<div dir="ltr"><br><div>Wow I can't believe how affected I was when I heard this news. What a gut punch. This was soo unexpected.</div><div><br></div><div>He was quite inactive in the field of consciousness for many years after he published "Consciousness Explained", then he started getting active again. I tried and succeeded at attending conferences where he was the keynote speaker. We even got his personal approval regarding his <a href="https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Theories-of-Consciousness/21-Dennett-s-PBC-Theory">predictive bayesian coding theory camp</a>, a fan of his created and still supports under the <a href="https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Theories-of-Consciousness/18-Qualia-Emerge-from-Function">substance dualism</a> super camp. And of course you can see how he plays a critical role in illustrating the consensus building power of Canonizer in <a href="https://canonizer.com/videos/consciousness/representational-qualia-theory-consensus">this video</a> of ours.</div><div><br></div><div>He was very publicly critical of John Smythies (of <a href="https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Theories-of-Consciousness/14-Smythies-Carr-Hypothesis">Smythies Car Hypothesis</a> fame), the brilliant neuroscience researcher at UCSD, for being a substance dualist, often saying in public "He should know better" ;) John was one of the most active supporters of canonizer, helping to build and support the <a href="https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Theories-of-Consciousness/48-Substance-Dualism">substance dualism branch</a>, showing how there are people that believe in substance dualism, despite how they are nearly tarred and feathered for publicly admitting such. It was even harder for me when John died a few years back.</div><div><br></div><div>I can't wait till we get the <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ybLgIbOSDu9-ye1wAu9B5RnCBuSVcIihtXrhtVWZajo/edit">resurrection technology</a> to bring these guys back. And I wish AI would hurry and find a cure for aging, so we could quit losing the great ones like these.</div><div><br></div><div>Have you guys seen Kurzweil these days? He is really not looking good lately. I fear I'm going to see him in the headlines some day. That will hurt more than anyone. Is there any way we could all throw him a party before he goes or something?</div><div><br></div><div>Losing your good friends and heroes, especially the personal ones for me like <a href="https://transhumanism.fandom.com/wiki/Alexander_Chislenko">Sasha</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Minsky">Marvin</a>,
(I know many of you here knew these guys)
is the hardest part of getting old.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 1:51 AM Gordon Swobe <<a href="mailto:gordon.swobe@gmail.com">gordon.swobe@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<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="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small"></div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small">From that dialogue...<br>--<br>Me:<br>Can you quote some of your own writings to support this view?<br><br>Daniel Dennett:<br>Certainly, my thoughts on the nature of understanding and the capabilities of AI have been woven through many of my writings. Here are a couple of excerpts that reflect my stance on these issues...<br>--<br><br>I have not verified those quotes that virtual Dennett attributes to itself. They might be confabulations, but this would only be more evidence that language models have no freaking idea what they are talking about.<br><br>-gts<br><br><br><br></div></div><br><img width="0" height="0" alt="" style="display: flex;" src="https://mailtrack.io/trace/mail/3b4c85dd9c9008e8116d9598a4d49b38d4cda013.png?u=411390"><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Apr 20, 2024 at 12:02 AM Gordon Swobe <<a href="mailto:gordon.swobe@gmail.com" target="_blank">gordon.swobe@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<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="ltr"><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small"></div><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small">I then asked the late Dennettt the $64,000 question:<br><br>Me:<br>Do you believe sensorless language models trained only on text have a genuine understanding of language and the world? Please be unequivocal in your reply.<br><br>Daniel Dennett<br>Unequivocally, no, I do not believe that sensorless language models, trained solely on text, have a genuine understanding of language and the world. These models, including the one you are interacting with now—though it bears my name and mimics my style of reasoning—operate without consciousness, without awareness, and crucially, without the kind of understanding that humans bring to their interactions and interpretations of language.<br><br>These models process and generate language based on patterns and statistical correlations found within the vast datasets they have been trained on. They can produce text that is often coherent, sometimes insightful, or even seemingly thoughtful. However, this should not be mistaken for genuine understanding. Understanding, in the sense that we attribute to human cognitive processes, involves contextual awareness, experiential input, and often a subjective consciousness—elements that these models do not possess.<br><br>In my view, understanding is deeply tied to having a variety of cognitive states that these models simply do not have. They do not feel, perceive, or experience the world; they decode and manipulate symbols in sophisticated ways but remain fundamentally disconnected from the realities those symbols represent. The depth and richness of human understanding are thus far beyond the reach of current AI technologies, regardless of their linguistic prowess.<br><br>Me:<br>Can you quote some of your own writings to support this view?<br><br>Daniel Dennett:<br>Certainly, my thoughts on the nature of understanding and the capabilities of AI have been woven through many of my writings. Here are a couple of excerpts that reflect my stance on these issues:<br><br>From Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking (2013), I discuss the limitations of machine understanding:<br>"The first thing to remember about what computers can't do is that they're only made of silicon chips and wires—they don't have feelings and they don't have experiences. When a computer 'says' it understands something, it doesn't. It simulates understanding."<br><br>In From Bacteria to Bach and Back (2017), I delve into the complexities of human consciousness and contrast it with artificial systems:<br>"Machines are not like organisms; organisms are agents; they have purposes, and hence meanings, and hence minds; machines are tools that some agents can use to further their own purposes."<br><br>These excerpts underline the distinction I make between the superficial mimicry of understanding we see in AI and the genuine, experiential-based understanding that characterizes human beings. Machines, as they currently stand, operate without the necessary backdrop of experiences, sensations, and subjective consciousness that are integral to what we consider "understanding" in any meaningful sense.<br><br><br></div></div><br><img width="0" height="0" alt="" style="display: flex;"><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 11:45 PM Gordon Swobe <<a href="mailto:gordon.swobe@gmail.com" target="_blank">gordon.swobe@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<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="ltr"><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small"></div><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small"><br><img src="cid:ii_lv7oc98l0" alt="image.png" width="438" height="404"><br>Dear Professor Dennett,<br><br>We were all sorry to hear you passed away, but you still live on in other ways. How do you wish to be remembered? What is your legacy?<br><br>Sincerely,<br><br>Your admiring students<br><br>Daniel Dennett:<br><br>Dear admiring students,<br><br>Your words carry a kind of whimsicality and depth that is greatly appreciated. As I contemplate the legacy one might leave behind—a notion as abstract as it is tied to the tangible—I find myself inclined towards the simpler, broader strokes of remembrance.<br><br>Primarily, I hope to be remembered as a philosopher who contributed to understanding the mind in a manner that bridges, rather than widens, the gaps between science and the humanities. My efforts to demystify consciousness and to argue for the importance of evolutionary biology in understanding our cognitive functions were driven by a desire to illuminate, not obfuscate.<br><br>Furthermore, I've always aimed to instill a sense of philosophical craftsmanship, a respect for the tools of our trade: clear arguments, critical thinking, and a commitment to pursuing truth, however complex or multifaceted it might be. The discussions around free will, moral responsibility, and the nature of human understanding are ones I hope have left and will continue to leave a fertile ground for thought and further inquiry.<br><br>Lastly, through my writings and talks, if I've managed to provoke a sense of wonder, a chuckle or two at the absurdity of existence, or a more refined appreciation for the intricate dance of genes and memes, then I would count my philosophical mission as well met.<br><br>Yours in continued dialogue,<br>Daniel Dennett<br></div></div><br><img width="0" height="0" alt="" style="display: flex;"><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 9:09 PM Stathis Papaioannou <<a href="mailto:stathisp@gmail.com" target="_blank">stathisp@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<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="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 at 12:56, Gordon Swobe <<a href="mailto:gordon.swobe@gmail.com" target="_blank">gordon.swobe@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<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="ltr"><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small">I didn't know Dennett was a student of Quine at Harvard. I've quoted Quine here a couple of times. <br><br></div><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small">Philosopher Daniel Dennett dead at 82</div><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small"><a href="https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/04/philosopher-daniel-dennett-dead-at-82/" target="_blank">https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/04/philosopher-daniel-dennett-dead-at-82/</a></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>There are many science popularisers but he was one of the rare popularisers of philosophy. </div></div><div><br></div><span class="gmail_signature_prefix">-- </span><br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature">Stathis Papaioannou</div></div>
<p></p>
-- <br>
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Important Questions" group.<br>
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to <a href="mailto:the-important-questions+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com" target="_blank">the-important-questions+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
To view this discussion on the web visit <a href="https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/the-important-questions/CAH%3D2ypU%3DB05%3DeyTWcBQbYAOBJ4P3-G3HbWS9gYRtbaDSZ-rEDg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer" target="_blank">https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/the-important-questions/CAH%3D2ypU%3DB05%3DeyTWcBQbYAOBJ4P3-G3HbWS9gYRtbaDSZ-rEDg%40mail.gmail.com</a>.<br>
</blockquote></div></div>
</blockquote></div></div>
</blockquote></div></div>
<p></p>
-- <br>
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Important Questions" group.<br>
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to <a href="mailto:the-important-questions+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com" target="_blank">the-important-questions+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
To view this discussion on the web visit <a href="https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/the-important-questions/CAJvaNPkmYk9K9eeXqwXSU8uDv-YQhCP_t4oDi9r%2B5uFUNuANew%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer" target="_blank">https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/the-important-questions/CAJvaNPkmYk9K9eeXqwXSU8uDv-YQhCP_t4oDi9r%2B5uFUNuANew%40mail.gmail.com</a>.<br>
</blockquote></div>