[ExI] Ben Goertzel on Large Language Models

[Brent Allsop]

Hi Giovanni,
I don't understand why you are coming to the opposite conclusion to what
seems correct to me.
Let me see if I can summarize what you mean by this.
You seem to be saying that because grey light can seem to be red, the
seeming redness is not irreducible?
Mechanically, what do you think is a seeming redness quality?
Do you think a seeming redness quality can't represent knowledge of both
red and grey light?



On Sat, Apr 29, 2023 at 12:57 AM Giovanni Santostasi via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

>
> *It is fundamental and irreducible.*Nothing fundamental or irreducible in
> qualia. We have already demonstrated that with the red strawberries
> illusions.
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 11:41 PM Gordon Swobe via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 3:46 PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 28, 2023, 12:33 AM Gordon Swobe via extropy-chat <
>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Quite by accident, I happened upon this quote of Erwin Schrodinger this
>>>> evening.
>>>>
>>>> "Consciousness cannot be explained in physical terms. Because
>>>> consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be explained in any
>>>> other terms."
>>>>
>>> That is actually what I also hold to be true about consciousness, though
>>>> not necessarily for reasons related to quantum mechanics or eastern
>>>> philosophy. (Schrodinger is said to have been influenced by
>>>> eastern philosophy).
>>>>
>>>
>>> Me too. Its strange then that we disagree regarding AI.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, that is interesting. To be clear, I agree with Schrodinger that
>> consciousness cannot be explained in physical terms, but this is not quite
>> the same as saying it is immaterial or non-physical. I mean, and I think he
>> meant, that it cannot be explained in the third-person objective language
>> of physics. I take "absolutely fundamental" to mean irreducible.  I take
>> "It cannot be explained in other terms" to mean that the experience itself
>> is the only way to understand it. This is also why I try to stay out of the
>> endless discussions about what are qualia.
>>
>> I cannot explain in the language of physics, or in the language of
>> computation or of functionalism generally, why I see the red quale when I
>> look at an apple. I just do. It is fundamental and irreducible.
>>
>> -gts
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20230430/d4285196/attachment.htm>