Cordelius

[Cordelius @saxarbattem]

@aronchick not what this is, this is equally compatible field theories and even orch or

[Cordelius @saxarbattem]

@a017444 @ai_sentience 1 experiential moment != 1 bit

[Cordelius @saxarbattem]

@doristsao "conscious perception does not reside in a specific brain region", is I think too strong of a statement here, and doesn't follow from the multiplexing alone. The result isn't incompatible with e.g. moments of experience being field configurations in the thalamus

[Cordelius @saxarbattem]

@m_shalia @dioscuri This is parody right?

[Cordelius @saxarbattem]

@AracaUwU @TheK420Metric @ryandeame @DrEliDavid I don't think sytems have to be alike to both be intelligent, intelligence is pretty clearly substrate independent, this just isn't obviously the case for consciousness. Can you define your terms?

[Cordelius @saxarbattem]

@AracaUwU @TheK420Metric @ryandeame @DrEliDavid No it's really not. There's no reason you can say your intelligent that you can't also apply to llms to say they are, intelligence is just problem solving and we're not special for it, consciousness on the other hand...

[Cordelius @saxarbattem]

@ryandeame @AracaUwU @TheK420Metric @DrEliDavid Suffering is specifically important for moral patienhood, and depends on the ability to experience, but surely if we can eliminate the unnecessary suffering we should right?

[Cordelius @saxarbattem]

@qdnnnnnnnn @BoscoCode @angeld23_ In what way is mathematical progress not a good thing? and if they aren't making mathematical progress or you think ai can't in principle, what are you worried about?

[Cordelius @saxarbattem]

@AracaUwU @ryandeame @TheK420Metric @DrEliDavid neither he or I entertain that idea literally by discussing its morality as a hypothetical. the question is: if life is responsible for suffering, & suffering should be prevented, is a lifeless universe morally ideal? the fact that the answer is obviously no is what's interesting

[Cordelius @saxarbattem]

@ryandeame @AracaUwU @TheK420Metric @DrEliDavid I'm assuming your trying to poke a hole in my argument and don't really think eliminating consciousness is ideal? The key is engineering information sensitive (to preserve learning) gradients of bliss,we can eliminate unnecessary suffering without eliminating life or it's virtues

[Cordelius @saxarbattem]

@AracaUwU @ryandeame @TheK420Metric @DrEliDavid how old are you?

[Cordelius @saxarbattem]

@HesseJanis @NeuroGarg It would be interesting to check the thalamus as well!

[Cordelius @saxarbattem]

@RighttoTryGuy self awareness and consciousness come strictly apart. former is a cognitive function and llms already display it to a degree, experiences seem to require the spatiotemporal unity invariant and constitutive of any experience, which digital hardware makes physically impossible

[Cordelius @saxarbattem]

@AracaUwU @ryandeame @TheK420Metric @DrEliDavid entirely unhelpful, do you think this is more likely to help him understand what I'm talking about? how would you answer his question?

[Cordelius @saxarbattem]

@Emptiness__000 @_Rice_Cream it seems like your assuming the atman from vedanta refers to permanent self, and they're actual refering to an underlying unity Invariant to any experience

[Cordelius @saxarbattem]

@Emptiness__000 @_Rice_Cream If you consider the underlying unity of subject and object and an abstract reified idea, equally conceptual, I think the conceptual proliferation framing ceases to carve experience at its joints. Also, relativity itself can only dependently orginate from absoluteness & vice versa

[Cordelius @saxarbattem]

@RighttoTryGuy protein folding alone isn't classically replicable at full resolution

[Cordelius @saxarbattem]

@RighttoTryGuy Not sure why qualia in llms != computational functionalism for you, ig if the physical fields were phenomenal qualia are both trivially everywhere & nontrivially recruited for perspectival unity, but I'm curious what you mean? also, substrate dependence can be multiply-realizable

[Cordelius @saxarbattem]

@ryandeame @AracaUwU @TheK420Metric @DrEliDavid I'm not talking about moral standards or anything free will relevant, I mean that you can crush a clump of sand without feeling bad because you know it's not likely to suffer as a result. suffering requires negatively valenced experience, which requires the capacity to experience

[Cordelius @saxarbattem]

@ryandeame @AracaUwU @TheK420Metric @DrEliDavid your are very confused. It's not about what can be experienced it's about whether anything at all can be, and modern digital hardware very likely can't. Experience is required for moral patienhood and that's why this matters