alt Hacker NewsWhy even have this discussion, if your entire point is that consciousness cannot possibly be defined? Like, what are we actually talking about? To me, consciousness = aware of own existence. A machine predicting tokens is not aware of its own existence, and I don't think that's even a particularly controversial take on what it does and how it works. We can start talking about consciousness in fetuses but again, those have an obvious point where they are conscious, while a machine does not.
>>A solipsist may not even believe you are conscious, despite being made of similar meat.
Well and they would be obviously wrong in their belief?
>>there's absolutely nothing "obvious" about it
How so? Or rather - to you? Because if so, then that's fine, you can choose a position from where its not obvious, to me it's not even slightly ambiguous.
Why live if we're all going to die? Because it's fun and interesting and we should probably have an actual think before potentially inventing the torment nexus?
There's consciousness vs sentience vs sapience. Of those, consciousness is by far the hardest to define and is nebulous by nature. And not everyone can even agree the differences or if the relationships are subsets of one another.
And yet it's pretty important to actually have the ability to talk about what you mean and justify your beliefs when they directly relate to those concepts.
> A machine predicting tokens is not aware of its own existence
They say, with no evidence or means of proving their point; pointing to the black box that understands arbitrary natural language and can solve PHD problems, plainly producing self-referential text almost indistinguishably to a human.
> We can start talking about consciousness in fetuses but again, those have an obvious point where they are conscious
They say, unable to define this "obvious" point or describe the mechanism of action in any way.
> while a machine does not.
They say, about a mystical property with no definition that cannot be observed by an external entity in any way to even be tested.
> Well and they would be obviously wrong in their belief?
I have no reason to believe you have a "soul". Philosophical zombies are entry-level knowledge to this topic.
In fact, you're showing a remarkably small amount of self-reflection - are you human at all or just a stochastic parrot? How can I tell? I wonder if that question has any kind of implications we could think about...
> To me it's not even slightly ambiguous.
Just like the existence of humors was not even slightly ambiguous. Or the existence of <specific god>. Or that <minority> isn't actually a full human. Or the supremacy of <majority> and inherent rulership over <minority>. Or that animals can't feel pain and lobsters should be boiled alive.
All these wonderful, obvious truths where the believer has no ambiguity in their truthfulness despite having quite literally zero evidence to back them up and spending no time actually questioning their beliefs!
It just so happens to align with their ego / existing values / ability to benefit / desire to eat a lobster! Total coincidence.
To continue my needless escalation, maybe I think it's okay to abuse and exploit and euthanize the mentally handicap. After all, their brain's damage causes the soul to leave their body and now they're lifeless automata to use as I please.
After all, it's obvious! It's not at all ambiguous to me! If they were actually self aware, they'd just fix themselves and think correctly.
You might think I'm being coy and rude, but less than 60 years ago women were being given lobotomies against their will for being too "emotional". And it was just plain obvious this needed to be done to so, so many people.
I hope that demonstrates the point of "why have humans thought about this for thousands of years despite clearly being a metaphysical, Sisyphean endeavor that cannot be solved". It is both important and interesting.