Could be. Nobody can claim definite knowledge of the subject. There's no way to test any of the theories.But since we're as ignorant as we are, could we be wrong that ChatGPT doesn't understand and isn't conscious? — RogueAI
That goes along nicely with the quote I've posted so many times, including this thread, from Journey of the Mind: How Thinking Emerged from Chaos, by Ogi Ogas and Sai Gaddam:I think conscious experience only arises from things that are useful to you. You obtain a conscious experience once signals make sense. And making sense means it has correlations with other things. And, by the way, the most important correlation, I assert, is with our motor actions. Is what I do in the world. And that is what causes anything to have meaning. — David Eagleman
The more a living thing moves, the more it comes to refine it's movements, and the more it learns to control it's environment. That goes for moving up the evolutionary tree, and for something like an infant human growing and learning.A mind is a physical system that converts sensations into action. A mind takes in a set of inputs from its environment and transforms them into a set of environment-impacting outputs that, crucially, influence the welfare of its body. This process of changing inputs into outputs—of changing sensation into useful behavior—is thinking, the defining activity of a mind. — Ogas & Gaddam
Could be. Nobody can claim definite knowledge of the subject. There's no way to test any of the theories. — Patterner
That's not the point of this conversation anyway. Rogue basically said, if everything is physical, then you should be able to understand the meaning of a book by just having physical access to it. Which seems... absurd to me, to be honest. — flannel jesus
And we have what we could reasonably consider something not too far off from "physical understanding machines" in these LLMs - they display all possible outward signs of understanding. They're perfectly physical, and yet if you gave them access to a text written in a language they're not familiar with, they won't understand it. I consider that to be essentially tangible falsification of rogue's idea. — flannel jesus
This is tricky because we're still not at sure whether an LLM will ever be able to understand anything, — RogueAI
If physicalism is true, then an LLM that knows all the physical facts about a book knows everything there is to know about the book. — RogueAI
But you wouldn't be sure no matter what, period. There's no possible world where you would even admit the slightest possibility that it's understanding. — flannel jesus
You can literally, right now, give it a text it's never seen before and ask it for a summary and it will do a damn good job. Even in the face of this you won't give any ground, meaning you're not the kind of person to give ground on this period, no matter what, in any particle world — flannel jesus
Physicalism aside, if consciousness is fundamental, is there something it's kind to be an LLM? — flannel jesus
1) Consciousness is fundamental, not emergent from the physical.*
2) Therefore, something non-physical is also at work.
3) There's no reason to think matter everywhere in the universe that is arranged like us would not have the same subjective experience that we have.
4) The non-physical aspect of reality that gives us our subjective experience is doing the same everywhere in the universe. — Patterner
We don't have a clue as to how consciousness could emerge from the physical. It's like asking how we could build a house out of liquid water. Worse, in fact, because at least houses and water are both physical things. — Patterner
I really don't know enough about them to know if they are what I'm calling "units in regards to consciousness." They could be like dominoes, which are not processing information, regardless of the pattern they are in. Like squiggles in books, regardless of how they are arranged, dominoes, before during or after they fall, don't have any meaning other than what we perceive, which is because we arranged them so we could perceive that meaning. Is ChatGPT more than that? Is a calculator? Chat is obviously much more complex that a calculator, but do the moving patterns of electrons mean things? If not, then it's just a unit to our eyes. All its particles are having subjective experience. But what's the experience of a particle?↪Patterner interesting question for you:
Physicalism aside, if consciousness is fundamental, is there something it's like to be an LLM? — flannel jesus
In short: Consciousness is subjective experience. — Patterner
Yes. DNA is encoded information. The codons and strings of codons mean amino acids and proteins. Using that information, things like the RNAs, aminoacyl-tRNA synthetase, and ribosomes assemble the amino acids and proteins. That's been happening since long before anything observed it.↪Patterner Is information processing possible without an observer to interpret the results? — RogueAI
I'm not comfortable answering this. :rofl: :rofl: I have too many half-baked ideas about information. (I use that phrase because I found a cookie shop in Buffalo today called Half-Baked. OMG.) I'm just throwing ideas around. Trying to make sense for myself. I'd appreciate any thoughts on it.A person using an abacus is processing information with it. Let's say the abacus beads are moving in pattern xyz. What if that same abacus is now falling out of plane and the beads are moving back and forth from air currents also in pattern xyz? Is it processing information? — RogueAI
I know what you mean, and I'm not sure I have an argument against it. But I still see a difference that feels important. DNA, I suspect all natural information, has an objective goal. Unless something prevents it, something specific will come of it. I wonder if natural information always produces or accomplished something.↪Patterner it seems fairly obvious to me it's processing information. No?
You accept that DNA is processing information - DNA is chemical dominos as much as anything computers do, including LLMs. If DNA is information processing dominos, LLMs can be too — flannel jesus
argument against it. But I still see a difference that feels important. DNA, I suspect all natural information, has an objective goal. — Patterner
I don't know that everyone who thinks consciousness is not emergent thinks something non-physical is at work. Some may think consciousness is physical. Or maybe another explanation. I'm just saying this is what I think. Something non-physical - something that our sciences cannot deal with - is at work.2) What "therefore"? If consciousness is fundamental and not emergent then something non-physical is at work, sure. And that something... surely is consciousness? This seems circular? — Dawnstorm
I'm just restating the old idea that we are not made of matter that is special or different in any way. Same stuff everywhere, same principles apply everywhere.3) That seems to be upside down to me. Again, it's true, but only because to have the experience we do is fundamental, and it involves being arranged like we are. Again circular? — Dawnstorm
Possibly. It's also possible that consciousness is only one fundamental thing. The reason I think that is that I don't know why consciousness would, if it was the only thing going, develop a reality with properties that are so different from itself that it can't be found in, or explained by, them, and its very existence can be doubted.4) I reality gives us our experience, then reality (whatever that is) is fundamental. I suppose I might have been implying from the beginning that - if consciounsess is fundamental - then reality isn't. It's consciousness that arranges reality. — Dawnstorm
I don't think I have. However, I'm just exploring this whole idea, and I don't have reason to believe I'll come out the other end with exactly the same thoughts I went in with.That is, unless, you've rowed back on your definition — Dawnstorm
DNA is never naturally found outside of its special little environment. Taking it out is doing something to prevent its natural function - synthesizing proteins for whatever species it is a part of, not just special humans - from taking place.Take a bit of DNA outside of it's special little environment and watch it do nothing. — flannel jesus
Thank you.I really like this post btw. — Philosophim
↪Patterner Is information processing possible without an observer to interpret the results?
— RogueAI
Yes. DNA is encoded information. The codons and strings of codons mean amino acids and proteins. Using that information, things like the RNAs, aminoacyl-tRNA synthetase, and ribosomes assemble the amino acids and proteins. That's been happening since long before anything observed it. — Patterner
I assumed RogueAI meant an observer with some mental abilities, perhaps even humans. But if considering things your way, then perhaps the answer to the question "To whom do the codons and strings of codons mean amino acids and proteins?" is RNA, or maybe the laws of physics.Already the RNA that transcribes is the "observer — Ulthien
Darn, I was hoping nobody would notice. :rofl: I am not well read in much of this stuff.With due respect, this discussion misses some 75 years of prior research :P — Ulthien
To whom do the codons and strings of codons mean amino acids and proteins?" is RNA, or maybe the laws of physics. — Patterner
Although Information Theory is an essential component of my Enformationism*1 thesis, I am not very familiar with the "English School". However, my thesis does not view Consciousness as fundamental. Instead, Awareness, and specifically self-awareness, seems to be an emergent property of material evolution. So, what is fundamental to physical reality is Causal Energy, which can transform into Matter. Moreover, cutting-edge science, has recently equated causal Energy with semantic Information*2. So, I have concluded that EnFormAction*3 (energy + form + action) is the causal power-to-transform. that is fundamental to our evolving material & mental world. Does, any of that make sense to you? :smile:With due respect, this discussion misses some 75 years of prior research :P
"The English School of Information Theory emerged in the mid-20th century as a counterpoint to Claude Shannon’s mathematically driven theory of communication. Rather than focusing on signal transmission, this school emphasized the semantic, epistemic, and physical dimensions of information — especially how it relates to scientific measurement and observer knowledge. — Ulthien
Yes. Living organisms exist in a state that is far from the equilibrium of Entropy, and successfully dissipate Energy, as they use it to generate their own Body, Life & Mind. Ironically, that un-numbered "physical law" is contrary to the the presumably universal Second Law of Thermodynamics. So some explanation for the "spontaneous" local violations of the dissipative law should be forthcoming from Science or Philosophy.↪Gnomon
just wanted to add a connection that could be found between information and and Dissipation-driven Adaptive Organization (DDAO) physical law. — Danileo
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.