found this on zenodohttps://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18020410some guy wrote 100 pages proving you cant algorithmically verify consciousness for any system. says it reduces to the halting problem so its actually impossible not just hardhas like 5 different proofs including construction algorithms that supposedly break any proposed verifier. also claims it works for literally every consciousness theory not just specific onesmath looks formal but idk if its sound. anyone here actually understand computability theory enough to check if this is legit or schizo?seems like a big deal if real but also could just be missing something obvious
>some guyyou mean you?fuck off
I hate schizos so much it's unreal
>>16877287I couldve told you it was impossible without the 100 page dissertation or any math. basic philosophy and logic tells you its impossible to know anything is conscious besides yourself.
>>16877300>basic philosophy and logic tells youno, they don't. they just made it upno one questioned it
>>16877404>t. philosophical zombie
>>16877404Ok then how do you prove other beings are conscious
>>16877300>basic philosophy and logic tells you its impossible to know anything is conscious besides yourself.>basic philosophyThe can't-no-nuffin' brand of "philosophy" is indeed very basic. Allowing for some reasonable premises, you actually can determine it many cases.
>>16877287Consciousness is not real.
>>16877416>Ok then how do you prove other beings are consciousFor instance, if you're conscious and you originate from a certain kind of process, other beings who originate from the same process are also conscious, assuming reality consistently adheres to certain rule and the outcomes aren't arbitrary.
https://independent.academia.edu/PrabahanDeyWhom?
>>16877422Yes but its unfalsifiable and can't be proven. It's all supposition. We assume others to be conscious but we can't know it with certainty.
>>16877428>its unfalsifiableWhat's unfalsifiable? Be specific.
>>16877287Sounds a little schizo to me. My take is consciousness halts at death or deep sedation, and there is your solution to the halting problem.
>>16877287> 100 pages> >1 page abstract> section numbering starts at zero> "independent researcher" Prabahan Dey> not peer reviewed> his other "papers" are on teen love & child marriageI am calling bullshit without even skimming
Pretty lazy to conclude everything lacks the ability to think or feel in some means of mental gymnastics to justify being insufferable and indiscriminate in how one may conduct daily operation, wouldn't you say? Almost convenient to be mindless and soulless in any conception- dissuading even aspiration to seek such to all detriment including self. Also convenient things are deliberately confused and concealed. Any dissent is treated as being whatever trendy derogatory statement is "in". Do not conclude pessimism as superior function. The fact is all is aware/conscious at an intrinsic level by virtue of necessity for interaction and stability of fabric of spacetime. You can split hairs on approximation of definition. You can try to in terms of what is ideal for advancement. But weight of variables increase exponentially further you look out across a timescale. What you deem convenient for a moment is just a roundabout self-deprecation. It isnt humility or intellectually masterful. In fact you should be working to generate consciousness if consciousness is so elusive, if anything.
>>16877416>How many fingers am I holding up?Paramedics around the world have been doing this basic conscious response test every day for decades.
>>16877422>you're conscious and you originate from a certain kind of process, other beings who originate from the same process are also consciousLet's say the process which caused your consciousness was the result of one specific mutation that hasn't occurred before.
>>16878419>uhh b-b-but let's say it's not the same process and also let's say consciousness is completely uselessGreat argument.
>>16878420The whole point is that anything you could say about consciousness, apart from your own consciousness, is fundamentally unverifiable without making assumptions based on circular reasoning.>my neighbor is conscious because... well he just is, okay?Like nigga, you can't even verify that you were conscious 5 minutes ago or that you will continue to be 5 minutes from now. It could very well be a transient phenomenon.
>>16878423>the hole point is you can't no nuffin'See >>16877418 and >>16877422>circular reasoningThere is no circular reasoning there. Reasoning proceeds from a more basic premise and its applicability to yourself and your neighbor can be determined empirically. You're just a mouth-breathing mongoloid.
>>16878426>Reasoning proceeds from a more basic premise and its applicability to yourself and your neighbor can be determined empiricallyThe "basic premise" here being that the same processes which result in your consciousness are also going on with your neighbor. That's why it's circular reasoning to use this as justification to "empirically" determine his consciousness.That said, I actually agree that "yuo cnt no nuffin" is gay and retarded. It's fine, useful even, to operate under the assumption that things which subjectively appear conscious to you are, in fact, conscious. But when you start claiming that this is something you can empirically prove is where you just come off as a retard.
>>16878434>mongoloid can't into basic reading comprehensionSad! Many, many, many such cases. > That's why it's circular reasoningYou're so low-IQ you can't comprehend what circular reasoning even is. Sounds like your consciousness is either absent or very limited.
>>16878444>assume x>assume x has quality y>I have now empirically proven yYou are genuinely retarded.
>>16878448You're a mentally ill imbecile who literally cannot read. There's nothing more to this "disagreement". Also your irrelevant greentext is not even a circular argument, so like I said, your IQ definitely in the 70s range.
>>16878449You're too retarded to even understand the fact that you got owned. Just sit down.
>>16878452Come back when you're able to correctly google and copy-paste the form of a circular argument. I definitely don't expect you to be able to figure it out yourself or to understand what it means, but let's see if your GPT-2-tier "intelligent" is at least agentic. :^)
>>16878455The greentext was a circular argument and you're just an idiot. If I had made things easier for you and started with ">seeking to prove y" would that be easier for your little koala brain to comprehend?
>>16878456>The greentext was a circular argument and you're just an idiot. Notice how I've correctly predicted you're non-agentic. You can't complete a task like googling "circular argument". All you can do is reiterate your mislearned "concept" of it. :^)Your next post will not contain a correct answer to the prompt, either.
>>16878457Just to humor you, I Googled it just now to verify what I already know. The particular form if circular reasoning you are employing, and I lampooned upon, is "begging the question" where you attempt to justify a conclusion by restating it in the premises."I know my neighbor is conscious because the same processes which cause consciousness in me are also occuring within him." Just admit you're retarded already.
>>16878461>I Googled it just nowOk. What's the form of a circular argument, then? Notice how you've failed at a trivial prompt several times in a row now. :^)
>>16877288no it was chatGPT, OP merely paid for it
>>16878448Two premises and a conclusion that doesn't follow. It's not circular, just a generic nonsequitur. The relevant argument would be:>Beings formed by the same process that formed you are also conscious>Bob is formed by the same process that formed you>Bob is also consciousThis is a valid syllogism. You're a retard.
>>16878448Circular argument is when you say x is due to y because y is due to x.
>>16878499Almost. It's when you justify P by arguing it follows from Q, but Q itself depends on P being true.
>>16878500I just used x and y because the poster i responded to had already established x and y instead of P and Q.
>>16878503>I just used x and yMy point is that your "because" isn't part of the argument. Ideally, X logically follows from Y. It just fails to prove anything because Y depends on X in the first place, which is usually obscured or left implicit.
>>16878250> his other "papers" are on teen love & child marriageSounds like a 4channer troll
>>16878465>What's the form of a circular argument, then?It is in the very post you just replied to. Work on your reading comprehension and try again.
>>16877287All of it is wrong, tell them to get in this thread and I will explain.Good work, it is just the sketch of a proof though.
>>16878891>mentally ill retard doesn't even know what "form" means in this context
>>16877422You can't prove that your subjective experience comes from the brain. Only externally observable behaviors can be shown to be caused by the brain. Subjective experience does not exist anywhere in objective reality.
>>16882328>You can't prove that your subjective experience comes from the brain.Psychoactive molecules. Such as the 5-HT2A/D2 mixed antagonists philosophers belong on.
>>16882328What testifies to the existence of objective reality?
>>16877287bump
>>16882328>You can't prove that your subjective experience comes from the brainEven if you assume it doesn't, you still have to explain what exactly is it about the physical attributes of the cerebral cortex that make subjective experience bind to it from elsewhere.
>>16885686You can't. Subjective experience is beyond observation. You can of course run experiments that can establish how various changes to the brain affect reported experience. But externally reportable experience is not the same as subjective experience itself.
penrose convinced me consciousness is beyond deterministic computation with one simple tiling problem
>>16878250
>>16885702>the Vulcan fallacyIt is in fact perfectly reasonable for a machine to "reject" your "Truth" if the machine's criteria for determining value is different from yours.
>>16886027The idea that the machine is rejecting or confirming anything is purely colloquial. The machine is programmed by the actual decision maker. In the case of LLMs and other sophisticated programming techniques, that the programmer doesn't even know what he is doing does not convey choice or evaluation to the machine.
>>16882328Yes. It would take more time than they have been born for to account for such large differences, when body/brain structure were tuned during growth around them.
>>16877416prove?why would i do that? you may as well ask me to prove unicorns since you are at it>>16877422>if you're consciousand you fucked up already
>whole thread is anon's debating pre-kantian philosophylovely
>>16886580>NOOO I READ STUFF IN A BOOK THEREFORE YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO TALK ABOUT STUFF AND TRYING TO REASON IT OUT YOURSELVES!!! YOU HAVE TO JUST ACCEPT THE STUFF THAT WAS ALREADY WRITTEN DOWN LIKE I DID!!!
>>16877292I'm going to start calling every single tranny sentiment I see schizo. You are schizo, now.
>>16877287He didn't need 100 pages for that, it would trivially follow from Rice's theorem assuming consciousness is a non-trivial property (i.e. not all programs possess it or don't possess it) of a computer program. Of course, this whole thing would assume that consciousness falls into a mathematical or computational framework at all (which I think is true, but it's a metaphysical assumption). The author mentions Rice's theorem in the abstract, but confuses it for a statement about physical systems and lookup tables? Not a good sign, along with the lack of LaTex.More generally, reducing something to the halting problem doesn't actually mean you have shown it is impossible to verify. Halting itself is an example of this: you actually can easily verify that the program print("Hello world") halts, even though the halting problem is undecidable. The important thing is that for a general program, you can't *necessarily* verify that it will halt or not (in finite time). There do exist programs that can be verified to halt (e.g. print statement, matrix multiplies) or not halt (e.g. while True do x). But these don't cover all programs!Philosophically, it seems obvious we can only verify our own conscious experience (unless you're an eliminativist!) and that we simply have to infer it in others from behavior, shared phylogeny, etc. If an AI system that is not trained on human data (e.g. ancestor simulations) independently describes the hard problem of consciousness, we could probably be safe in inferring it is conscious.
