Moderation Questions
The last iteration of the moderation discussion thread was a complete disaster. Numerous attempts to keep it on topic fa
I wouldn't agree that the gap is down to incomplete information but we can leave that aside as we both agree the information is incomplete.How well the brain models reality is debatable; but to the extent it is kept coherent with reality is dependent on processing the information received. Our minds then work with our model rather than directly with reality which sometimes resu
Our brains model the world, yes, but to say we’re not working directly with reality is what’s at issue here. The model doesn’t exist without content to fill it. I don’t even know if a mind that is devoid of any sense data for instance would have any sort of propositional content, because the sense data comes prior to the model. So a mind devoid of any content wouldn’t much resemble our brains. That leads me to believe that the sense data is epistemically prior to the model. And that’s just a stand-in for reality, since reality is the physical stuff that we see, touch, feel, etc.
When you say that the model can painfully brush up against reality, that just seems to be saying that what’s actually out there doesn’t care if we have a model that’s not able to account for it, it just persists anyway. If that’s the case then it doesn’t seem that the “simulation” is causally efficacious except to drive us internally to action, not to actually change anything externally. I would think that if a simulation was doing the stuff we think simulations can do, that it wouldn’t be causally inert.
Imagine being one of these geniuses who are convinced that """""AI""""" will become sentient soon...
Oh sure we're modeling the world based on inputs and we can manipulate the world via outputs. That input is prior (either to ourselves or via evolution or design). That data comes from somewhere but there's still a gap between that somewhere and our model of it based on the inputs.
When you say that the model can painfully brush up against reality, that just seems to be saying that what’s actually out there doesn’t care if we have a model that’s not able to account for it, it just persists anyway. If that’s the case then it doesn’t seem that the “simulation” is causally efficacious except to drive us internally to action, not to actually change anything externally. I would think that if a simulation was doing the stuff we think simulations can do, that it wouldn’t be causally inert.
I'm not suggested that we can't change reality - we are part of it and can do stuff that makes a difference. Nonetheless if your model of the world doesn't include the obstacle then you trip over it it etc etc. We can remove the obstacle but that require it being in our model. Reality wont remove it because it wasn't in out model. Again ignoring idealism etc
Still leaves open the question as to whether conscious experience requires something about the real world on top of this model.
Might resemble chez's.
Oh sure we're modeling the world based on inputs and we can manipulate the world via outputs. That input is prior (either to ourselves or via evolution or design). That data comes from somewhere but there's still a gap between that somewhere and our model of it based on the inputs.I'm not suggested that we can't change reality - we are part of it and can do stuff that makes a d
shut the **** up
Oh sure we're modeling the world based on inputs and we can manipulate the world via outputs. That input is prior (either to ourselves or via evolution or design). That data comes from somewhere but there's still a gap between that somewhere and our model of it based on the inputs.I'm not suggested that we can't change reality - we are part of it and can do stuff that makes a d
I guess now I feel like we’re saying the same thing so I’m not sure what the disagreement is at this point. I’d say all of that is perfectly consistent with the standard physicalist account of what consciousness is. Maybe you think it needs to be called a simulation and I don’t, because I think it’s reducible down to something physical happening is the difference?
Imagine being one of these geniuses who are convinced that """""AI""""" will become sentient soon...
Is your point that "not sentient soon" equals "not especially transformative for human society in the near term"? That seems dubious and more than a little question begging given the inevitable difficulty of defining whether a machine intelligence is sentient.
Then again, I'm interacting with you as if you were trying to make an actual point, so I'm probably the stupid one here.
Is your point that "not sentient soon" equals "not especially transformative for human society in the near term"? That seems dubious and more than a little question begging given the inevitable difficulty of defining whether a machine intelligence is sentient. Then again, I'm interacting with you as if you were trying to make an actual point, so I'm probably the stupid one he
Coming from the guy who scolded me for not posting sUBsTantIAl stuff LMAO.
My point is: No brain, no sentience. Also: LLMs and Techbros have successfully tricked the weak minded. You can stomp your foot all day and scream "But if i'm philosophising real real hard then we can call a rock sentient whether you like it or not!!!!!!!!!!!"
"Only natural brains can be sentient ergo artificial brains cannot be sentient by the preceding argument." You must have been top boy in kindergarten debate society.
It’s plausible that a brain is required for sentience but I don’t think that has been established yet.
But regardless I don’t think sentience is required for AI to have an incredible impact, both good and bad.
It hasn't even been established that the brain provides sentience.
Not that this is a debate I find particularly engaging, but it sells a lot of books and lecture tickets and basically goes like this:
a) "Hey I experience stuff, I am therefore conscious."
b) "You mean you think you experience stuff. Your conclusion is premature!"
a) "Okay, I think I experience stuff, I am therefore conscious.".
b) "You mean, you think you think you experience stuff. Your conclusion is premature!"
I am guessing people will see where the debate is headed.
Like the simulation hypothesis, this one does not really matter either. They are both just gods of the gap.
I feel like everyone conflates sentience and sapience. Maybe I'm just not smart enough to know the difference.
I feel like everyone conflates sentience and sapience. Maybe I'm just not smart enough to know the difference.
Sapience speaks more to behavior or specific thoughts, which is a far easier topic to discuss than things like sentience or consciousness. I guess there could be conflation, which would certainly muddle a debate.
Discussing behavior is generally a lot more useful than discussing consciousness.
It hasn't even been established that the brain provides sentience.Not that this is a debate I find particularly engaging, but it sells a lot of books and lecture tickets and basically goes like this:a) "Hey I experience stuff, I am therefore conscious." b) "You mean you think you experience stuff. Your conclusion is premature!"a) "Okay, I think I experience stuff, I am therefor
What do you mean by establish? If you mean something like a deductive proof, then yeah. If you mean our best inductive/scientific theories don’t indicate that the brain is the source of sentience in humans, I don’t know why you would say that.
What do you mean by establish? If you mean something like a deductive proof, then yeah. If you mean our best inductive/scientific theories don’t indicate that the brain is the source of sentience in humans, I don’t know why you would say that.
I mean, consciousness does not really play a big role in modern science, and neither does sentience. They're fun topics to discuss and are certainly important in the philosophy of mind, but as far as scientific modelling goes they are just hazy, poorly defined concepts of little value.
You can boil them down to near behavioral concepts like experiencing pain, but at that point the terms themselves aren't even necessary anymore.
Sapience speaks more to behavior or specific thoughts, which is a far easier topic to discuss than things like sentience or consciousness. I guess there could be conflation, which would certainly muddle a debate.
Discussing behavior is generally a lot more useful than discussing consciousness.
It would certainly make the future debate about whether AI/Robots/etc should be given rights one hell of a lot easier.
I mean, consciousness does not really play a big role in modern science, and neither does sentience. They're fun topics to discuss and are certainly important in the philosophy of mind, but as far as scientific modelling goes they are just hazy, poorly defined concepts of little value.You can boil them down to near behavioral concepts like experiencing pain, but at that point t
I find that the same people who are fascinated by discussing consciousness are also those fixated on many worlds and simulation theory and other amorphous and/or unfalsifiable ideas. It's just intellectual masturbation, but that's basically philosophy in a nutshell.
Yes chez, that is, inter alios, you.
It would certainly make the future debate about whether AI/Robots/etc should be given rights one hell of a lot easier.
People are already "marrying" their LLMs. Which is undoubtedly strange, but a lot less strange than marrying a toaster. I think. It will be interesting times.
I find that the same people who are fascinated by discussing consciousness are also those fixated on many worlds and simulation theory and other amorphous and/or unfalsifiable ideas. It's just intellectual masturbation, but that's basically philosophy in a nutshell.
Yes chez, that is, inter alios, you.
I think discussing the nature of reality and the mind is good fun, but yes it is mostly intellectual masturbation. Some good things come from it though, like ideas for how we should study reality and the mind that we use today.
I mean, consciousness does not really play a big role in modern science, and neither does sentience. They're fun topics to discuss and are certainly important in the philosophy of mind, but as far as scientific modelling goes they are just hazy, poorly defined concepts of little value.You can boil them down to near behavioral concepts like experiencing pain, but at that point t
Maybe we are just using these terms differently, because I’m not seeing how sentience is not being studied by scientists, or why it has little value. All I mean when I use the word sentience is the capacity to have some experience such as pain, pleasure, emotion, memory. Is that something that is too hazy to be studied in principle?
I think discussing the nature of reality and the mind is good fun, but yes it is mostly intellectual masturbation. Some good things come from it though, like ideas for how we should study reality and the mind that we use today.
What criteria have you used to determine what is intellectual masturbation? I would say it’s pretty important to know if animals are sentient or not. Seems most people throughout scientific history have treated it like a given that they aren’t* and well you’ve seen the result.
Yep, definitely going to be interesting times.
D2 maybe has more of an issue with the intellectual than with the masturbation.
