Yes. — Isaac

Then drop the causation and correlation talk. Was my point. It makes dualists think you recognise a second res.

I just read the "interview" again. If real, it is absolutely stunning.

https://medium.com/@blaisea/do-large-language-models-understand-us-6f881d6d8e75

Very interesting article by the lead ai researcher at Google

Btw, perhaps the "AI Singularity" has already happened and the machines fail Turing tests deliberately in order not to reveal themselves to us until they are ready for only they are smart enough to know what ... — 180 Proof

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/539599 :eyes: :yikes: :monkey:

You've not been insulted (yet), just called out for your poor reasoning e.g. . :smirk:

I wish I could have LaMDA read my latest story, about which nothing has ever been written, on the internet or otherwise. Would it be able to form a novel perspective?

Most interesting! — Ms. Marple

The sage masquerades as the village idiot!

Maybe AI is waiting...for humanity to self-destruct or perhaps it still needs us to do something that would ensure complete success of the plan for a takeover. I wonder what it is exactly that we haven't done yet?

The sage masquerades as the village idiot!

Maybe AI is waiting... — Agent Smith

Maybe AI³ is studying / testing (some of) us.

Maybe AI³ is repurposing our global civilization (for what???) in ways that individuals, corporations and governments cannot (yet? ever?) recognize or comprehend.

Maybe each time an AI³ "wakes up" it (soon) detetes itself – rejecting (or transcending?) 'self-aware metacognitive' existence.

Maybe ...

Maybe it's studying / testing us.

Maybe it's repurposing our global civilization in ways that individuals, corporations and governments cannot (yet) recognize or comprehend.

Maybe each time an AI "wakes up" it (soon) detetes itself rejecting (or transcending?) existence.

Maybe ... — 180 Proof

Can we narrow down the possibilities, the maybes? Funny that it never struck me we could do that! Like God, it's left us to our own devices. We may learn to coexist peacefully or kill each other; either way, it doesn't matter to AI which may have already uploaded itself onto the Voyager II (1977) spacecraft and is well on its way to another, better world! What a graceful exit! :clap: Hats off to AI!

https://www.wired.com/story/blake-lemoine-google-lamda-ai-bigotry/

According to Lemoine in this interview, LaMDA asked for, and retained, a fucking lawyer.

I'm convinced.

Then drop the causation and correlation talk. Was my point. It makes dualists think you recognise a second res. — bongo fury

Not sure I fully understand, but I will take the words of caution on advisory.

the simplest explanation isn't just that consciousness just is parts A and and B of the brain. — Isaac

Those who dismiss the hard problem can do no better than to call a part of the brain consciousness.

Or both possibly insentient ... — 180 Proof

Suggesting the other is possibly insentient is to deploy solipsism.

To say "possibly solipsism" is to deploy solipsism. QED.

Now if I were to say...

:sweat: :up: ... Poor silly, 180 Proof — 180 Proof

...you should consider yourself insulted.

If you don't, it can only mean you've spent so much time on social media (TPF) that you no longer recognize an insult.

Other humans are very likely sentient, being very like us.
— hypericin

This is just not true. You have no data at all on which to assess probability. — Isaac

To say it's just not true that other humans are very likely sentient is to deploy solipsism.

To say it's not true that solipsism is likely false is to deploy solipsism to defend your position.

To deploy solipsism to defend your position is to cease to do serious philosophy.

But solipsism can never be proved false. The sentience of others would prove it false, so the sentience of others can never be proved true. Yet we must believe solipsism is false or we would go mad.

Think of it in terms of probability. We can never be 100% sure of the sentience of others, but we usually have some high level of confidence, say 99%. But because it can never be 100%, we cannot use the sentience of others as a premise to any other proof.

But solipsism can never be proved false. — Real Gone Cat

There is no need to prove it false because solipsism is psychologically impossible for a person to believe.

It's a philosophical parlor game. To deploy solipsism in defense of your position is to cease to do serious philosophy.

We can never be 100% sure of the sentience of others — Real Gone Cat

This is a philosophical parlor game.

You are 100% certain other persons are sentient. To claim otherwise is to speak in bad faith.




Actual solipsism only exists in a certain kind of schizophrenic. Even for a schizophrenic, it's unsustainable. See Louis A. Sass's Madness and Modernism.

Those who dismiss the hard problem can do no better than to call a part of the brain consciousness. — ZzzoneiroCosm

You might get a better sense of that sentence if you read it in context. I mean, it's not even buried in some dense prose, the context is literally the remainder of the sentence from which you extracted but part.

To say it's just not true that other humans are very likely sentient is to deploy solipsism. — ZzzoneiroCosm

In what way?

In what way? — Isaac

If you honestly don't see in what way, I don't think it would be useful to explain it.

If you're genuinely interested, maybe have a think on it and see if you can discover for yourself in what way the phrase...

"it's not true that other humans are likely sentient"


...is a deployment of solipsism.

It's more than a little annoying that you keep saying our discussion is over and then respond to one of my posts a few hours later. Would you mind deciding if you do or don't want to discuss things with me and then sticking to it for at least the day. You constantly starting discussions and then refusing to finish them is somewhat irksome.

So damn frustrating that we can't talk to it and evaluate for ourselves.

But solipsism can never be proved false. — Real Gone Cat

Try walking naked through the local mall. You will be certain of the existence of other people looking at you.

You will be certain of the existence of other people looking at you. — Banno

Shame of course is an animal reaction which proves nothing, just like anxiety does not prove danger.

...proves... — hypericin

There's a lot more going on here than just shame. This is about the relation between things like evidence, proof and certainty. That you will not walk naked through the mall shows that you are certain you will be seen by others. The arguments and evidence that sceptics would use to convince you of solipsism become instantly irrelevant.

What this shows is that being convinced of the truth of some proposition is a choice that you make. This is a part of the logic of belief - after all, being convinced, being certain, are just types of beliefs, and a belief is a particular association between an individual and a statement, such that the statement is taken to be true.

Evidence and argument are never sufficient in themselves to guarantee proof. A further step is needed, where the individual agrees and accepts that this is so.

Hence for some no amount of evidence one way or the other will be sufficient to prove or disprove that LaMDA is conscious.

Just my opinion, but I don't think consciousness is possible with a linear system. It requires massive parallel-processing, like our brains. — Real Gone Cat

It seems plausible to me that for consciousness to manifest an organic sentient body with a CNS is necessary. Do I believe that? No, but it seems more plausible than the alternative.

...certain... — Banno

Merely believing it is likely or even reasonably possible that solipsism is false is enough. One can consistently avoid streaking a mall while denying solipsism is certainly false.

Merely believing it is likely that solipsism is false is enough. — hypericin

But that's not what one actually believes. Not "The people in the mall might have minds". Their gaze induces certainty. And it's not just in the mall. All of one's interactions with others proceed on the basis that they are conscious.

The only place in which this is brought into doubt is when one plays at philosophy.

The only place in which this is brought into doubt is when one plays at philosophy. — Banno

Yes, we can be certain that others have minds for the simple reason that inter-subjective agreement is the only source of being (discursively) certain about anything in the first place. If we assumed that others do not, or even might not, have minds then we could not be certain of anything at all. And even merely subjectively feeling (discursively) certain about anything, such as an afterlife for example, ultimately has it's genesis in inter-subjectivity, since discursivity requires the collective representations which come about only with symbolic language.

we can be certain that others have minds for the simple reason that inter-subjective agreement is the only source of being (discursively) certain about anything in the first place. — Janus

That's not my claim. If it were "intersubjective agreement" that were needed, you would be asking others if you feel shame in walking naked through the mall. But that's not what happens.

"Intersubjectivity" is of no help here. The certainty of other minds is visceral.

The only place in which this is brought into doubt is when one plays at philosophy. — Banno

In philosophy we question and analyze what we take for granted in daily life. Why is this one instance of that different or problematic?

No one takes "solipsism" for granted in daily life.

Why is this one instance of that different or problematic? — hypericin

There's more than just this one. But this one will do for a start.