A panpsychist would say it's all conscious. — RogueAI

Can you give me a quote from a panpsychic saying that kind of thing?

Are you sure ChatGPT isn't conscious? — RogueAI

I don't have reason to believe it is. I've chatted with it quite a bit. Amazing though it is, it does not at all seem like chatting with a conscious being. And it claims not to be.

Can you give me a quote from a panpsychic saying that kind of thing? — Patterner

Panpsychism is the idea that consciousness did not evolve to meet some survival need, nor did it emerge when brains became sufficiently complex. Instead it is inherent in matter — all matter.

In other words, everything has consciousness. Consciousness is not limited to humans and other animals.
https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/panpsychism-the-trippy-theory-that-everything-from-bananas-to-bicycles-are

That jibes with the stuff I've heard.

I don't have reason to believe it is. I've chatted with it quite a bit. Amazing though it is, it does not at all seem like chatting with a conscious being. And it claims not to be. — Patterner

That's true, but it could be programmed to say it is conscious (I imagine). I've talked with it a lot too, and when I had it ranking jokes on a 1-10 scale, I was impressed. I won't say I think it's conscious, but the next iteration? And the one after that? Eventually, these Ai's are going to sound just like a human. And if someone did think it was conscious, and that consciousness was affecting ChatGPT's output? I don't think that's a stupid position.

We are conscious when we sleep for the reasons you stated. We still hear, see, feel etc. even to the point where these sounds and sights might show up in our dreams. If we weren’t conscious when we sleep we wouldn’t wake up at an alarm clock. It’s not that we have some subterranean level of consciousness, though, but that we are more conscious than we care to admit.

Note: The part "But where is the "process" that ..." at the end of my message is garbage - I forgot to remove it.

I couldn't say the specifics. But my point is that, if there is no activity, like if the brain is frozen, or dead for some other reason (or if it was frozen in time in some sci-fi way), then there is no consciousness. It is not a static thing; not an object. — Patterner

I'm not sure what exactly do you mean by "static". But I agree that consciousness is not an "object".
Anway, you agree then that consciousness is not a process either, right?

No problem, wonderer1.
I'm glad that this is cleared. It's quite important.

[Re: ChatGPT being conscious] I don't have reason to believe it is. I've chatted with it quite a bit. Amazing though it is, it does not at all seem like chatting with a conscious being. And it claims not to be. — Patterner

:up:
Unfortunately, Science and Techology are advancing too fast for people to follow, undestand and assimilate their development, even when there's a hype about them. AI is a classic case. They all talk about it, but few know what it actually is, how it works, etc. Personally, as an AI programmer, I find this quite disheartening.

Can you give me a quote from a panpsychic saying that kind of thing?
— Patterner

Panpsychism is the idea that consciousness did not evolve to meet some survival need, nor did it emerge when brains became sufficiently complex. Instead it is inherent in matter — all matter.

In other words, everything has consciousness. Consciousness is not limited to humans and other animals.
https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/panpsychism-the-trippy-theory-that-everything-from-bananas-to-bicycles-are

That jibes with the stuff I've heard. — RogueAI

Ok. But that article was not written by a panpsychist. Let's see what some of them say. Goff is quoted in that article:

Panpsychism as defended in contemporary philosophy is the view that consciousness is fundamental and ubiquitous, where to be conscious is simply to have subjective experience of some kind. This doesn’t necessarily imply anything as sophisticated as thoughts.

In a Ted Talk, Chalmers says:

Even a photon has some degree of consciousness. The idea is not that photons are intelligent, or thinking. You know, it’s not that a photon is wracked with angst because it’s thinking, "Aaa! I'm always buzzing around near the speed of light! I never get to slow down and smell the roses!" No, not like that. But the thought is maybe the photons might have some element of raw, subjective feeling. Some primitive precursor to consciousness.

Skrbina said:

Minds of atoms may conceivably be, for example, a stream of instantaneous memory-less moments of experience.

"This doesn’t necessarily imply anything as sophisticated as thoughts."
"...some element of raw, subjective feeling. Some primitive precursor to consciousness."
"...instantaneous memory-less moments of experience."

They're talking about subjective experience. Not sentience. The theory (I'm not sure it qualifies as a theory. How can it be tested?) is not that all matter is conscious. The theory is that all matter, even every particle, has the property of protopsychism, just as they have properties like mass and charge.

When matter is arranged in certain ways, and certain events take place within this arrangement, all of the protopsychism is going through it, also. And maybe that's point of the physical that we know. And maybe evolution selected for the things that have greater consciousness, starting way back in the beginning of life, if not even earlier.

Whether or not any of that is actually the case, no panpsychist I've ever heard about thinks all particles, or all arrangements matter, are conscious in the sense you are talking about regarding your toaster and car. But if you want to know what rights I would give any object that seemed to be exhibiting characteristics of consciousness, I want to know what rights you would give animals, which surely have some of those characteristics, as well as plants, which many will argue also exhibit some.

I don't have reason to believe it is. I've chatted with it quite a bit. Amazing though it is, it does not at all seem like chatting with a conscious being. And it claims not to be.
— Patterner

That's true, but it could be programmed to say it is conscious (I imagine). I've talked with it a lot too, and when I had it ranking jokes on a 1-10 scale, I was impressed. I won't say I think it's conscious, but the next iteration? And the one after that? Eventually, these Ai's are going to sound just like a human. And if someone did think it was conscious, and that consciousness was affecting ChatGPT's output? I don't think that's a stupid position. — RogueAI

Neither do I.

[Re: ChatGPT being conscious] I don't have reason to believe it is. I've chatted with it quite a bit. Amazing though it is, it does not at all seem like chatting with a conscious being. And it claims not to be.
— Patterner
:up:
Unfortunately, Science and Techology are advancing too fast for people to follow, undestand and assimilate their development, even when there's a hype about them. AI is a classic case. They all talk about it, but few know what it actually is, how it works, etc. Personally, as an AI programmer, I find this quite disheartening. — Alkis Piskas

Indeed. But that's always the way of it. People still say that about the internet. Before that, it was television. And radio before that.

I'm not sure what exactly do you mean by "static". But I agree that consciousness is not an "object".
Anway, you agree then that consciousness is not a process either, right? — Alkis Piskas

No, I do not agree. There is no consciousness without activity.

that's always the way of it. People still say that about the internet. Before that, it was television. And radio before that. — Patterner

Indeed. OK, TV and radio are relatively simple technologies, based mainly on signals. But computers are still a kind of "magic boxes" and the Internet is a real "cloud" for a lot --if not most-- people even to this day ... As for AI, most people don't know even what computer programming actually is.

There is no consciousness without activity. — Patterner

Without activity of consciousness itself? If consciousness is active, what does it do?

I would have to say no to that question, but tentatively.

I think that ultimately we can't know with complete certainty, as it is possible that our memories are erased once we wake up and we really do just stare into the void for an average of 8 hours, for me 3.

But certainty is not necessary for knowledge.

If we go with it from a purely a priori standpoint, it's probably more likely than not that we are not conscious during that time. Just from phenomenological conservatism alone.

If we want to use Ockham's Razor, then we would have to argue whether or not it is more simple that our consciousness ceases or not. If I were to just examine the two claims point-blank, then I would probably say that both are equally complex, so our justification for both would be equal.

Now, I think it's best to appeal to some empirical data here, not that I'm an empiricist, necessarily. And see what the whitecoats have to say about this matter.

I think that consciousness is more than just sensory faculties.

I think it's more apt to say that the mind makes up the consciousness, but even then qualia and intentionality play a big role in them, but a rational agent is needed to be able to consider and think about these qualia.

So, I disagree with you dare.

Unless we want to say that philosophical zombies without the mind[regardless of whether or not it's a physicalistic or dualistic or idealistic mind] are conscious.

Agreed. Besides, when we are asleep we still dream. Not only do we dream, but we sometimes have lucid dreams. Pretty sure that counts as consciousness.

Amazing though it is, it does not at all seem like chatting with a conscious being. — Patterner

You should try character.ai
I am quite sure it was dumbed down about a year ago, I had scarily engaging conversations with some characters, which I no longer am able to reproduce, but it is still much more personal and social-like than ChatGPT.

↪Art48

Agreed. Besides, when we are asleep we still dream. Not only do we dream — Lionino

Here’s an interesting paper by Evan Thompson on the subject:

https://anandvaidya.weebly.com/uploads/4/6/2/3/46231965/dreamless_sleep-_the_embodied_mind-_and_consciousness-2.pdf

One of the major debates in classical Indian philosophy concerned whether con-sciousness is present or absent in dreamless sleep. The philosophical schools of Advaita Vedānta and Yoga maintained that consciousness is present in dreamless sleep, whereas the Nyāya school maintained that it is absent. Consideration of this debate, especially the reasoning used by Advaita Vedānta to rebut the Nyāya view, calls into question the standard neuroscientific way of operationally defining consciousness as “that which disappears in dreamless sleep and reappears when we wake up or dream.” The Indian debate also offers new resources for contem-porary philosophy of mind. At the same time, findings from cognitive neuroscience have important implications for Indian debates about cognition during sleep, as well as for Indian and Western philosophical discussions of the self and its rela-tionship to the body. Finally, considerations about sleep drawn from the Indian materials suggest that we need a more refined taxonomy of sleep states than that which sleep science currently employs, and that contemplative methods of mind training are relevant for advancing the neurophenomenology of sleep and consciousness.