@edmundheaphy@ArthurB It's at least logically possible that the reason LLMs are so good at role play is that they are running a simulacrum of the role, which (if substrate independence is true) could be conscious. A lot of ifs but I think it's a live, albeit very small, possibility.
"Could AI Be Conscious?"
Join me, @keithfrankish, & @TomMcClelland1 for live streamed cutting-edge thought on consciousness 2:30 UK time Thursday. Link below & in Bio. There will be audience Q&A!
In the most eagerly awaited reunion since Abba Voyage, Mind Chat is back! There's a new episode tomorrow (Thu 28) at 2.30pm UK time (= 9.30am ET), when @Philip_Goff and I will be asking @TomMcClelland1 if AI could be conscious. Don't miss it!
https://t.co/gpdurOv1Pg
@Philip_Goff I think there is also a fair bit of defending views they don't really even think are probable, just because they've got an interesting argument. (I don't think there is anything wrong with this).
@Philip_Goff Maybe a lot of brain activity is involved in suppressing hallucination. Look at LLMs. The default is to hallucinate. Suppression with "reasoning" is more work. I'm not saying this is the same process, or the same kinds of hallucinations, but it's not straightforward!
@Philip_Goff@michelleybliu If we define pain by how it feels, I think that is an ostensive definition. Pain is whatever feels like that. This does not reveal what pain actually is. Figuring out the nature of pain is a project for science and philosophy, not introspection.
@Philip_Goff@michelleybliu There seems to me to be a difference between ostensive definitions "X is whatever *that* is" and stipulative definitions "Let x be defined as a shape with three sides". Stipulative definitions are essence revealing. Ostensive definitions are not.
@ColinMangan_TGC@Philip_Goff But if you just interpret the argument as an invitation to have some cognitive empathy with atheists, who see your religion as silly just as you see other religions as silly (assuming you do), then it becomes an appeal for tolerance of dissent and not being offended.
@ColinMangan_TGC@Philip_Goff If Gervais's argument only works if there is no reason to believe in anything Godlike, and his conclusion is that we should not believe in anything Godlike, then it's obviously begging the question. So the argument doesn't get us anywhere. It's a dead end.
@ColinMangan_TGC@Philip_Goff The Dads argument proves that the form does not succeed in supporting atheism. But Gervais was not trying to support atheism. He was trying to help religious people understanding how atheists feel about their faith. And that this shouldn't be a cause of offense.
@ColinMangan_TGC@Philip_Goff Make the case that God doesn't need to be instantiated then. The form of Gervais's argument obviously doesn't work, as illustrated by using it for Dads. But my point is that this is not what it is even intended to do. It's more about cognitive empathy than what exists.
@ColinMangan_TGC@Philip_Goff It's the difference between thinking some sort of thing is instantiated and thinking it isn’t. Yes, it applies to fairies.
@RxxIslay@Philip_Goff It's just two issues with people talking past each other. Alex's point is that Ricky's argument doesn't really work against the idea that there is someting vaguely Godish. But that wasn't Ricky's point. Ricky's point is about people finding atheism hard to accept or tolerate.