Qualia (subjective experience) + consciousness
explained:
What it is like to see a red rose can be
clearly and fully explained
in technical terms
based on data, data structure, and data processing.
See the thread 🧵
@PhilosophieW No. God is an example of an entity which has no direct evidence and evidence like thunder is pseudo evidence because the idea of the existence of God does not predict the thunder.
heartbeats and crying are not predicted by qualia as well. pseude evidence
@PhilosophieW quiale are not predicted and they predict nothing. that is the reason we gave up gods and believe in the laws of physics.
If we want the term qualia in science we have to give a useful definition.
Force could have been defined by F = ma². So why F=ma? more simple still useful
Why high but imperfect reliability can be more dangerous than moderate reliability.
This should also be taken into account when considering the reliability of AI, where perfection is never achieved but is constantly being approached.
@PhilosophieW no. black holes are predicted. empirical data supports theory .Qualia are not predicted.
qualia is like the term force of the past.
F := ma is a definition of Newton.
We have to define qualia in a way we have to accept just because it is useful - not because of empirical data.
@PhilosophieW@maxhodak_ yes. There is empirical data and then we decide whether we want to call the reason for that data consciousness or not.
The so-called subjective experience or qualia - was never a direct empirical fact in science. There were just human statements about it.
https://t.co/sIxfujIJGS
Access to Reality – What Are Facts?
Religion: What is written in the Holy Scriptures of the Bible is a fact.
Anthropocentrists: Human senses, feelings, and thoughts are indisputable facts.
Scientists: Facts are objective (verifiable, independent) measurable data.
@camhberg if you are in the middle you cannot draw the whole image.
consciousness is not defined. no phenomenon was ever seen in science
-> either it will be defined as a functional thing science can measure - then AI is conscious
or consciousness is esoteric bla bla never in science
@jasonwblakely some people still are not aware where AI is already now.
they still think they are more intelligent than AI. though they are worse in physics, math, coding, language, writing, painting, composing, ...
They still do not understand how AI learned all that
https://t.co/PtwWlEyRhU
Just as humans gained a deep understanding of the solar system simply by observing changes in the positions of points of light in the sky over time, LLMs were able to understand the human world simply by analyzing sequences of words
Message of the Turing Test It doesn’t matter what something looks like. Neither its outward appearance nor its mechanism An objective evaluation is based solely on behavior. The Turing Test was widely accepted as long as machines couldn’t pass it. What does that say about humans
Most people, including really accomplished people, don't have an accurate mental model of how LLMs operate (and why would they?)
You see this in wide beliefs that AI is just copying from known sources, or that it only produces average answers, or that it can't generate new ideas
@derleomartin Die KI lernt im Training in einem Höllentempo Sprachen , Physik, Mathe, Philosophie ... In Monaten. Was kann ein Mensch, der nicht mal 6 Monate alt ist?
Das meiste hat die KI durch Beobachtung von Sequenzen von Tokens gelernt. Schafft kein Hirn.
https://t.co/PtwWlEyRhU
Just as humans gained a deep understanding of the solar system simply by observing changes in the positions of points of light in the sky over time, LLMs were able to understand the human world simply by analyzing sequences of words