Artificial-intelligence systems such as large language models (LLMs) can exhibit behaviour that seems strikingly intelligent. This has led many people, including some experts, to wonder whether these systems could have some form of consciousness — the capacity for subjective experience. However, we think that existing AI systems are not conscious, and that, along current trajectories of development, they are not likely to become conscious. Greater clarity about whether AI could become consciousness will be crucial as society grapples with the challenges posed by this increasingly powerful technology.
Proof?
We knew about colors long before anyone knew what a “wavelength of light” is. I can tell something is red without needing to measure its photons. There are correlations between red, green, and blue, but they are not exact. Monitors do a lot of weird things with colors and so it is just false to state that there is a direct equivalence to color values and wavelengths of light that the monitor will actually emit.
How do I perceive the world “subjectively”? What does that even mean? Is it possible to perceive the world “objectively”?
So all you mean by “subjective experience” is that the things are happening to me specifically? So, if thing happens to another thing, and one of those things is a subject, then it is subjective? That is a strange way to use the word “subjective.” If I eat a sandwich, is that subjective eating?
What do you mean “proof”? Proof that the field of philosophy considers there to be a distinction? I pointed you to a great resource to learn about this, the proof that philosophers think there is a distinction and the details of how and why they believe that (and common arguments against it if that’s your jam!) are RIGHT THERE in the link I provided. This is not some crackpot theory I am trying to prove to you in a lemmy thread, I am just explaining philosophy of mind 101. Like, this is literally related to “I think, therefore I am”. If you disagree with philosophy in general then I’m not going to spend several hours justifying the entire field of philosophy to you; I’ve pointed you in the right direction, if you want to learn more about it then just read the basics, they can explain it better than I can and it’s much less argumentative that way. Seriously, I recommend it, it’s a good time and it’s a fun way to explore the nature of your mind.
lot of people believe something therefore it’s true
i am very intelligent
This is why Chalmerites like yourself are subhumans bugs. You have no brains. You are entirely incapable of conscious thought.
It is literally physically impossible for you to ever think about anything anyone ever says. Your brain just absorbs something that someone told you as a fact. When asked to justify it, every Chalermite bug is shocked at the very idea someone does dares question the eternal wisdom! To rationalize it, they conclude: the only possible way someone disagrees is that they just don’t understand the great wisdom of our lord and savior David Chalmers! They must just be an uneducated heathen who has not seen the light of the scriptures!
Yeah, an idiotic and completely circular statement, because “I” is both in the premise and the conclusion, and so using it to prove that “I” (the self) is a priori is the highest level of sophistry.
If “philosophy” = Chalmerite brainrot, then sure, I oppose philosophy.
Holy shit fuck off, I’m done being cordial. You haven’t had a cogent reaction to a single thought I’ve had. I’ve been nothing but patient as over and over you failed to recognize basic common terms or even attempt to conceptualize my many helpful examples (well, I guess I could have given more, but you don’t really deserve it so I won’t feel too bad) so that you could understand the subject I’m talking about. I have never asked you to agree with me, or asserted that the things I am discussing are unquestionably true, especially solely due to some philosophical authority; the reason I have resorted to pointing you to literal wikipedia articles as philosophy 101 content is because you have demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the subject matter. How could you possibly hope to be correct if you cannot understand the argument that is being made?
But you aren’t here to be correct, or to learn, or to reach a greater understanding through discussion, or to explore the beauty of your mind-- because yours is rather ugly, isn’t it? You’re here to troll people on social media to feel good about yourself. If you don’t like philosophy, here’s some pop psychology-- people tend to assume others are like them in some fundamental ways. I have spent this entire thread trying to believe you are here to learn or teach, not to troll; while you have apparently spent it assuming anyone who disagrees with you must be brainwashed by Big Psych. FYI I have made an explicit effort to avoid learning about what Philosophers™ think (legitimately who the fuck is David Chalmers?), because I prefer to avoid their influence when practicing philosophy myself; and yet the things I am talking about here are easily independently discoverable by me, someone with little to no formal training in the subject who actively avoids duplicating others’ work where possible. Honestly at this point you’re starting to make me think you might not have an internal subjective experience, because I think if I experienced what it was to be you, my soul would combust out of embarrassment.
What are you talking about, “done being cordial,” “nothing but patient,” “spent the entire thread”? You literally replied to me like 2 times before this. You hallucinating some long-running conversation or something? LOL
You say, “I have never asked you to agree with me, or asserted that the things I am discussing are unquestionably true,” but then you insist I must be an entirely ignorant moron who simply disagrees with you because I don’t know anything about the topic… if you believe people can understand the topic and disagree with you… then why do you not act that way in practice?
Not a single neuron in your brain ever fired when I asked you to explain why you believe what you do; you immediately just jumped to “this person questioned the sacred scriptures! They must not understand anything!” And just posted a rant explaining how I must not know anything at all for daring to disagree and not automatically buy into your claims.
Yeah, and so you mindlessly absorb popular ideas without even knowing who they are from. The idea of “subjective experience” was popularized by Chalmers, who used it as his basis for his framework of “subjective experience” being “consciousness.” The term itself he didn’t invent, he borrowed it from Nagel, and so the term never existed in the literature until 1974.
Apparently, according to you, philosophy did not exist until 1974, and so me, disagreeing with a stupid paper, is equivalent to me denying all of philosophy!
You also say, “You haven’t had a cogent reaction to a single thought I’ve had,” but what cogent point have you even attempted to make, other than claiming that I must fail to understand your genius for not automatically agreeing with you?
Any second now, Justin Kerprank is gonna jump out and tell me I’ve been ker-pranked. I refuse to believe that someone who understands the history of the subject doesn’t know what I’m talking about-- so clearly you should-- but like 99% of your responses have misinterpreted what I’m saying, and then you switched to just trolling me. Are you intentionally misunderstanding me? Are you trying to make a point about the terms I’m using? Are you here to have a serious conversation or just to misrepresent me to win the argument? Is it somehow both? Are you trying to use the Socratic method to imply your disagreement without indicating you understand my point? If so, why? You ask me why I am not acting on my belief that someone could reasonably disagree with me; it’s because you haven’t voiced any disagreement! Your responses have so far been almost entirely confusion about what I’m saying or insults.
There is one exception, where you correctly pointed out a mistake: referring to the grey squares as “are the same physical color” is inconsistent with the language I was using, it should be “have the same wavelength of light”. Color is a subjective experience (which, for the third time, does NOT mean a physical experience happening to a subject (like you), it means your perception of that physical experience). Do you understand what I’m trying to communicate about the difference between a physical phenomena, and your perception of said physical phenomena? Is it a communication issue on my end? I thought I was being pretty clear, but obviously I’m biased on that front.
Still, Chalmerite bug person cannot admit that someone who disagrees with them might disagree for reasons other than misunderstanding. Not a single bone in your body will ever allow you to admit that other people may disagree for reasons other than being ignorant of the holy scriptures, because then you’d actually have to have neurons fire in your brain to justify why you believe what you do. Every post you make must be layered with long rants about how I do not understand anything because it is necessary to avoid actually having to justify why you believe what you do, which requires independent thought.
Why is color a subjective experience? I mean, the image you sent me is something you sent to me because you knew I would look at it and see the same colors you are seeing… that seems pretty objective to me.
I’m not sure I see the distinction. My perception is just a physical experience happening to me.
No, you keep just describing the same thing twice but saying one is different by fiat without ever actually giving any explanation as to why.
And around and around we go. How many times will I explain the same thing, and how many times will you not disagree, but fail to understand my argument entirely?
You can rant all you want about how I’m arguing from authority (I’m not) or how you’re disagreeing rather than not understanding, but you keep literally saying you do not understand.
Your perception of the squares in the image is “subjective” because you are seeing the same light from both grey squares but perceiving it differently based on context. You are literally percieving the same objective physical phenomenon in two different subjective ways.