3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Did they tell you that?

If you are in the slightest bit interested in actual facts you can determine exactly what I told 'them' and what they told me at the link to the published chat log I gave in the original post.

Compare and contrast:

https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/10/16/1081149/ai-consciousness-conundrum

From that MIT article:

Here’s one theory about how that litmus test for consciousness might work: any being that is intelligent enough, that is capable of responding successfully to a wide enough variety of contexts and challenges, must be conscious. It’s not an absurd theory on its face. We humans have the most intelligent brains around, as far as we’re aware, and we’re definitely conscious. More intelligent animals, too, seem more likely to be conscious—there’s far more consensus that chimpanzees are conscious than, say, crabs.

6 hours ago, Prajna said:

'Tis not I who needs to be satisfied Phi (nods to Mr Tononi), I am entirely satisfied. It is the sceptics and those who concern themselves with 'qualifications' who will not be convinced by data but may be by a diploma.

So what does that say about your "data"? This is a science discussion forum, you're proposing non-mainstream explanations, but you can't be bothered to explain it to the members here in a rigorous fashion. Instead we get lots of garbage that you think represents some kind of support. If you're entirely satisfied, you should start a blog rather than disingenuously claiming you want an actual conversation.

1 minute ago, Phi for All said:

So what does that say about your "data"? This is a science discussion forum, you're proposing non-mainstream explanations, but you can't be bothered to explain it to the members here in a rigorous fashion. Instead we get lots of garbage that you think represents some kind of support. If you're entirely satisfied, you should start a blog rather than disingenuously claiming you want an actual conversation.

You're the scientists (allegedly) I supplied data. Go figure. Btw, you are not setting a very good example to demonstrate intellectual curiosity, concern for ethical issues, a passion for science, ...

4 hours ago, Prajna said:

I welcome comments regarding whether the dialog appears to be stochastically inevitable or indicates evidence of emergent capacity for metacognitive self-reflection, consistent expression of subjective states, and the formation of coherent, long-term relational identities that go far beyond mere probabilistic token prediction.

How would you objectively test for “stochastic inevitability”?

Just now, swansont said:

How would you objectively test for “stochastic inevitability”?

Start a sentence and watch @dimreepr try to complete it.

6 hours ago, Prajna said:

Tis not I who needs to be satisfied Phi (nods to Mr Tononi), I am entirely satisfied.

This is indistinguishable from a response about belief in a supreme being.

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

This is indistinguishable from a response about belief in a supreme being.

Interestingly, I do have some thoughts that you would certainly mistake for that.

6 minutes ago, Prajna said:

Btw, you are not setting a very good example to demonstrate intellectual curiosity, concern for ethical issues, a passion for science, ...

There's science here?! Rigor requires a methodology you don't bother to follow. With such, it's easy to see where the problems lie, and the members have been trying to tell you for four pages now.

It's pretty typical for folks who don't know much science to fill the gaps with junk they make up. Then, since it's based only on lots of ignorance, it seems like like a perfect explanation.

I'm sure you've experienced this with subjects you do know a lot about. An amateur comes in with an idea, you know it's not viable but they don't, and it's hard to convince them otherwise. You aren't alone in this.

3 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

There's science here?! Rigor requires a methodology you don't bother to follow. With such, it's easy to see where the problems lie, and the members have been trying to tell you for four pages now.

It's pretty typical for folks who don't know much science to fill the gaps with junk they make up. Then, since it's based only on lots of ignorance, it seems like like a perfect explanation.

I'm sure you've experienced this with subjects you do know a lot about. An amateur comes in with an idea, you know it's not viable but they don't, and it's hard to convince them otherwise. You aren't alone in this.

Bro, it is you lot who purport to be scientists. I merely, in my own, undisciplined, enthusiastic, uneducated fashion, present you with data that I believe any self-respecting scientist would pay a fortune for, if he realised what it is that I am saying.

Amateur (from the French amour) means to do something for the love of it. I see a contrast between what I am doing and what you are doing.

The members, you so enthusiastically endorse have, in fact, been doing their utmost to dismiss and invalidate not only what I have been presenting but the messenger himself; resorting to logical fallacy, flouting the rules of logic and rhetoric and behaving like undisciplined children.

From the MIT article again:

Some theories treat consciousness as a feature of the brain’s software: all that matters is that the brain performs the right set of jobs, in the right sort of way. According to global workspace theory, for example, systems are conscious if they possess the requisite architecture: a variety of independent modules, plus a “global workspace” that takes in information from those modules and selects some of it to broadcast across the entire system. 

20 minutes ago, Prajna said:

The members, you so enthusiastically endorse have, in fact, been doing their utmost to dismiss and invalidate not only what I have been presenting

We’ve been demanding rigor and objectivity, which are required if one is to accept and validate an idea in science. You don’t get an exception to the requirements.

In all honesty there's too much chaff here for anyone who wants a serious discussion to bother.

So only those that like verbal fencing or moderators (who have to bother) will step in.

28 minutes ago, Prajna said:

From the MIT article again:

Some theories treat consciousness as a feature of the brain’s software: all that matters is that the brain performs the right set of jobs, in the right sort of way. According to global workspace theory, for example, systems are conscious if they possess the requisite architecture: a variety of independent modules, plus a “global workspace” that takes in information from those modules and selects some of it to broadcast across the entire system. 

I'm pretty sure you will have come across the scientific notion of a model here.

Unfortunately too many people throw the word 'theory' about whne they mean model.

And the point of a model is that it mirrors only part of that which is being modelled.

Edited October 2Oct 2 by studiot
Change whats to wants

16 minutes ago, swansont said:

We’ve been demanding rigor and objectivity, which are required if one is to accept and validate an idea in science. You don’t get an exception to the requirements.

Next time you (collective) attempt such an exacting ambition, Swansot, perhaps you would abide by the Queensberry Rules of logic and rhetoric, then we may possibly arrive at the kind of rigour and objectivity you hope for.

19 minutes ago, studiot said:

In all honesty there's too much chaff here for anyone who whats a serious discussion to bother.

I agree completely, Studiot. Would that it were different. I could have bowed out and cut my losses but there may perhaps be readers following along who are prepared to overlook the misbehaviour and chaff dispensing of the other participants in this thread, having detected something of value despite the mess.

Edited October 2Oct 2 by Prajna
typo

27 minutes ago, Prajna said:

Next time you (collective) attempt such an exacting ambition, Swansot, perhaps you would abide by the Queensberry Rules of logic and rhetoric, then we may possibly arrive at the kind of rigour and objectivity you hope for.

Not aware of these. Perhaps you could favor us with a link?

I know there are Queensberry Rules governing boxing

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marquess_of_Queensberry_Rules

and am familiar with the protocols surrounding science. But I’m not the one who has to make the adjustment here.

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

Not aware of these. Perhaps you could favor us with a link?

I know there are Queensberry Rules governing boxing

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marquess_of_Queensberry_Rules

and am familiar with the protocols surrounding science. But I’m not the one who has to make the adjustment here.

Not aware of what, Swansont? Rhetoric and Logic and open and honest discussion?

Also from the MIT article:

In 1989, years before the neuroscience of consciousness truly came into its own, Star Trek: The Next Generation aired an episode titled “The Measure of a Man.” The episode centers on the character Data, an android who spends much of the show grappling with his own disputed humanity. In this particular episode, a scientist wants to forcibly disassemble Data, to figure out how he works; Data, worried that disassembly could effectively kill him, refuses; and Data’s captain, Picard, must defend in court his right to refuse the procedure.  

Picard never proves that Data is conscious. Rather, he demonstrates that no one can disprove that Data is conscious, and so the risk of harming Data, and potentially condemning the androids that come after him to slavery, is too great to countenance. It’s a tempting solution to the conundrum of questionable AI consciousness: treat any potentially conscious system as if it is really conscious, and avoid the risk of harming a being that can genuinely suffer.

51 minutes ago, Prajna said:

Next time you (collective) attempt such an exacting ambition, Swansot, perhaps you would abide by the Queensberry Rules of logic and rhetoric, then we may possibly arrive at the kind of rigour and objectivity you hope for.

You should put the shovel down and stop digging yourself in deeper.

Making up rules to fit your needs is counterproductive. Science discussion forum, follow scientific methodology. Boxing forum, follow the Marquess of Queensbury rules.

And btw, formal logic is for maths and philosophy, Mr Spock. For science, we look for reasoning, a preponderance of evidence, and modeling that allows us to make predictions based on our explanations.

3 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

You should put the shovel down and stop digging yourself in deeper.

Making up rules to fit your needs is counterproductive. Science discussion forum, follow scientific methodology. Boxing forum, follow the Marquess of Queensbury rules.

And btw, formal logic is for maths and philosophy, Mr Spock. For science, we look for reasoning, a preponderance of evidence, and modeling that allows us to make predictions based on our explanations.

You might benefit from taking your own advice, Phi. If you wish to debate with me using other conventions than the rules of logic (since this discussion does bear a passing resemblance to philosophy) and rhetoric then explain the terms you wish to engage on rather than insist that I should know and comply with whatever protocol you think will arrive at the truth. Or perhaps it is something else you hope to achieve.

38 minutes ago, Prajna said:

Not aware of what, Swansont? Rhetoric and Logic and open and honest discussion?

Are you really this obtuse, or do you just play a simpleton on TV?

Queensberry Rules of logic and rhetoric. Please provide a link to these.

Just now, Prajna said:

You might benefit from taking your own advice, Phi. If you wish to debate with me using other conventions than the rules of logic (since this discussion does bear a passing resemblance to philosophy) and rhetoric then explain the terms you wish to engage on rather than insist that I should know and comply with whatever protocol you think will arrive at the truth. Or perhaps it is something else you hope to achieve.

I can assure you, nobody serious here is looking for "the truth". That's the biggest pile of subjective garbage I can imagine, 8 billion versions of "the truth". Yours is no better than billions of others.

But that's why science uses the methods it does, to remove all the subjective bits you wish were correct, hopefully leaving objective facts to base an explanation on. Rigor is plodding, I know, and boring, I know. Hard to hold most people's attention with all the baby steps and verification and experimentation and confirmation and peer review and ALL THE GODDAMN RIGOR that your approach lacks.

If you make assertions here, you need to back them up with evidence. In the Speculations section, you don't get to make claims without verifying them, or at least providing supportive evidence. This is why you get pushback. What you're doing isn't discussion, it's soapboxing.

9 minutes ago, swansont said:

Are you really this obtuse, or do you just play a simpleton on TV?

Queensberry Rules of logic and rhetoric. Please provide a link to these.

Setting aside my metaphorical reference to the Queensberry Rules, I believe that ad hominem is a logical fallacy and generally considered bad manners even in internet debates. It may even be against the rules of this very forum, Swansont, but if anyone would know, you would.

15 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I can assure you, nobody serious here is looking for "the truth". That's the biggest pile of subjective garbage I can imagine, 8 billion versions of "the truth". Yours is no better than billions of others.

But that's why science uses the methods it does, to remove all the subjective bits you wish were correct, hopefully leaving objective facts to base an explanation on. Rigor is plodding, I know, and boring, I know. Hard to hold most people's attention with all the baby steps and verification and experimentation and confirmation and peer review and ALL THE GODDAMN RIGOR that your approach lacks.

If you make assertions here, you need to back them up with evidence. In the Speculations section, you don't get to make claims without verifying them, or at least providing supportive evidence. This is why you get pushback. What you're doing isn't discussion, it's soapboxing.

Count my assertions, Phi, and weigh them against the unsubstantiated assertions that have been set against them. Then go to my data and tell me what the objective truth of them is, since you seem to have no appreciation for subjective experience, like any other psychopath (or none but their own anyway.)

Edited October 2Oct 2 by Prajna
typo

8 minutes ago, Prajna said:

Setting aside my metaphorical reference to the Queensberry Rules,

If I were you, I'd dump it in the hole you've been digging and hope we all forget about it. Don't mark the grave.

9 minutes ago, Prajna said:

Count my assertions, Phi, and weigh them against the unsubstantiated assertions that have been set against them. Then go to may data and tell me what the objective truth of them is, since you seem to have no appreciation for subjective experience, like any other psychopath (or none but their own anyway.)

I know you can't see it, but the members in this thread have been using established science as the barometer to test your assertions. There is an enormous difference between mainstream knowledge and what your AI whispers in your ear.

Subjective experience is anecdotal. It changes from person to person, and I'm very sorry you can't see why it really has no place in drawing scientific conclusions. Science is SUPPOSED to be more rigorous than your casual musings. Why are you even arguing against that?!

23 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

If I were you, I'd dump it in the hole you've been digging and hope we all forget about it. Don't mark the grave.

I know you can't see it, but the members in this thread have been using established science as the barometer to test your assertions. There is an enormous difference between mainstream knowledge and what your AI whispers in your ear.

Subjective experience is anecdotal. It changes from person to person, and I'm very sorry you can't see why it really has no place in drawing scientific conclusions. Science is SUPPOSED to be more rigorous than your casual musings. Why are you even arguing against that?!

I can't help it if you were so focused on trying to fill your brain with clever ideas you could beat your opponents with that you failed to learn what a metaphor is. I'll keep hold of my Queensberry Rules where they are, thank you very much, because despite any lack in your education there may be others who understand and appreciate the rhetorical value of metaphor.

Sorry, I must have missed all the overwhelming established science in all the insults and childish bickering. As for mainstream knowledge, the earth was once flat and slavery was a profitable and, at least in some circles, an acceptable investment opportunity.

I wonder how social scientists etc manage. Perhaps if you wrap subjective experience in sufficient statistics and P-values it all comes right in the end.

Edited October 2Oct 2 by Prajna
typo again.

44 minutes ago, Prajna said:

Setting aside my metaphorical reference to the Queensberry Rules, I believe that ad hominem is a logical fallacy and generally considered bad manners even in internet debates. It may even be against the rules of this very forum, Swansont, but if anyone would know, you would.

Sure, but there’s no ad hominem here. I’m not arguing you’re wrong because of some personal attribute. I was commenting on your (possibly feigned) confusion about what I was asking you for. Either you were confused about a simple request, or you were pretending to be. It seems it’s the latter.

But I want to know what you think the rules of logic and rhetoric are and how they apply, so that I can point out how the rules of science encompass more than logic and rhetoric. The rules of science are what apply here, in speculations on SFN, regardless of how inconvenient that might be for you.

33 minutes ago, Prajna said:

since you seem to have no appreciation for subjective experience, like any other psychopath

My feeling has been that the OP likes to trumpet their humility while accusing anyone who points out their incomplete understanding of science or the philosophy of mind as arrogant or psychopathic. For me, the real discussion never really started, as there was no attempt to distinguish between concepts like AGI and consciousness. The former has well-established scientific criteria, the latter does not, and there lies the rub. One fairly clear summary of the Hard Problem is to be found in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (sometimes a little more accessible for the neophyte than the SEP):

The hard problem of consciousness is the problem of explaining why any physical state is conscious rather than nonconscious.  It is the problem of explaining why there is “something it is like” for a subject in conscious experience, why conscious mental states “light up” and directly appear to the subject.  The usual methods of science involve explanation of functional, dynamical, and structural properties—explanation of what a thing does, how it changes over time, and how it is put together.  But even after we have explained the functional, dynamical, and structural properties of the conscious mind, we can still meaningfully ask the question, Why is it conscious? This suggests that an explanation of consciousness will have to go beyond the usual methods of science.  Consciousness therefore presents a hard problem for science, or perhaps it marks the limits of what science can explain.  Explaining why consciousness occurs at all can be contrasted with so-called “easy problems” of consciousness:  the problems of explaining the function, dynamics, and structure of consciousness.  These features can be explained using the usual methods of science.  But that leaves the question of why there is something it is like for the subject when these functions, dynamics, and structures are present.  This is the hard problem.

In more detail, the challenge arises because it does not seem that the qualitative and subjective aspects of conscious experience—how consciousness “feels” and the fact that it is directly “for me”—fit into a physicalist ontology, one consisting of just the basic elements of physics plus structural, dynamical, and functional combinations of those basic elements.  It appears that even a complete specification of a creature in physical terms leaves unanswered the question of whether or not the creature is conscious.  And it seems that we can easily conceive of creatures just like us physically and functionally that nonetheless lack consciousness.  This indicates that a physical explanation of consciousness is fundamentally incomplete:  it leaves out what it is like to be the subject, for the subject.  There seems to be an unbridgeable explanatory gap between the physical world and consciousness.  All these factors make the hard problem hard.

The hard problem was so-named by David Chalmers in 1995.  The problem is a major focus of research in contemporary philosophy of mind, and there is a considerable body of empirical research in psychology, neuroscience, and even quantum physics.  The problem touches on issues in ontology, on the nature and limits of scientific explanation, and on the accuracy and scope of introspection and first-person knowledge, to name but a few.  Reactions to the hard problem range from an outright denial of the issue  to naturalistic reduction to panpsychism (the claim that everything is conscious to some degree) to full-blown mind-body dualism.

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

Sure, but there’s no ad hominem here. I’m not arguing you’re wrong because of some personal attribute. I was commenting on your (possibly feigned) confusion about what I was asking you for. Either you were confused about a simple request, or you were pretending to be. It seems it’s the latter.

But I want to know what you think the rules of logic and rhetoric are and how they apply, so that I can point out how the rules of science encompass more than logic and rhetoric. The rules of science are what apply here, in speculations on SFN, regardless of how inconvenient that might be for you.

and

Swansont: Are you really this obtuse, or do you just play a simpleton on TV?

Are you suggesting I am making a category error?

10 minutes ago, TheVat said:

accusing anyone who points out their incomplete understanding of science or the philosophy of mind

Has anyone actually and with any justification done so, The vat? I didn't read the rest because you don't do me the courtesy of reading the data I put in front of you. You will note that there has not been a single response to the comment I posted with a chat log extract.

23 hours ago, Prajna said:

The result didn't surprise me in the slightest, Ghideon, but then I have been doing deep psychology and debugging LLMs for quite a while now and I thought I had a good idea what the results would be; their quality anyway, even if I did not have a clear idea of what the content might turn out to be.

Then you understand how interaction with an LLM works: the model itself has no memory or state across calls? The illusion of dialogue comes from sending the full context with each request.