Профиль

Agree with Vincent: we need precise scientific language and avoid anthropomorphizing AI. We are at war with a powerful generator of language (AI companies and associated financial/political/media forces). They do not have a scientific agenda. They are aggravating the consciousness crisis.

I think Blaise Agüera y Arcas articulates Minsky's Society of Mind idea with good evidence and explanation in his book What is Intelligence. He also captures a lot of Dennett's later thinking on mind and society. I wish he were more thorough with citation, but overall the book is illuminating.

Replace "face" with "interface" (low-dimensional, low-bandwidth, asynchronous: abusable).

Phil Halper (aka Skydivephil) @skydivephil · 33s Premiering now, everything wrong with Panpsychism with a a panel of experts in philosophy of mind youtube.com/watch?v=jQzS...

Exciting to see the concept of Umwelt as applied to neural nets. From just reading the abstract, my take-away: if you train a neural net with everything that matters to a racoon, it will result in racoon-like representations (although I have no idea how such training would be done).

...theories about what emerges from what and why. The interfaces between observed levels of emergence (e.g., from atomic physics to molecular chemistry, or from biological life to consciousness) interest me the most. That includes "mind" as evolved/emergent, though it naturally "feels" fundamental.

Thanks for the clarification. "Fundamental" as an epistemic property makes sense, in that it's based on assumptions from what we collectively/scientifically believe based on theories. Is there a more "fundamental" nature behind/below quantum physics? We may never know. But we can build workable...

Could you explain? It sounds like you are saying that the world may not have a fundamental nature at all. If I believe that mental phenomena emerge from real (physical) patterns, then for me there is no reason to bring up the concept of substance.

...philosophy of mind historians can cobble together a workable structure of all the isms, some of which are dead-ends or historical artifacts. Aside from history, I think the most productive places to hang out are in evolutionary biology, semiotics, neuroscience, cybernetics. Real progress here.

Interesting thread around teaching the history of philosophy of mind. Hearing references to the mind-body problem reminds me of the invisible pull of Cartesian gravity (Dennett) - an evolved artifact of human language/theory of mind. The hard problem is a recent manifestation. I don't think...

All in favor of the meta discussion.

Exactly. An international survey of 2,657 neuroscientists on the mind-brain problem and free will is problematic due to lack of consensus on terms and definitions. One reason we are in a consciousness crisis (among others) is that consciousness is tied to language. And the language is a mess.

Check out Emily bender's comments on this dumb article by an effect altruist on AI consciousness. This idiocy needs to be called out. Why does the Guardian keep publishing such stupidity?

Thank you Emily!

It's so disappointing that the Guardian keeps publishing idiotic articles about AI consciousness. It's frustrating. Also, notice who the author is. Shame on you, Guardian. Please stop doing this.

Consciousness is not a property of matter. It is a property of Real Patterns.

What "researchers"? Give names. Prominent, respected scientists say no conscious AI. Also who tf cares what "states" say.

Comes across as rather Cartesian

The issue of natural kinds is tricky with biological and cultural phenomena. Emotions, as we experience them, are inherited from our biological/cultural ancestors through evolution. Before Earth life evolved, we can't know if emotion existed as a universal essence or category. I suspect not.

I think we are probably in agreement on these things. I'm reminded of how easy it is for people (especially in this extreme bottleneck of communication) to trip up on each other's words, and assume disagreement. Not sure if "cognitive" functions arise in ANNs, but functional patterns emerge. Agree?