Nullspace

[Nullspace @NulIspace]

@samjohnson_phil @Noahpinion "I've spent a decade arguing with him."
And clearly learned nothing.

[Nullspace @NulIspace]

@GarrittyOf @Noahpinion @sebkrier I mean, if we make up a bunch of magic nonsense for how we define consciousness, then a lot of things would satisfy requirements for consciousness.

[Nullspace @NulIspace]

@GarrittyOf @Noahpinion @sebkrier Pretty big (and evidentially sparse) assumption that people think of two separate and distinct things at once (they don't). Part of the issue with your statement is part of what the paper in OP addresses - that experience is always unified and presented as a single instantiate.

[Nullspace @NulIspace]

@samjohnson_phil @Noahpinion It's not identical. The claim is there are things that are simply not computation ab initio. You beg the question and create this false dilemma that the only categories are computation and hypercomputation. But why believe that in the first place?

[Nullspace @NulIspace]

@samjohnson_phil @Noahpinion Simulation is not duplication. Just because we can arbitrarily emulate things doesn't give them ontological equivalence with the things that are emulated. Simulating particles doesn't birth a new particle into existence. What exists and what is computable are not the same.

[Nullspace @NulIspace]

@samjohnson_phil @Noahpinion "you would have to point to some specific physical process in the brain..."
You misunderstand your own problem. Chalmers formalized the hard problem of consciousness like three decades ago; computation (or physics generally) doesn't capture anything interesting here.

[Nullspace @NulIspace]

@samjohnson_phil @Noahpinion "you are making the positive claim that hypercomputation has been observed in physical reality"
You are so far from good faith it's crazy. Take your antipsychotic medication.

[Nullspace @NulIspace]

@samjohnson_phil @Noahpinion Huh? Burden of proof is always on the person making the positive claim. If you say you believe McDonalds doesn't exist then the burden is on me to show you a McDonalds. I can't expect you to comb the entire universe and verify every spot lacks the shittiest fast food chain.

[Nullspace @NulIspace]

@gmsturmgmsturm @Noahpinion So you admit not every argument against machine consciousness disqualifies humans from being conscious and have just moved to complaining about the arguments' rigor.

[Nullspace @NulIspace]

@mittelwerk18 @Noahpinion https://t.co/lyL05YxNDI

[Nullspace @NulIspace]

@mittelwerk18 @Noahpinion 💊 💊

[Nullspace @NulIspace]

@mittelwerk18 @Noahpinion You confidently use a lot of words wrong and when this is pointed out you get hyper-defensive and disproportionately reactive. You're schizophrenic and need medication.

[Nullspace @NulIspace]

@GarrittyOf @Noahpinion @sebkrier True, but multiple agents running means /multiple/ agents, not one consciousness. If digital agents could be conscious (they can't) then all you'd be saying is that a harness instantiates multiple consciousnesses at once without explaining how any particular one is conscious.

[Nullspace @NulIspace]

@Anukooltw @Noahpinion Because silicon isn't used to make organic brains. It's pretty simple.

[Nullspace @NulIspace]

@fredyfredo123 @Noahpinion This is the only non-dogshit comment I've seen someone leave in this thread. You identified a formal problem with their paper, good job!

[Nullspace @NulIspace]

@BadenChant @Noahpinion Some LLM models are definitely recursively reactive in the way you described. Also, why tf would you think consciousness requires you to update priors? You seem to be confusing a specific kind of discursive thinking with broader consciousness.

[Nullspace @NulIspace]

@mittelwerk18 @Noahpinion Niga what. Computers exist in time, they're temporal.

Libraries were a good start but the number of places you shouldn't be allowed to talk includes twitter now.

[Nullspace @NulIspace]

@31r1kur @Noahpinion Looks like those 58 years were wasted on you.

[Nullspace @NulIspace]

@Propagondola @Noahpinion Simulation is not duplication. If I simulate lava flow over your house, you don't light on fire when you walk outside. Similarly, when we simulate particles in a computer, we have not really created a new particle. Simulating brains does not magically produce consciousness.

[Nullspace @NulIspace]

@gmsturmgmsturm @Noahpinion What about all the arguments that the substrate matters and consciousness is a biological process? This precludes digital machines from being conscious but not any of the animals.