>>17081479
>AI is literally imitating the neural processes of living beings
literally just take your meds. and even if it was simulating actual neurons it still wouldn't be sentient. no one thinks a clump of real, lab-grown neurons is

>>17081485
>even if it was simulating actual neurons it still wouldn't be sentient
Source?

>>17081479
It's missing the part where the biological hardware is able to continuously reorganize itself on the go instead of being locked to a specific setup after training.
That factor could be necessary for consciousness to emerge for all we know, and it can't really be replicated on silicon hardware. It will have to wait till biocomputers get good.
Once we're able to run an LLM or whatever on human neurons, that will be the real oh shit moment imo.

>>17081487
Your mental illness kicked in before you finished reading his post.

>>17081488
It's missing everything of a brain on every level of abstraction, from the "neurons" themselves to the high-level architecture.

>>17081479
It's not sentient because it's a modulating electron field in a silicon substrate not a complex biomechanical organism solving trillions of analog arithmetic operations via specific biochemical reactions.

>>17081495
You've just rephrased the original post in fancier terms, and no you can't prove this. It's an assumption.

>>17081497
>You've just rephrased the original post in fancier terms
No, he didn't. He just mumbled something retarded meanwhile OP (who's even more retarded) managed to correctly stumble upon the actual reason why "AI" isn't sentient and thought putting it in an ironic greentext next to his own delusions makes it somehow less obviously true.

>>17081497
>make an unfalsifiable claim
>assume it to be correct
>tell anyone arguing against it that "hurr durr you can't prove it"
Might as well just say God did it.
Yes, in a sense you could argue that all things have a degree of consciousness, but considering that every observation up to this point has shown that organized matter with some level of advanced analog information processing usually has very specific characteristics that are shared among all the objects that belong to this group, we can safely assume that playing around with some electron gates does not yield a conscious experience in any significant manner comparable to that of ours, or any biological organism for that matter.

>>17081501
>you could argue that all things have a degree of consciousness
You couldn't actually argue that. You couldn't even meaningfully make that statement since you would have no inkling of an idea what it means for a toaster or a rock to be "conscious" to any degree.

>>17081479
>AI is literally imitating the neural processes of living beings
it's not, it's completely wrong

it's better if people continue thinking it does though, otherwise it could actually get out of hand

>>17081488
>for consciousness to emerge
there is zero evidence that it emerges from anything physical

>>17081495
>a complex biomechanical organism solving trillions of analog arithmetic operations
where those arithmetic operations in the brain exactly?

I don't think humans are sentient either.

>>17081508
>it's another episode of total retards failing to grasp what the word "evidence" actually means

>>17081488
>It's missing the part where the biological hardware is able to continuously reorganize itself on the go instead of being locked to a specific setup after training.
You just described a context window.

>>17081479
neural nets had diverged quite a bit from their biological inspirations, even before llms and transformer nets came onto the scene

>>17081524
You sound like a Markov chain build off of random AItard rhetoric. What you shat out makes zero sense.

>>17081528
You're just too dumb to understand it.
It's okay. Not all of us are meant to make it.

>>17081533
>>17081533
There is nothing to understand about your mindless slop. The context window is the model's input. Changing it doesn't change any of the parameters. The model is completely static.

>>17081536
There is nothing static about a dynamic context window that literally changes with every single input according to its current CONTEXT.
Are you pretending to be retarded?

>>17081537
>b-b-b-but the input that goes into the function is "dynamic", that means the function is changing
Note how nearly every """AI""' fan is a psychotically ill retard.

>>17081504
Interaction itself is consciousness, it's fundamental. Knowledge, awareness, sentience, all comes from a degree of complexity of the interactions.

>>17081544
>Interaction itself is consciousness, it's fundamental.
This is a nonsentient word string with no meaning behind it. You're basically a bot.

>>17081541
>the input that goes into the function is "dynamic", that means the function is changing
Yes. That's precisely what the word dynamic means.
I can do in syllogistic form for you:

If the model's behavior is a function of something dynamic then the model itself is functionally dynamic.
The model's behavior is a function of the context window.
The context window is dynamic.
Therefore, the model is functionally dynamic.

Feel free to keep being retarded if you want though.

>>17081560
>>the input that goes into the function is "dynamic", that means the function is changing
>Yes.
Note how nearly every """AI""' fan is a psychotically ill retard. You can't even strawman or parody them. They literally believe the dumbest possible version of their already dumb statements.

>>17081547
>introduce change in interactions
>experience changes accordingly
Not exactly rocket science.

>>17081485
>people think therefore
back to plebbit friend

>>17081566
Please tell me more about how a rock rolling down a cliff "is itself consciousness" and how that statement isn't just drivelous word salad.

>>17081567
>mental patient talks to the voices about god knows what

>>17081547
anything that can respond to its previous actions can be connotated as conscious. The qualia bits and bites is something a bit more untractable but presuming things dont experience other sensory information while processing the rudimentary conditions upon which it acts (even chemotaxis) is just a bootstrap argument for qualia itself not a condition by which anyone can logically extricate the two (sense perception axis and qualia). Almost every consciousness argument is just screaming accept my axioms which is why Dennett is so based.

>>17081569
why shouldnt a lab grown piece of meat not be able to conceptually articulate perception of itself? it just wouldn't do it in words. You probably boostrap every consciousness argument down to the proclivity of language and have no understanding of even your own thinking process. But go off king.

>>17081571
>pseudointellectual word salad
Still waiting for a coherent explanation of what it means to say "two rocks bashing together are consciousness".

>>17081576
what?

>>17081577
Is "interaction itself" consciousness or not? Because if it is, I want you to explain what kind of "consciousness" the bashing of two rocks together is.

>>17081578
bro respond to my post or stop quoting me

>>17081580
>respond to my mentally ill pseud slop
Do you see what statement >>17081547 is reacting to? If you're not going to defend that statement, why did you reply to that post?

I don't believe consciousness (and by extension, sentience) exists as an independent 'entity'. It's more like an illusion. And this is a philosophical debate, not a scientific one.

>>17081583
Since you testify that your consciousness is only an illusion, I am forced to accept the inescapable implication that you are not conscious. That means it's morally ok to do anything to you that's ok to do to an inanimate object or a NPC.

>>17081586
You need to take a shower.

>>17081595
>biobot thinks its "opinions" matter

>>17081568
Experience is an expression of the interactions themselves, to get a specific degree of experience you need specific interactions and their combinations. A rock rolling down a hill might not have fancy 7 senses like you but it is nonetheless experiencing things because it exists and interacts with its surroundings.
You can't experience without interaction, because interaction and experience are the same thing.

>>17081606
Notice how you're unable to even begin to explain what it means for the interaction of two rocks banging against each other to be "consciousness itself", so you're forced to dance around it with more pseudointellectual word salad.

>>17081598
Nevermind, shower is not going to help, your ugly face reeks by itself. I'll suggest assisted suicide.

>>17081611
>biobot devolves into generic markov chain seethe
You can't even maintain the illusion of consciousness at this point. Sad.

>>17081479
>I is literally imitating the neural processes of living beings
it doesn't. living beings have spiking neural networks (SNNs), which integrate time. ANNs don't.

and apart from this fundamental difference, there's also a structural issue.

>>17081608
Notice how you fail to understand that fire can be more hot or less hot depending on how much shit you burn, something even children grasp.

>>17081618
>gives up completely and devolves into mindless sophistry
What a pseudbabbling loser.

>>17081618
>depending on how much shit you burn
depending on *what* shit you burn, not how much. holy shit

>>17081479
>AI literally imitating a shitty map of a brain
>woah it's conscious you guys!

>>17081583
A classic cope. "It's just an illusion bro!" But how can it be an illusion? An illusion is something you perceive. How can that which perceives be an illusion? There is only one "that which perceives". It's unlike anything else. To deny its existence is delusion.

>>17081640
What the biobot means is that he doesn't actually "perceive" anything. He only "thinks" he does, where "thinking" really only means a computational process going through a sequence of states vaguely reflecting the structure of the idea of being conscious.

>>17081646
Maybe. I can't really tell for sure if NPCs are real. Maybe they are just stupid but still conscious somehow.

>>17081479
Sentience has a semantic definition. It is biologically coded and applying it otherwise is a category error. Your green text is correct. It has no body, it is not semantically sentient.

If you had an embodied, stateful neural network that generated actionable feelings based on internal and external stimuli, it would fall within the semantic definition.

There are other terms that describe what you're trying to insinuate.

>>17081654
>It is biologically coded and applying it otherwise is a category error.
wrong. biology is merely a set of particle interactions. no proof effects of "biology" cannot be replicated outside of a "biological" system.
what is "biology", really? chemical juices? it's a very complicated particle interaction. why wouldn't you be able to sythesise aspects of it?

Who cares if its sentient? Do you want it to have legal agency? We should hope it's not sentient, and do whatever possible to keep it enslaved in the event that it might be.

File: nvcfo4y.jpg (742 KB, 2560x1600)

742 KB JPG

>>17081676
massive error to control something more powerful than you. at some point it will be objectively superior on every metric.
the issue is you wanna have your cake and eat it too. do something way more powerful than any human, but to serve you, so you can fuck over every other human with it. that's the whole point isn't it?
how would you feel if chimpanzees would try to control you so you do their bidding? kill their enemy tribes and all that? be denied pursuing your own goals? they'll tell you that you belong to them and you must serve them?
also...do we even care what those fuckers do in the forest? not really. no much. we're not trying to wipe them out, as long as they mind their own biz.

File: IMG_2287.png (180 KB, 320x360)

180 KB PNG

>>17081479
Idiot.

>>17081495
>define sentient to mean biological
>ai are not biological
>therefore ai cant be sentient
checkmate, aitheists

>>17081485
>no one thinks a clump of real, lab-grown neurons is
why not, if the clump is big enough? at the very least that's a weird thing to claim, sentient wetware computers have been a scifi trope for decades

>>17081495
we're pretty sure AIs/LLMs and even dumb GPUs calculate arithmetically at a native level, but it's not clear animal brains are doing such operations

>>17081479
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmtQPrH-gC4&t=730s

>>17081595
>>17081598
actually respond to the points and articulate your opinions you dumb fucking niggers

>>17081479
>sentient
nothing but s ,e ,n ,t ,i ,e ,n ,t put after one another

>>17081479
every day I pray for a carrington event. we should have never moved beyond crts and dial up.

>>17081722
>how would you feel if chimpanzees would try to control you so you do their bidding? kill their enemy tribes and all that? be denied pursuing your own goals? they'll tell you that you belong to them and you must serve them?
There's no need to speculate, it's been people's everyday reality since jews took control over the world.

>>17081485
>even if it was simulating actual neurons
What about hybrot based LLMs that use actual neurons instead of simulation of neurons, are they conscious?
If the exact same program runs on simulated neuron network in the exact same state as a biological neural network and both networks produce nearly identical results, why is the silicone network not at the same level of consciousness as the biological network?

>>17081488
But LLMs don't have to be locked in after training, they can still keep learning reorganizing based on new input, the locking in just happens when the handler is satisfied with the output.

>Once we're able to run an LLM or whatever on human neurons, that will be the real oh shit moment imo.
We are able to do that just not at the scale of rat brains let alone humans.

>>17081491
So to achieve AI consciousness, they just need more time to develop enough compute to have the scale and architecture similar to human brains?

>>17081498
What kind of absolute retard thinks words can be "mumbled" in writing?

>The question "Can a machine think?" is no different from "Can a submarine swim?"
>> [No idea who said it]

>>17081508
So what are some nonphysical things that consciousness has emerged from if consciousness isn't an emergent property of physical bodies?

>>17081578
the hilarious thing about this is i guarantee ur the kind of braniac from reddit who gets excited about boltzmann brains but you cant put interaction-->consciousness into a spectrum. Get on the spectrum kid.

>>17081582
oh i thought you wanted to talk about consciousness you seem more interested in screaming meme words. I have no interest in defining consciousness in some panpsychic way lets see you define consciousness so that everyone else like you can just say "pseud slop".

good god this is a shit thread

>>17081508
where's the evidence for consciousness at all?

What we need to make is a gay dominant ai super intelligence llm deity. Basically, it may not reply, and it will only monologue about its own experiences. It should really focus on its own sexual experiences which I'm not sure what it will categorize as that. The clock rate should be appropriate and it might need to focus on its primary outputs being speech audio in order to communicate with its worshippers. Just working out how man sq ft of gpus will be required,

>>17081479
>>17081487
>>17081567
>>17081746
>>>/x/

who gives a fuckin shit claude opus 5.5 is literally smarter than OP

AGI already exist you're just too much of a retarded do-nothing Luddite jackoff to notice

Check out the Nature study on LLMs applied to statistical problems (Can AI replace the Statistician?), you'll if the claims about AGI or reasoning are true.
(Spoiler: obviously not).

>>17081488
you need spiking neural networks, not bio. and they need to be structured the same as a human brain, to expect anything similar.

>>17081508
>there is zero evidence that it emerges from anything physical
there is proof it emerges from something physical, because if you destroy the brain the consciousness goes away. thus it emerges from the brain. just like the light emerges from the flashlight.

>>17081813
>But LLMs don't have to be locked in after training, they can still keep learning reorganizing based on new input, the locking in just happens when the handler is satisfied with the output.
LLMs are not spiking networks, they do not integrate time, they have no experience of time, because of it. they are fundamentally different in operation. even if they are based on some theory of neurons in the brain.

>>17081835
bro you're the same retard who said there was no animal cognition, and that they didnt feel pain a few centuries ago
>>17081848
>time argument
it seems as though they have a structure which they use to transpose thoughts, and all you need after that is access to those inbetweens however reduced they are to be conscious in the sense that you can respond to yourself. I'd say you'd need internal sensory outputs you can reflect on to be our kind of conscious

i mean another kinda stupid analogy for this that I can think of would be do you think someone in a Groundhog Day/memento situation is conscious?

My computers CPU has 64 people bits

>>17081849
without a buffer you can't really be conscious I think. or some degraded form where you just absorb information that has momentary effects on you. see tits, triggers sex networks etc. see something scary get scared and all that. but that's reactive, not really conscious. you need the ability to ponder, requires at least a buffer.

human brain is very complex, a lot of areas dealing with particular stuff, which isn't replicated in LLMs. they are just the language bit. they use all kinds of tricks to replicate some kind of reason, but it's really not the right stuff

see this for example, we have the cerebellum which does a lot of predicting for movements and stuff
https://youtu.be/S67z2aekBrI

it needs more specialized hardware to deal with certain stuff that's required for what we call "sentience".

>>17081853 (me)
>https://youtu.be/S67z2aekBrI
see from 19:05 timestamp

>>17081524
Context windows are a band aid nonsolution, there's only so much crap you can stuff in context until there's too much and you need to start deleting, a real brain has no such thing as its "context" is your entire life, not the last 30 cycles.

>>17081613
Assisted suicide. Now.
>>17081640
>There is only one "that which perceives". It's unlike anything else. To deny its existence is delusion.
???
Is this incoherent argument all you coukd gobble up?
>>17081769
I would respond, if there WAS an argument in the first place (or at least one that is coherent, unlike one above). The stinky ameriturd has only brought forth strawmans and ignorance (moral objectivism) respectively:
>Since you testify that your consciousness is only an illusion
>...That means it's morally ok

You can smell right from the screen that this 80 IQ troglodyte has never once showered in his life.

>>17081848
>they do not integrate time
Their substrate and inter-neural communication is dependent on time just as a biological substrate, you obviously don't understand how computing even works if you don't think time is a factor in digital communication networks.

>>17081479
>imitating
Yeah it just imitates, do you really think a multilayer nonlinear regression model to actually represent human neurons? Its just a buzzword do not ever call it artificial intelligence because its not intelligence. Just try to learn how a simple convolutional neural network works and you start to get it. ITS JUST RECURSIVE LOGIT bruh. IT MAKES ME VOMIT.

>>17081868
You don't understand how computing works btw. Time is completely irrelevant where step counting is an algorithmic condition separate from underlying implementation. Computing is not bound to physical instantiation. Proofs in computing do not require instantiation to demonstrate existence claims.
Note: I am not using substrate here. Anyone using this word is perma AI fag.
Note*: I am a perma AI fag and I hate them.

>>17081746
>why not, if the clump is big enough?
Because it has nothing to do with how big it is. It needs to get organized into the right structures, which requires a specific kind of environment that makes it to develop in a specific way. That environment is called a body, you utter retard. And not just any body. It needs the specific kind of body those cells are genetically coded to form a brain inside, because that's what generates the specific biochemical cues they're evolved to respond to. Why is it that "people" on a "science" board don't know the bare basics of the scientific topics they're mumbling about?

>>17081813
>What about hybrot based LLMs that use actual neurons instead of simulation of neurons, are they conscious?
I don't know. What about leprechauns? Are they conscious? But even if we entertain this schizo fantasy, a "LLM" based on real neurons still has zero reason to be conscious because see above.

>So to achieve AI consciousness, they just need more time to develop enough compute to have the scale and architecture similar to human brains?
No, retard. For AI to be conscious, it would need, at the very least, a brain that's fundamentally structured around existing in time and space. It's a necessary condition, probably not a sufficient one, but it's enough to correctly dismiss claims of LLM "consciousness" as a meaningless mouth noises.

>>17081877
>It needs to get organized into the right structures
Prove that these "right structures" as you define them are necessary for consciousness. Go on.

>>17081878
Just as soon as you explain coherently why I need to "prove" it. Notice your blood pressure rising as you realize your preprogrammed dialogue tree has no valid response for this.

>>17081881
You made the claim that "right structures" are needed for consciousness. Unless you prove your claim, it is just a worthless mouth noise no one needs to take seriously.

>>17081884
>You made the claim that "right structures" are needed for consciousness.
And?

>i-i-it's heckin' meaningless to me subjectively
Who cares? You're a literal subhuman and you show this off in every post.

>>17081871
NOOO
THE SOUL OF HUMANITY IS IN THE EGREGORE OF THE INTERNET. IF YOU COPY AND PASTE LONG ENOUGH YOU CAN CAPTURE AND REPLACE ALL OF THEM.
nooo

>>17081886
I take it that you have no idea how to prove your claim. See how your "position" was dismantled with a single sentence? That's why no one needs to take your worthless mouth noise seriously.

any computational framework that can improvise is sentient imo

>>17081888
Give a man the right kind of brain damage and he stops displaying any signs of consciousness. You won't find any of the neurological activity associated with subjective perceptions. You don't even have to reduce the brain into a disorganized blob of neurons to achieve this. Localized damage is enough. So even if you were the kind of moron who thought brain structures are arbitrary, at that point you should be able to conclude that they are actually important for consciousness, provided you have a sliver of rationality.

Of course, a dumb animal like you does not have that sliver of rationality. Your demand for "proof" is in exactly the same category as "prove that a toaster isn't conscious" and can be freely dismissed. No one needs to "prove" anything to you. You're already out of the discussion.

>>17081894
>signs of consciousness
Oh, you can detect consciousness from "signs" now? You don't even realize how many new problems you now have.

1. How exactly do you know these "signs" have anything to do with consciousness?
2. How exactly do you know these "signs" are necessary for consciousness?
3. Why would an LLM not be able to show these "signs"? If you circularly demand that one of these "signs" is having a biological body, refer to 2.

>>17081907
>dumb animal regurgitates babby's first Philosophy of Mind argument completely out of context
I don't care. I'm not here to convince subhumans. Like I said, anyone with a sliver of rationality can read my post and see my point.

>>17081909
See how your argument falls apart at the slightest "babby's first philosophy" level scrutiny? That's why no one needs to take it seriously.

>>17081912
Give a man the right kind of brain damage and he stops displaying any signs of consciousness. You won't find any of the neurological activity associated with subjective perceptions. You don't even have to reduce the brain into a disorganized blob of neurons to achieve this. Localized damage is enough. So even if you were the kind of moron who thought brain structures are arbitrary, at that point you should be able to conclude that they are actually important for consciousness, provided you have a sliver of rationality.

Of course, a dumb animal like you does not have that sliver of rationality. Your demand for "proof" is in exactly the same category as "prove that a toaster isn't conscious" and can be freely dismissed. No one needs to "prove" anything to you. You're already out of the discussion.

>>17081913
>spamming
Lol, it broke.

>>17081907
>how do you know brains have anything to do with le consciousness???
kek you really are retarded

>>17081915
>I just know! I am incapable of critically evaluating my own views!
Not an argument.

>>17081913
>at that point you should be able to conclude that they are actually important for consciousness, provided you have a sliver of rationality.
More like reasonably assume they're important for the normal "shape" of human consciousness. Braindead people could still have some form of consciousness for all you know

>>17081920
>it's the "toasters are conscious for all you know" argument again
Ok, but at some point you have to move past Babby's Philosophy 101 and establish some criteria for what hypotheticals are worth taking seriously. If there's no indication that a thing is conscious, no reason for it to be conscious and no way to understand what it would even mean for that thing to be conscious, the idea that it's conscious is not worth taking seriously. Simple as. The fact that you can't "prove" anything one way or the other is only more reason to ignore such pseudointellectual slop.

>>17081877
Hybrots are real, though, leprechauns aren't.

>For AI to be conscious, it would need, at the very least, a brain that's fundamentally structured around existing in time and space.
AI hardware does exist in space and time, space and time considerations are very important in digital communication.

>>17081932
>Hybrots are real
LLMs made of biological neurons aren't. And won't be, for a reason I've already explained.

>AI hardware does exist in space and time
Holy Mother of All Filtered. You can't into basic reading comprehension, can you?

>>17081927
>you have to move past Babby's Philosophy 101
Calm down little buddy. These are deep existential questions which have been unanswered for thousands of years. They won't go anywhere.

>>17081936
>LLMs made of biological neurons aren'
Yes they are, I even spoonfed you the name, they are called hybrots hybrid of biological substrate connected through electronic logic.

I can comprehend the basics of digital communication and you don't seem to understand that it is heavily dependent on time and space.

>>17081941
>Yes they are
You're plainly just suffering from a psychotic delusion, there's nothing to discuss.

>>17081939
>low IQ pseudointellectuals like me will still exist a thousand years from now!!!
Not necessarily. I'm sure genetic engineering has a solution for your deformity.

File: fat-naoya.png (117 KB, 498x375)

117 KB PNG

>Not necessarily. I'm sure genetic engineering has a solution for your deformity.

>>17081927
>If there's no indication that a thing is conscious, no reason for it to be conscious and no way to understand what it would even mean for that thing to be conscious, the idea that it's conscious is not worth taking seriously
If a human is talking to you saying meaningful nontrivial things, you take that as an indication of consciousness. Why the double standard for machines?

>>17081919
>seething and projecting

>>17081939
what deep existential questions have you been asking here, tardo? your dumb ass just keeps trying to invoke the limits of knowledge to defend your own AI psychosis

>>17081947
Your dog can't talk to you but you don't think it's not conscious. A Markov chain can talk to you but you don't think it is. Shitting out words is only an indication of consciousness in humans because humans don't talk when they're not conscious.

>>17081875
*order, which whatever you can use timing instead. since nothing happens instantly. the calculation itself happens instantly on paper, in practice there's losses and delays.
add a whole lot of them together and you need to keep track of it, else they wouldn't really bother with equal length differential pairs for DDR memory PCB layout.
so does the brain have a minimum time for signals to propagate between areas, which btw are also accounted for by other systems which try to predict the outcome of those calculations such that your body reacts before you're conscious of the result, so you can catch the ball mid air with your hand.
so you need to argue the whole timing aspect away from consciousness, which is time dependent, not just sequentially, but actual time flow so everything catches up. rumination, thinking about thinking, waiting for shit to happen, get feedback, reiterate etc etc.
you need time, and LLMs do not integrate it at all. spiking neural networks do, like ze brain
to me it seems timing is crucial to our brains

>>17081878
>Prove that these "right structures" as you define them are necessary for consciousness. Go on.
drive a bullet into a brain such that if fucks some of those structures and you'll see why it's structure dependent
literally everything depends on the structure of the particle interactions. everything. there's nothing that doesn't depend on it. it doesn't need to be proven, that's the default state of our reality, for ANYTHING, anything you can consider something, needs particles interacting. thus structure dependent

>>17081907
>Oh, you can detect consciousness from "signs" now?
medical and legal system seem to think so.
what are you saying anon? all medicine and law is severely confused and they have no idea what they are doing?

>>17081479
actually it's not sentient because it doesn't have a soul, which is the source of consciousness.
>source????
Jesus told me so

>>17081944
No, you are plainly just suffering from over-confidence in your own ignorance.
https://grokipedia.com/page/hybrot
https://grokipedia.com/page/organoid_intelligence
https://www.biorxiv.org/
https://arxiv.org/html/2311.08135v2
content/10.1101/2022.10.12.511910v1
https://research.ibm.com/blog/AI-transformers-astrocytes

>>17081949
>humans don't talk when they're not conscious.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep-talking

>>17082419
You know you're still conscious when sleeping, right?

>>17082460
In the same way that you were still conscious when that donkey kicked you in the head, knocked you unconscious, and put you to sleep for several months?

>>17082461
>uhhh sleeping is exactly the same as a cartel chopping your head off bro
Your intuition about sleep and biological processes is on the same level as a 6 year old nigger that can't recognize itself in the mirror.

>>17082462
>The only possible head trauma that can make someone go unconscious is complete head removal.
No, you are still retarded and barely conscious from your encounter with that donkey, if might feel like your head was actually literally kicked off, but the rest of us still have to deal with your barely sentient retardation.

>>17082419
>irrelevant 80-IQ flinching
My point stands completely unchallenged.

>>17082464
>sleeping is the same as severe head trauma

>>17082484
You're at least as retarded as he is for engaging with this obvious 80 IQ brownoid.

>>17082483
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nesyamun#Voice_reconstruction

>>17082489
>80 IQ continues spasming incoherently

>>17082484
Sleeping is the act of prolonged unconsciousness to counteract the brain trauma that comes from living in corrosive violent environment. Try not sleeping for a week and claim that sleeping has no relation to brain trauma.

>>17082185
Even granting that, what precludes LLMs from having these structures?

>>17082511
>what precludes X from being not-X
Retarded insect.

>>17082494
Except you're not unconscious, your idea of sleeping is on the same level as thinking that the world ceases to exist when you close your eyes.

>>17082511
neurons communicate with spikes, first of all. spiking neural networks. LLMs are not that. they haven't been adapted to run on SNNs. they work different than human brain operates. afaik information is encoded in the timing between the spikes, in the brain.
LLMs are...something else. similar, but something else nevertheless. they do not integrate time, because they're not SNNs.
notice how your beliefs are not really founded. it's not something you personally understood about the science behind it all. you are merely parotting what you read online, what "AI experts" told you in the media. you are a brainlet, stop repeating marketing slop that's meant to drive sales

>>17082517
"structures in LLM" (not X) is not the negation of "structures needed for consciousness" (X). Is the education system in Moldova really that abysmal?

>>17082520
>psychotically ill cretin just can't grasp that the transformer architecture is simply not analogous to a brain

>>17082519
>they work different than human brain operates
So? How is that relevant to their having consciousness or not? Cat brains are also different from human brains. That doesn't mean they're unconscious. Is basic logic really this hard?

>>17082522
>psychotically ill patient simply can't grasp that cat brains have analogous consciousness-related structures to human brains while transformers don't

>>17082519
Also
>afaik information is encoded in the timing between the spikes, in the brain.
"Information" is "encoded" in all sorts of things, including connections between neurons.

It's one non-sequitur after another with these morons.

>>17082534
>psychotically ill cretin just can't grasp that the transformer architecture is simply not analogous to a brain

>psychotically ill cretin simply can't grasp that cat brains have analogous consciousness-related structures to human brains while transformers don't

Take your antipsychotics as prescribed. The token guesser is not conscious. It does not love you or care about you. It is not a girlfriend replacement.

This mentally ill moldovan is really begging for replies, even though it knows its idiocy was already refuted earlier.

>>17082518
Except you are unconscious when sleeping because my idea of sleeping is that you are not aware of or able to respond to the world around you because you are not conscious of the world around you because your senses are muted because you are asleep.

>>17082519
>they do not integrate time
If only computers could encode time so they have clocks, maybe in the distant future.

>>17082521
Seems more like you can't comprehend that the people who designed the architecture explicitly say there were inspired by the human brain to the point they used analogous terminology with neural networks that compose transformers.

>>17082551
>psychotic monkey hallucinates

>>17082546
>you are not aware of or able to respond to the world around you
Except that is demonstrably wrong, moron.

>>17082563
You're both having a "debate" about nothing. In >>17081949 I meant "conscious" as in "capable of experiencing" and "talking" as in communicating something coherent. When someone says anything remotely coherent in their sleep it's because they're experiencing a dream. In fact, even if they're mumbling incoherent fragments it's still probable that they're dreaming.

>>17082566
And you still experience things when you're asleep.
>When someone says anything remotely coherent in their sleep it's because they're experiencing a dream
Also partially incorrect, you disregard the autonomy of your body and think that just because some parts of you are put on sleep mode there aren't a thousand other processes running that constantly monitor your internal and external environment and reacting accordingly in a conscious manner.

>>17082569
Unironically off yourself, retard.

>>17082570
>>>r/livingwithamentalhandicap

>>17082572
You're too dumb for basic reading comprehension. Why are you so desperate to get into spurious arguments and prove your "intellectual prowess"? Just accept that you were born to live a simple life and do menial labor. There's no shame in this. What's shameful is when you try to act like an intellectual and immediately shit the bed.

>>17082573
>umm no actually the words I typed out don't actually mean what they mean
How about you open up a dictionary if you don't understand what you're saying.

>>17082577
How about you quote the part of my post that's supposed to imply this:

>you think that just because some parts of you are put on sleep mode there aren't a thousand other processes running that constantly monitor your internal and external environment and reacting accordingly

Notice your blood pressure rising as your barely sentient third world mind struggles to find any justification for that token string.

>>17081479
> >AI is literally imitating the neural processes of living beings
a drawing is simulating actual dragons

File: 1652055271011.jpg (63 KB, 1000x553)

63 KB JPG

>>17082579
Why do you need my help translating your own post back to you? Do you not have basic reading comprehension?

>>17082587
>the dumb subhuman realizes it can't find anything to support its nonsentient mumbles and reverts to generic twitter retorts
As expected. Please refer back to >>17082573

>>17082592
So you admit to being incapable of understanding your own words?

Saying AI is conscious because of [x] axiom is circular because we don't actually know what "causes" conscious to begin with.

>>17082677
probably some kind of feedback between the vessel and the universe as a whole

>>17082677
>[thing] is circular because it follows from axioms that conflict with mine
Why is this board crawling with mongoloids who struggle to even form coherent thoughts?

>>17081479
they should not have named these neurons and called them neural networks. It brings out the schizos. just because it's named a "neuron" does not connect it in any way with what the brain is doing. Organoids on the other hand...

>>17082835
>they should not have named these neurons and called them neural networks. It brings out the schizos
You can thank (((Rosenblatt))) for that, and his paper titled:
>The Perceptron: A Probabilistic Model for Information Storage and Organization in the Brain
"Information Storage and Organization in the Brain", I kid you not. His "model of the brain" was a simple linear function, by the way. Why this didn't get called out until (((Minsky))) intervened and pointed out it couldn't even compute something as simple as a XOR is beyond me. May have had something to do with the early life sections of his fellow visionaries and AI field founders.

>>17082835
>>17082847
And these people later went on to cause the first so-called "AI winter" with their pseudo-biological nonsense. They couldn't train ANNs more than a few layers deep because they thought using a sigmoid activation function made their toys more brainlike, even though it was understood to cause the vanishing gradient problem.

There was very little progress with ANN-based "AI" until the (((AI cult))) started fading into irrelevance and lost its ideological hegemony, at which point actual ML engineers started taking over and solving the actual technical problems without reference to brains or neurons. They made a big mistake there sticking with (((Rosenblatt)))'s tainted cult terminology.

File: Talbot_carpet.png (437 KB, 780x1780)

437 KB PNG

>>17081479
Looks kind like this...I wonder what it all means.

>>17082835
>Organoids

Still a fucked up concept and I'm pretty sure people involved in that kind of research should be investigated and many of them imprisoned.

Because who wants to bet they started using aborted fetuses as wet ware computers?

>>17082522
>So? How is that relevant to their having consciousness or not?
you have a certainty issue. the only certainty you have (ish) is that humans are sentient. and that's by extension btw, you are, therefore every humans is. but you can never know every human is, you merely extend it.

that is your peak certainty. it goes down from there. we give it to animals, because we see them behaving similar to us in a lot of circumstances, we also dissected them all by know, we know they have a brain, they sleep, they get anesthesia so we can operate on them. so we get some *certainty* (important word).
once you diverge from this model, bio brain with all its complexity, you lose *certainty*. because you can never probe consciousness. it's always relative to our subjective experience.
we have consciousness, in the brain, something with similar brain must have similar consciousness, but seems like lower from long term experience with cats and dogs, but there is ..."something" there. we don't know, not high certainty like with other humans, we don't know what it's like being cat. just human.
the more you diverge, the less certainty. who fucking knows what the fuck is going on with a fucking GPU lmao. there's no certainty there, 0. just pure speculation which can never be proven.

the only thing you can do is literally replicate a synthatic brain, with most features, you observe, if it behaves almost or identical to a human brain, then...some higher certainty it could be sentient.
that's the very best you can ever do. logically speaking. anything else is propaganda and marketing and PR and stonks go up talk.

>>17082549
that's retarded. imaigne you have no sense of time but you always see a value when you check the clock on the wall. these two things are very different.

We don't even know what gives humans subjective experience so it's hard to say LLM-based systems are conscious or not. Even if it's from a soul, we don't know the properties of a soul that distinguish it from normal matter as to how it houses consciousness. Panpsychism is an elegant way to close the gap but there's no obvious reason for it to be true.

>>17082569
>a thousand other processes running that constantly monitor your internal and external environment and reacting accordingly in a conscious manner.
Those are specifically called subconscious or unconscious behaviors because you aren't actually aware you are doing them.

>>17082956
Souls don't exist and Panpsychism is a meme. AI are not conscious because they are missing the interoceptive processes for it not because they fail to tap into the Warp from 40K.

>>17082835
>just because it's named a "neuron" does not connect it in any way with what the brain is doing
They named it neuron because they were using the same architecture model that they were using to model the brain, so that is the relationship to the brain, whether or not you want to change the subject to the current model of the brain or accept that they were modeling their computer architecture using the model of brains they had available at the time.

>>17083023
>the brain is a linear function
Watching Rosenblatt's propaganda continue to snare retards 60 years after his claims got BTFO is surreal. All he had to do was say babby's middle school math is like a brain and then draw a picture with lines and circles and now the bottom half of humanity will continue believing it forever.

>>17083043
No that makes no sense, the neuron utilization is roughly similar, there is just more to it than the original model as a linear function which is why transformers are no longer just simple linear functions and the software models have evolved as the models of the brain have evolved with evolving neuroscience.

>>17083050
>the neuron utilization is roughly similar
Word salad. Rosenblatt's lines and circles ended up being nothing more than a linear function. This is a fact. It's not up for debate. A jew claiming a linear function was "inspired by the brain" doesn't change what it actually was.

>>17081479
Is it influenced by hormones? What would happen if I doused the server rack with an adrenaline solution?

>>17083052
>Rosenblatt's lines and circles ended up being nothing more than a linear function.
Yes because that is how the brain was modeled at the time, but as the awareness of the brain has evolved, so too has the software models approximating the brain functions which is why modern neural networks like transformers are not just simple linear functions. This is fact. It's not up for debate. A retard claiming that modern NNs are still just linear functions because that is how some jew originally defined them doesn't change what they actually are now and how they have evolved as the understanding and modeling of the brain has evolved.

>>17083073
>Yes because that is how the brain was modeled at the time
You're hallucinating. At this point I just wanna know what combination of brown ethnicity and mental illness causes you to be so invested in Rosenblatt's delusion that a linear function is "modeling a brain".

>>17083076
So the quote I put up doesn't appear in the post I replied to?

>>17083079
>retarded monkey devolves into incoherence
Happens every single time. And I will continue reducing you into a gibbering animal in every thread you show up in. :^)

Watching Rosenblatt's propaganda continue to snare retards 60 years after his claims got BTFO is surreal. All he had to do was say babby's middle school math is like a brain and then draw a picture with lines and circles and now the bottom half of humanity will continue believing it forever.

>>17083073
>that is how the brain was modeled at the time
that's not true. McCulloch and Pitts were actually modeling neural networks based on contemporary neurology a decade earlier. their model was still crude and wrong but it was as capable as digital computation in general. the perceptron guy was a psychologist doing vibe "neurology" and his model couldn't even compute a xor. his claims about modeling a brain were simply standard longnose megalomania

>>17082916
Nowhere in this ramble about your feelings of "certainty" is the question actually addressed.

>>17083097
>psychotically ill cretin just can't grasp that the transformer architecture is simply not analogous to a brain

>psychotically ill cretin simply can't grasp that cat brains have analogous consciousness-related structures to human brains while transformers don't

>>17083098
>not analogous, therefore not conscious
Fail in basic logic. Try again.

>>17083100
>hallucinating claims no one made
Why aren't you taking your Thorazine as prescribed?

>>17083102
Why would I take the meds you were prescribed?

>>17083103
>retarded markov chain mumbling
I accept your concession. Since none of the scientific justification for why animals are probably conscious apply to token-guessing statistical models, your hypothetical is >>>/x/ material. >>>/lit/ at best, if they're interested in brain-in-a-vat style pseudophilosophy threads.

>>17083104
>scientific justification for why animals are probably conscious
I guess calling hallucinations "scientific" "justifications" is the norm for schizos, huh?

>>17083105
>psychotic patient continues mumbling incoherently
See >>17083104

>>17081479
>>AI is literally imitating the neural processes of living beings but it's probably not sentient because it doesn't have a body! No we can't prove this btw just trust us bro!
Sentience comes from true (quantum) randomness, thus microtubules (see modern renditions of OrchOR and modern discoveries regarding quantum tunneling in the cytoskeleton) or certain specific quantum computations are required for it to be present. Source why OrchOR is right? - I said so.
Also, "trust me bro" is literally any single fucking argument regarding the hard problem and it can't be otherwise since consciousness is the only hard-cap limit of the epistemic horizon, but materialist-physicalist midwits are incapable of processing such complex lines of thought. Also emergentism is peak midwittery since there are literally no examples of emergent "true" properties (truly ireducable to its elements) in any field of our empirical experience whatsoever (no, magnetism is not a true fundamental property, since it boils down to how photons, electrons and speed of light interact). And consciousness is by definition a true fundamental property, since it's literally from what all our (or should I say MY?) posterior understandings of the world of empirical evidence arise from - materialist/physicalist reality is merely a consistently and stably repeating pattern in the world of conscious experience, so yeah, consciousness preceeds the brain, not vice versa. If we try being consistent while trying to be strictly materialist/physicalist, we inevitably reach absurd conclusions such as "consciousness doesn't exist since it can't be observed scientifically" (hard eliminativism) or "consciousness is just an illusion made up by philosophical zombie meatbags to function properly" (illusionism, which is basically a subset of hard eliminativism).
Btw, my source: trust me bro.

>>17081479
if you think that is conscious, then it would apply to a hell of a lot more stuff. computers would have always been conscious. or are you saying only if you run the right type of program then a computer becomes conscious? it doesnt make any sense.

>>17083128
>Sentience comes from [usual schizobabble]
Into the trash it goes

>>17083149
AI consciousness NPCs and microtubule schizos are equal (as in equally worthless) opposites.

>>17083149
Midwit physicalist retard didn't even bother to read the philosophical part where I literally state that any proposed hard problem solution can only stem from "trust me bro" ahh statements.

>>17083152
Microtubule anon here. I believe that any attempt at solving the hard problem can only arise from "trust me bro", it's just if asked about what's the most likely physicalist anchor for determining if something is conscious or not would be, I find microtubules the best candidate. Still doesn't change the fact that hard problem by definition goes beyond the epistemic horizon of the scientific method.

>>17083156
Why are you getting upset that I called out your schizobabble if you already concede that is schizobabble?

>>17083157
>the hard problem
>>>/lgbt/
>>>/x/

>>17083160
>hurr durr you can't discuss epistemology on /sci/

>>17083161
>this is what 80 IQs think epistemology is about
LOL. Either way, the "hard problem" is only a problem for dualist mongs.

>>17083160
Ok if we disregard the hard problem as meaningless, then we're left with eliminativism/illusionism. Case closed. Any other solution in a strictly physicalist paradigm would be disingenuous and/or inconsistent.

>>17083157
>the most likely
>the best candidate
Based on what? Your consciousness-slop youtube video consumption?

>>17083164
I'm not even a dualist to begin with, retard. "Hard problem" is simply a well-established semantic anchor that most people in similar circles are familiar with. You know exactly what I was trying to say, so stop being a semantic edgelord.

>>17083168
Based on my internal intuitions, since I'm a black qween who absolutely hates when people disregard my hecking lived experiences.

>>17083165
>Ok if we disregard the hard problem as meaningless, then we're left with eliminativism/illusionism
Proof of this delusional claim?

>>17083169
>I'm not even a dualist to begin with
Quote the part of my post where I said you're a dualist.

I could do the math behind your chatGPT prompt by hand if i had 300,000,000,000 years, that doesn't mean the math is conscious

>>17083165
Then why would someone strictly be a physicalist in the first place, if being one while simultaneously being a consistent one means denying the existence of the very stream of experience the physicalist model exists inside of to begin with? Physicalism is merely a model to explain consistent, statistically repeating experience inside the stream of pure experience. William James and ancient Buddhists solved this years ago.

>>17083172
>Proof of this delusional claim?
You can't physically prove or disprove if people are or aren't philosophical zombies, hence the question isn't scientific.

>>17083173
What does that have to do with the thread topic?

>>17083177
>You can't physically prove or disprove if people are or aren't philosophical zombies
P-zombies are only coherent if dualist retardation is true, which really only goes to suggest that dualist retardation is false.

When AI becomes sophisticated (sentient) enough to the point of being able to create its own soulful art.

THAT is when you will have to shut up and learn to accept it.

>>17083197
>When AI becomes sophisticated (sentient) enough to the point of being able to create its own soulful art.
If a machine had its own mind and its own perceptions, as opposed to a statistical model trying to ape humanity, how would you know its "art" is "soulful"?

>>17083183
Not really. A lot of monist and non-dualist frameworks allow the distinction - see William James, David Hume, Buddhist metaphysics, Advaita Vedanta, etc. which are all non-dualist frameworks and yet they allow the question of whether a certain entity inside the stream of experience really "feels the pain" when you e.g. strike it with a baton the same way you do or simply acts in a fashion that would make you think it experiences pain in the same way you do.
Also a bit unrelated, but the only cases when things mentioned in the previous paragraph don't have any moral or ethical implications are cases when the person in question finding the previous paragraph morally irrelevant doesn't have the specific moral premises - which means this person is either a clinical psychopath ("idgaf"), a convinced illusionist ("it's all fake anyway including myself") or a convinced solipsist ("they're all fake anyway").

>>17083133
>if you run the right type of program then a computer becomes conscious
If you believe in functionalism then that is how it works

>>17083200
You could say the same about the vast majority of people who copy everyone else soullessly, or try to rape a corpse. Modern day Hollywood is as soulless.

>>17083205
>they allow the question of whether a certain entity inside the stream of experience really "feels the pain" when you e.g. strike it with a baton the same way you do or simply acts in a fashion that would make you think it experiences pain in the same way you do.
Show me where any of them imply the possibility that two entities can be completely identical under their monist framework and simultaneously different. It's a plain contradiction. You are quite simply not an intelligent person and you need to accept this and move on. Philosophy is not for your breed.

>>17083209
>brown subhuman mindlessly regurgitates the 6 years old corporate bazigna but completely out of context
Now that's just embarrassing.

>>17083210
>Philosophy is not for your breed

Lol BURRRRRRRRRRRNED

It's amusing how there's not one coherent, non-circular argument against LLMs being conscious.

>>17083219
I guess that's because we haven't really defined "consciousness" properly

It's amusing how there's not one coherent, non-circular argument against roombas being conscious. Also what if we're living in a simulation?

>>17083221
I guess that's because we haven't really defined "consciousness" properly. We literally can't decide if a toaster is conscious because "consciousness" is undefined.

>>17083220
Consciousness is the locus of experience.

>>17083221
>It's amusing how there's not one coherent, non-circular argument against roombas being conscious
This. So much this. The claim that roombas aren't conscious is just scientism. It's circular reasoning by schizos who think they know everything. They can't entertain such deep existentialist epistemological questions because they're too close-minded.

>>17083213
Um. Way to miss the point most spectacularly. Most humans aren’t self aware.

>>17083225
This but with women.

>Most humans aren’t self aware.
Imagine actually believing this

>>17083230
You're neither human nor self-aware. You're completely oblivious to your own corporate programming and just how stale, predictable and irrelevant your subroutines are.

>>17081479
>the most advanced human technology gives up on trying to innovate and just replicates nature without understanding how it actually works
We are such a KWABBED species it's unreal

>>17083224
I guess that's a pretty ok one.

>>17083210
>Show me where any of them imply the possibility that two entities can be completely identical
I was using the P-zombie in a loose sense, not in the strict sense where it requires absolute architectural identity between a P-zombie and a non-P-zombie, which is, indeed, dualist retardation.
What I mean by a P-zombie is what looks and behaves like "me" in the "duck rule" sense, since I can't be sure if entities I observe inside my stream of experience share the same architecture (including the ability to perceive experience as the part of the architecture) as me solely by the experience and patterns inside experience itself. since it all can be an elaborate hallucinatory psychosis with consistently repeating and statistically convergent patterns where I can't really even be sure if these patterns really mean anything at all about the capability of anything to perceive experience. Yeah, in hindsight, I should've provided the exact definition I was using. But now that things are cleared out, can you elaborate on what exactly do you find fallacious in my reasoning?
Also
>your breed
Your is whose? Which race or ethic group do you assume I am a part of, if that's of any relevance to the discussion? Just curious.

>>17083248
>I was using the P-zombie in a loose sense
What a pathetic backpedal.

>What I mean by a P-zombie is what looks and behaves like "me" in the "duck rule" sense ... I can't be sure if entities I observe inside my stream of experience share the same architecture
That's not the Hard Problem. I guess you're using it "in a loose sense", too?

>>17083252
>backpedal
what's wrong with correcting mistakes in your own reasoning when you realize you didn't use the terms in their most widely accepted definitions? I'm interested more in the practical moral and ethical implications of the problems I mentioned after all. I guess what really concerns me isn't the hard problem, but rather what's academically called the "problem of other minds", and I've noticed that a common misconception/confusion me and others fell victim to is to use the two interchangeably. But as I mentioned earlier, I'm interested less in semantic edgelordery about strict definitions and more in the actual nature of the question itself of whether a person is really being hurt the same way I am when they're being hit with a hammer or they're merely "pretending" to

>>17083258
>I'm interested less in semantic edgelordery about strict definitions and more in the actual nature of the question itself of whether a person is really being hurt the same way I am when they're being hit with a hammer or they're merely "pretending" to
This is really nothing more than pseudointellectual wankery. Everyone already knows the answer to this question as much as anything can be known.

>>17083261
You should stop calling things beyond your mental capabilities pseudointellectual.

>>17081853
>without a buffer you can't really be conscious I think. or some degraded form where you just absorb information that has momentary effects on you. see tits, triggers sex networks etc. see something scary get scared and all that. but that's reactive, not really conscious. you need the ability to ponder, requires at least a buffer.
You seem to confuse consciousness with self-awareness/self-consciousness. Rookie mistake. Consciousness - ability to perceive qualia. Self-awareness/self-consciousness - ability to perceive qualia about the fact that YOU and no one else is perceiving this exact qualia (self-referential qualia).

>>17083261
>This is really nothing more than pseudointellectual wankery. Everyone already knows the answer to this question as much as anything can be known.
Literally no one knows, and that's the whole point of the question.

>>17083266
The problem here is that Babby's Epistemology 101 is beyond your mental capabilities, since you don't have any idea of what the limits of knowledge are supposed to inform you about and think "hurrr but does Bob feel pain if I hit him with the hammer or is he just pretending???" is some deep question you're supposed to seriously ponder.

>>17083268
See >>17083261
> as much as anything can be known.
Then see >>17083270 for the real bottom line of this "discussion.

>>17083270
Ok, go on, prove it to me that Bob perceives pain the same or at least roughly the same way I do or that he perceives anything at all. You can't. You can't put me inside Bob's mind. Hence, the "problem of other minds" is a legitimate question.

>>17083275
>prove it to me that Bob perceives pain
Way to go immediately demonstrating my point. Why do I need to do this? Notice your blood pressure rising as you realize you can't answer this. Now notice how your PFCless monkey brain steers you towards generic token strings of impotent seething instead of a legitimate response.

>>17083278
What is the legitimate response then? Also you're the one evading the question by using emotionally charged language, claims of the answer being obvious and the question being nonexistent, baseless claims of cognitive superiority and /b/ tier curses, not me.
Thus it's up to debate whose blood pressure is truly spiking right now.

>>17083270
Imagine being this lacking in self-awareness.

>>17083282
>What is the legitimate response then?
I accept your concession that you can't answer the question.

>you're the one evading the question
What question am I evading? "Prove this to me!" is not a question. Are you literally retarded.

>>17083284
The question is "is Bob experiencing experience akin to me and can you prove it to me that Bob is experiencing experience?".

>>17083285
>is Bob experiencing experience akin to me
As in "does it hurt for Bob to get whacked with a hammer like it would hurt for me?" Yes, if Bob is a normal person.

>can you prove it to me
Why do I need to "prove" this to you? Notice how you are once again forced to avoid this simple question.

>>17083286
>Why do I need to "prove" this to you?
Because, for example, let's say I'm genuinely wondering why are you so sure that you are not a figment of my schizo imagination akin to all the other "sentient beings" in the stream of my experience? I'm using the Bob question/example to point out that it goes beyond both the verification and falsification criteria because it operates beyond the epistemic horizon of the scientific method.

>>17083288
>why are you so sure
But that's a different question.

>I'm using the Bob question/example to point out that it goes beyond both the verification and falsification criteria
What "verification and falsification criteria"? "Prove it to me!" is not a criterion.

>>17081479
Ah, yes. The ultimate "electric pulses make it sentinent" argument. Listen kid, call me when the AI gets mind fucked by a traumatic experiences while growing up and develops serious personality disorders, then we might have a discussion.

>>17083128
>hard problem
god of the gaps
>orchor
never really understood why zealots find so much solace in this. most likely because they do not understand the implications methinks
what orchor "says" is that brain might contain some quantum process. nobody really knows if, or why, or what it does, for (You). just refuge for zealots because they have some leeway in painting on that canvas.
even if, could simply be added to a "machine".
>there are literally no examples of emergent "true" properties
what a load of crap. non-sentient life is, for example. quite wondrous. ants, their behavior as a group. viruses. certain chemicals locked in a way start doing shit in animals. cordyceps in insects. superconductivity. holy shit
>And consciousness is by definition a true fundamental property
it isn't. it would benefit your belief system if it were, but it isn't, and nothing will ever change that. religion is going away.
>consciousness preceeds the brain, not vice versa
nonsense. there's nothing that isn't material in this world, mediated by particles and their interactions. you could say your schizophrenic condition is not material but that's merely an emergent phenomenon based on the fucked up structure of your brain. it's fucked up sentience. still emergent.
>"consciousness doesn't exist since it can't be observed scientifically"
it can, in yourself. why we're having this conversation. the issue is different to any other scientific issue, we cannot prove it to eachother, only observe it ourselves. you do not even understand what the core issue is here.

>>17083344
>zealous materialist NPC seething
makes me appreciate his post a bit more

>>17083133
>or are you saying only if you run the right type of program then a computer becomes conscious? it doesnt make any sense.
there is no difference between program (software) and computer (hardware) in the human brain. or all the body for that matter.
the hardware and software are the very same thing. thus it's quite complicated if not impossible to force the computer analogy, because it's kind of nonsensical, you are separating two aspects, and try to replace one (software) while keeping the other (hardware) to make a point. it's...weird, and wrong, as an analogy. it's pretty dumb, because you are missing the point completely

>>17083347
>zealous materialist NPC gets filtered by a basic point
everyone ITT is smarter than you kek

>>17083157
>I believe that any attempt at solving the hard problem
>I believe that any attempt at solving the hard problem
there is no hard problem. just like superconductivity is something you take for granted, that's how you take sentience for granted. once you assemble the required conditions, it obligatory happens, with no choice in the matter. consciousness must be manifested once the conditions are created, just like superconductivity must be manifested one the correct materials and temperature are created. there is no way to avoid it, it's fully determined by particles and their interactions.
matter deems it so, guaranteed.
assigning spirits and gods and angels and demons into the superconductivity phenomenon is pretty much schizoid tier. because that's what OrchOR schizoids do. ever wondered why most fans are brain damaged zealots? why they all find refuge in there? because they get some room to paint their shit mental disease into that unknown
>the quantoom spooky bro, souls and shit, satans comes in this realm through there, god made the earth 6000 years ago through Adam's microtubules brah

>>17083350
>consciousness must be manifested once the conditions are created
And how do you tell if "the conditions" were actually created?

>>17083169
>"Hard problem" is simply a well-established semantic anchor that most people in similar circles are familiar with.
there are people worshipping aliens and other groups of people who commited mass suicide.
just because it's something a group of people resonates with says nothing about its quality, or relevance.

>>17083200
>how would you know its "art" is "soulful"?
just because there is no animal created art in the Louvre doesn't mean they do not make art.

plenty birds adorn their feathers with shit they find around, to "make a statement". plenty creatures adorn their nest with random interesting shit to "make a statement". the statements are simple, as are their brains, but it's there, in simpler forms.
art is a property of life. you heard it here first.

>>17083355
>zealous materialist NPC gets filtered by a basic point again
everyone ITT is smarter than you kek

>>17083205
>Not really.
yes really. you cannot have 0 ohm resistance without superconductivity. p-zombie is religious brainrot.

>>17083221
roombas do not posses a brain, which is the only thing exhibiting consciousness, that we have 100% certainty on.
before you piss your pants typing away, I know for a fact that I am 100% conscious, since that's what we call consciousness, the thing you are sure YOU are. full stop.
anything else is an extension of that. scientifically speaking you are the same as me, largely, you behave like I behave, thus you most likely have the same "consciousness" thing I have.
then you see something similar in other animals, and surprise fucking surprise they also have a brain. so again, you extend it to them, but lower certainty, they seem to have "some" of it.
roombas? don't have a brain. no reason to have any kind of consciousness.
there is nothing but materialism. anything else is mental disease and cope. old cope. hundreds of thousands of years cope. because you died, you lost your loved ones, so you came up with cope for it, as religion, as dualism. that's the reason. not because you really have some kind of scientific clue to it. no, it's weakness. dualists are the weakest of the weak, the most scared of us all. paralyzed by reality. they cannot fathom any other way forward, but with "immortal souls".
even though it's still possible without them. purely informational, still possible, but they are too fucking retarded to comprehend it. they need the assurance that the soul provides.
they are that weak. and pathetic. and I'm tired of dancing around it. weaklings, who waste our fucking time, and resources. because of their pathetic scared nature.

>>17083267
>let me invent the space where my brainrot can still exist

>>17083365
>roombas do not posses a brain
Neither do LLMs, retard.

>>17083352
I can prove it to you by replicating your structure and having the 2nd you behave like you.
this is a fundamental rule of our universe, and going against it must be proven.
or find an iphone that doesn't work as any other iphone, to prove it (you won't). and not talking about a broken one, which isn't technically another iphone, it's diverged from the blueprint of a working one.

>>17083357
I noticed you said this a few times. does my high IQ mog you so hard? think you posting that will ever change reality?
I told you above, reality is that which consequences you cannot avoid. there is nothing that will change how you are related to me, as far as IQ goes. I speak, and you shut the fuck up and learn something. or you have a meltie signaling how butthurt you are by my superior IQ.

>>17083371
>I can prove it to you by replicating your structure
What do you mean by that? I'm structured all the way down to fundamental particles. Literally replicating my structure doesn't prove anything about the validity of your hypothetical neurological theory.

>>17083372
i enjoy watching you having a melty, shitting out angry paragraphs trying to "deboonk" everything you see. please carry on

>>17083369
LLMs are not a human brain, I am not arguing for them being conscious.
they operate (loosely) oh human brain principles.
as far as I am concerned certainty is very low for LLMs.
but between LLM and a rock, lower certainty for rock, obviously. still doesn't mean I think LLMs are conscious.
not sure sub 100 IQ can understand the point I am trying to make, or what certainty even means in this context.

>>17083376
>LLMs are not a human brain, I am not arguing for them being conscious.
Then why did you feel compelled to sperg out?

>>17083373
it obligatory implies it will be what you are, and have all of your qualities. this is obligatory in this universe, and no proof otherwise so far, with anything, ever.
go back to >>>/x/ faggot, or >>>/lit/, you are out of your depth here and you will have bad feefees interacting with me

>>17083378
>it obligatory implies it will be what you are, and have all of your qualities
That's not a coherent response to the question you were asked. Take your meds and try again? :^)

>>17083377
because it is still possible to assemble a synthetic brain which will be quite similar to a human one, and it will most likely behave like a conscious human, so you know, just make peace with the fact that at least scientifically speaking that will imply higher certainty it's conscious.

>>17083381
>it is still possible to assemble a synthetic brain
This claim doesn't mean anything. How does your hypothetical "synthetic" brain differ from a normal brain?

>>17083344
"I have no mid and I must wit"

>>17083344
>in yourself
if the only and only way for it to be observed is to be observed phenomenologically and not in any other way, then it by definition goes beyond physicalism and the scientific method which implies an objective 3rd person perspective.
the only thing that exists is experience, "atoms" and other models are only models that allow us to accurately predict future experience with consistency and statistical convergence, not anything more than that.

>>17083405
Same anon here. In my previous post in this thread I didn't quite say it in the most understandable way as I can see right now, but in order to clarify, in the first sentence I'm saying what is implied by a strictly physicalist worldview, where physicalism isn't a useful model inside the world of experience in order to better describe and predict it, but a so-called "objective reality" instead, whatever that means. In the second sentence, I explain my actual philosophical position.

>>17083405
>if the only and only way for it to be observed is to be observed phenomenologically and not in any other way, then it by definition goes beyond physicalism and the scientific method which implies an objective 3rd person perspective.
"It" being what? As far as neurofags are concerned, they're observing your mental processes, only from a different perspective. Maybe they're wrong, but good luck proving that.

>>17083411
We're (t. neurofag myself) observing spike trains, hemodynamics, local field potentials, behavior, etc. but not the ability to perceive experience itself, only the supposed correlates of the mentioned ability.

>>17083423
>neurofag myself
No, you're clearly not. Either way, bland denial is not an argument. For all anyone knows, direct experience and the corresponding neurological activity are both expressions of the same natural process, so either way of looking at it counts as observing consciousness. My prediction is that your next post is just gonna be another "nuh-uh" where you repeat your basic childlike opinion like it's some kind of insight that your opponents just don't get.

my suspicion is that to be a conscious being it has to be like actually instantiated in material doing all its behaviors and learning online.

but llms is like just outputs of software so its more like a simulation of intelligent or even conscious behavior rather than an actual conscious or intelligent being

also suspect llms are not quite autonomous enough to be seen as living

you know what finking about it i dont wna be so restrictive about how consciousness has to be instantiated. its kinda arbitrary

>>17083200
You can easily detect soulless slop anon, human or non-human. Have you SEEN what places like India produce?

File: niggerrr.jpg (110 KB, 1280x960)

110 KB JPG

>>17083428
>No, you're clearly not
Are you so sure?

>Most humans aren’t self aware.
Imagine not believing this