[ExI] all we are is just llms

[Brent Allsop]

Just for the record, I completely agree with the statement that thought and
computation is not dependent on biology.
It is frustrating the way everyone seems to assume I believe otherwise.  In
fact, does anyone here disagree with this?  I bet there isn't anyone.  So
why does this constantly come up?
All of these systems function equivalently in their intelligent thinking
and behavior.
[image: The_Strawberry_is_Red_064.jpg]
I'm just pointing out that we compute directly on intrinsic qualities that
are like something (likely will be possible without biology, in fact non
biological qualities could be far more phenomenal than the ones we know)
and I predict running directly on physical qualities like this is a more
powerful way to achieve parallel computation than the way we use discrete
logic in CPUs to do abstract computation.  And I predict that if anyone
wants to understand color qualities (to say nothing of resolving the
so-called 'hard problem', and getting people to want to be uploaded), they
need to understand the particular paralel way we do computation directly on
subjective qualities.









On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 12:38 PM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> Thought cannot be dependent on biology. This is something I've thought
> about, and done research on, for a long time, and I'm completely
> convinced. It's logically impossible. If it's true, then all of our
> science and logic is wrong.  ben
>
> I don't think I have ever seen a statement in a post that begs for more
> explanation.  bill w
>
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 3:07 PM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
>> On 25/04/2023 14:06, spike wrote:
>> > Cool thx Ben.  I had never thought of it that way, but it is a cause
>> > for hope.  If we find enough ways a brain is like a computer, it
>> > suggests a mind can (in theory) exist in a computer, which is
>> > something I have long believed and hoped is true.  If thought is
>> > substrate dependent on biology, we are all sunk in the long run.
>>
>> Thought cannot be dependent on biology. This is something I've thought
>> about, and done research on, for a long time, and I'm completely
>> convinced. It's logically impossible. If it's true, then all of our
>> science and logic is wrong.
>>
>> What we call 'a computer' is open to interpretation, and it may well be
>> that minds (human-equivalent and above) can't be implemented on the
>> types of computer we have now (we already know that simpler minds can
>> be). But that doesn't destroy the substrate indifference argument (I
>> never liked the term 'substrate independent', because it conjures up the
>> concept of a mind that has no substrate. Substrate indifferent is more
>> accurate, imo (and yes, even that is not good enough, because the
>> substrate must be capable of supporting a mind, and not all will be (we
>> just need to find the right ones. (and OMD, I'm turning into a spikeian
>> bracket nester!!)))).
>>
>> Ben
>> _______________________________________________
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20230426/498b0a09/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: The_Strawberry_is_Red_064.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 65130 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20230426/498b0a09/attachment-0001.jpg>