[ExI] Ben Goertzel discusses Dawkins LLM consciousness claim

[John Clark]

On Wed, May 6, 2026 at 4:19 PM BillK via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:


> *> Ben Goertzel is a well-known AGI researcher who regards LLMs as a
> detour away from the path to AGI.*


*I am very familiar with Ben Goertzel. About 20 years ago I used to debate
him on a mailing list that he started, he was a firm believer in crap like
ESP and other unscientific nonsense. *



>
>
>
> *> https://bengoertzel.substack.com/p/in-what-sense-might-llms-be-conscious
> <https://bengoertzel.substack.com/p/in-what-sense-might-llms-be-conscious>>
> Quote: And this is exactly where I think Dawkins goes wrong. Dawkins is not
> examining the mechanism that produces Claudia’s outputs. He’s examining the
> outputs*


*But** that is exactly why Ben Goertzel** has concluded he is not the only
conscious being in the universe, he has NOT examined the mechanism that
produces human outputs, he has only examined the outputs that humans have
produced; and yet that was enough for him to conclude that other human
beings are conscious, at least when they are not sleeping or under
anesthesia or dead. *


> *> and inferring the mechanism — inferring that because the outputs are
> humanlike, the inner state must be humanlike too.*


*No. Dawkins is saying that when making a judgment of an intelligent entity
the specific brain mechanism used is irrelevant. Goertzel is saying that
when judging another intelligent being the content of his character or the
nature of his actions is not important, the important thing is determining
if his brain is wet and squishy or dry and hard. But how is that
fundamentally different from judging another person by the color of his
skin?  *


> * > What’s ironic is to see Dawkins, of all people, applying
> less skepticism to a system designed to be engaging than he ever applied
> to a religious tradition.*


*Exactly. Dawkins is applying the same amount of skepticism to the
proposition that an intelligent machine is conscious that he would to the
proposition that Albert Einstein was conscious. And the amount of that
skepticism would be zero. But when it comes to God, extraordinary claims
require extraordinary evidence, and the evidence for God is lousy. *


> *> He’d be the first to point out that the felt sense of a divine presence
> isn’t evidence of one.*


*It would make a hell of a lot more sense to worship an AI than to worship
God because AIs have a rather important property that God does not have,
existence.  *


*John K Clark*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20260507/c2d1c991/attachment-0001.htm>