<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">On Sun, Apr 2, 2023 at 12:55 PM Will Steinberg via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto">Mr. Groks The Sensorium, you keep claiming that ChatGPT hasn't 'solved' the 'symbol grounding problem.' </div></blockquote><div><br>It is not merely my claim. ChatGPT-4 itself claims it cannot solve the problem as it has no conscious experience -- no access to the referents in the real world -- that give words meaning.<br></div><div><br></div><div>-gts<br><br><br><br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto">but I have yet to see any evidence for this, only evidence that ChatGPT is unlikely to experience the same qualia that we experience. But I have seen no proof that the AI has NO qualia with which to ground symbols with, and if you did have that proof, you would become a very famous philosopher.<div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">How do you know that qualia aren't fungible? </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Was Hellen Keller a p-zombie just because she didn't have grounded symbols for sight and sound? </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">How do you know that it's not possible to build a model of the world using only whatever qualia computers experience as the base? </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">You seem to believe that if you reverse engineer language, you are left with a bunch of empty spaces for qualia, and that self-consciousness is dependent on these atomic experiences. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">What's to say that any qualia can't take the spots of the ones we used to develop language? We can communicate with people who are deaf and blind from birth. Even someone who had none of the external senses that we have, but a single bit of input/output of some kind, could communicate with us. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Imagine for a second there are aliens which only perceive the world through magnetic fields. We have no possible way to reckon the qualia for these fields, but we CAN produce the fields, and measure them. And with this we could both send and receive magnetic fields. You might say that without known constants to both refer to, we could never talk with these beings, but is it true? Can you say without the shadow of a doubt that qualia cannot be inferred from the entirety of language? After all, at the end of the day, past the sensory organs everything is condensed into electrochemical signals, same as language. So wouldn't you perhaps think, with utter knowledge of one side of that equation, that it could even be simple to reconstruct the other?</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">If I was able to perfectly recreate a human eye and brain, and knew the neurophysocal content of a 'standard' red quale, would I not be able to make that brain experience the red quale? Do you think it is possible that access to the relations between all language, ever, could enable one to reconstruct the workings of the sensorium, and then infer qualia from there? What if the entity in question not only had this ability, but also experienced its own types of qualia? (You do not know whether this is the case.) Would that make it even easier to reverse engineer? </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I simply think--or rather, I would say I KNOW--that you can't possibly know whether a system, of which you do not know whether experiences any qualia or not, using an inference tool on language of which you have no personal access to verify whether can reconstruct qualia, and which actually, not even the people who make it understand fully what is going on, is conscious of itself.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Btw, is that even what you are arguing? You seem to be jumping back and forth between the argument that ChatGPT has no qualia (which again, you can't know) and the argument that it has no awareness of itself (which again, again, you can't know). These are very different arguments; the first is the most important unsolved problem in philosophy. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">This is really getting into the weeds of the subject and I don't think you should speak so surely on the matter. These problems are the hardest problems in all of philosophy, neuroscience, theory of mind. There are NUMEROUS thought experiments that at the very least bring the sureness of your opinion below 100%.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">You're free to argue for your opinion but can you stop acting like everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot? You're arguing for something that is currently unknowable, so you should be more humble. And if you have special information on what makes qualia, PLEASE make it known here, because--again--it is the most important philosophy problem in existence, and I'm sure everyone here and every philosopher and neuroscientist and human ever would like to know the answer. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Until then, chill with the hubris. It's uncouth.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"></div></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
extropy-chat mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div>