[ExI] LLM are connecting all terrestrial intelligence

[Jason Resch]

On Fri, May 22, 2026, 10:12 AM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> On 22/05/2026 11:53, Jason Resch wrote:
> > I believe it is systems and processes that ultimately are the possessors
> of conscious minds, not physical things or objects. This explains our
> difficulty in locating conscious minds, or particular sets of neurons
> involved in a conscious thought. As a process, a conscious mind isn't
> localizable to any exact position in time or space. It also means that it
> isn't so easy to dismiss the possibility of colony consciousnesses that
> don't manifest as singular physical objects. Also note that what we choose
> to consider as separate physical objects is an entirely arbitrary human
> distinction, and one not grounded in physical reality.
>
>
> In essence, I agree, but as always, I think we need to be more careful
> about the language we use when discussing this.
>
> Systems and processes don't actually possess minds, they comprise minds,
> which is a different thing. Saying 'possess' implies separation, and
> reinforces dualistic thinking. We don't say that a sound wave possesses a
> musical note. It does make sense to say that physical things can possess
> conscious minds, but not that they are conscious minds. My brain possesses
> a mind by virtue of executing a process that is that mind.
>

But note that we often speak of things possessing certain properties:

- This car has a reddish hue.
- This language's nouns have a gender.
- This machine has Turing universality.
- This program has recursion.

In all these situations, using "comprise" feels inappropriate because these
systems or bobehcts comprise much more than just these properties.

If consciousness is a property then I find no fault in saying:
- This brain has a conscious mind.

Dualism as "property dualism" is not the problem, it is the ancient
"substance dualism" that is incompatible with science/physics.

I would say the larger problem is in holding too steadfastly in the trap
that rejecting substance dualism leads one into: strict materialism and the
rejection of properties beyond low-level fundamental physical properties.

This has led to all manner of flawed theories of consciousness, such as
eliminative materialism, panpaychism, quantum mind theories, etc.

The resolution is to accept that there are unlimited potential hierarchies
of systems that can be built, having all manner of properties which aren't
found at lower levels or in other systems of different designs. Essentially
to accept "emergence". A plant is alive even though none of its atoms are.



> I don't think it's quite fair to say that 'separate objects' is an
> entirely arbitrary distinction. There are good reasons why we perceive and
> classify things as separate, even though everything is connected. The
> physical reality of different collections of particles doesn't eliminate
> their differences, and of course it's survival that is the driver for how
> we perceive the world, so in practical terms there is a genuine physical
> difference between the river and the road, my head and my hat, etc.
>

There are practical reasons to do so, but it remains arbitrary. There are
just atoms in the void. There is just one big playground we call spacetime
in which particles can interact. Any border you may try to set on where one
set of particles compromising one physical object ends and where another
begins will be arbitrary (though some ways are more practical than others).
This is especially true given quantum mechanics where particles don't even
have definite positions and can jump arbitrary distances from one moment to
the next and where all particles of the same kind are indistinguishable
even in theory.

Jason
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20260620/a048af8f/attachment.htm>