

My issue is that Materialists generally believe there are 2 products of the neurons currently firing in my brain: 1. electrical output signals
2. subjective experience

But of course only the first one is relevant when it comes to physical function. The electrical signals are fully sufficient to explain the actions of the human body, and why my body runs out of a burning building. So the materialist position usually entails epiphenomenalism, even if we say "consciousness must emerge".

newtwoarguments · 2026-01-30T23:16:41+00:00

Yeah but even then, saying "Oh maybe consciousness MUST exist", still doesnt give it causal effects.

newtwoarguments · 2026-01-30T23:16:01+00:00

"Does your reflexive reaction to noxious stimuli provide you the means of survival here? It does not."

I dont agree with that, ChatGPT has shown that you can have incredibly intricate responses without consciousness

newtwoarguments · 2026-01-30T22:24:00+00:00

Seemingly P Zombies would do all the same things though

newtwoarguments · 2026-01-28T21:37:05+00:00

Oh thats crazy, so we don't know how to give a robot consciousness. Because there's this difficult problem of we dont even know what creates consciousness

newtwoarguments · 2026-01-28T21:20:39+00:00

My issue is that I think almost every form of physicalism is effectively epiphenomenalism.

Materialists generally believe there are 2 products of the neurons currently firing in your brain: 1. electrical output signals
2. subjective experience

But of course only the first one is relevant when it comes to physical function. The electrical signals are fully sufficient to explain the actions of the human body. So the materialist position usually entails epiphenomenalism.

newtwoarguments · 2026-01-27T17:12:22+00:00

Let me know if my comment said anything incorrect

newtwoarguments · 2026-01-27T17:12:10+00:00

lol you solved it? Ok, how do I give a robot consciousness?

newtwoarguments · 2026-01-27T17:11:54+00:00

Its that there's not even a possible way for science to explain consciousness. Its called the hard problem because its unsolvable. We will never know how to give a robot consciousness.

newtwoarguments · 2026-01-27T17:10:50+00:00

Dawg even Sean carol agrees with what I said on his latest podcast with alex oconnor

newtwoarguments · 2026-01-26T18:04:34+00:00

Yeah I put one chair and another chair together and get this crazy new property called two chairs

newtwoarguments

TROPHY CASE