[ExI] GPT-4 on its inability to solve the symbol grounding problem

Brent Allsop brent.allsop at gmail.com
Mon Apr 3 21:15:14 UTC 2023

Hi Will,

On Mon, Apr 3, 2023 at 1:02 PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> This is insane.  You can't give a good reason for why our qualia aren't
> also formed by pattern inference.

If you really believe this kind of bleating and tweeting claim that "This
is insane." then start a camp around what you do believe.  IF you get ANY
supporters of that competing camp to RQT
I will think you are more than a bleating and tweeting quality blind
idiot, that doesn't have enough faith in your thinking to see if anyone
besides you would agree.  Otherwise, what do you expect me to believe?

> A leading theory of vision, the opponent process,  involves exactly that.
> There is legitimate proof that our perception of color is not a result of
> individual particular signals, but the differences and relations between
> multiple signals.  I don't see how this is any difference besides the fact
> that one set of these signal relations comes from the retina and one set
> comes from text.

You can't see how this theory, like all the peer reviewed papers on color
perception, is quality blind?  How do you answer the questions in the "are
you color quality blind
Socratic survey?

I think, for what it is, this opponent process theory of color perception
is a good theory that explains a lot.  But this is 100% about what Chalmers
would refer to as the EASY problem.  It does absolutely NOTHING to address
the so-called "hard problem" of consciousness.  And it does absolutely
nothing to give us a hint of an idea that would help us understand what
color qualities are, not just what they seem to be.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20230403/db5e99d1/attachment.htm>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list