7 ms·

I would argue, that the null hypothesis is that it is not, and that anyone claiming that there is a mote of consciousness are the ones with the burden of proof.

yreg 28d ago
The null hypothesis is that we don't know jack shit about consciousness. Any claim of certainty seems extraordinary to me and I want to hear the evidence.
- randomImmigrant 28d ago
  We know quite a lot about consciousness. You may not, but we know enough to know the informational dynamics in a brain are vastly different from an LLMs. Exactly what kind of certainty are you looking for? Happy to provide it at a molecular, cellular, tissue or whole brain level.
  - Jtarii 28d ago
    Can we conclusively say one way or another if an ant has a conscious experience?
    - randomImmigrant 28d ago
      Yes we can say it has conscious experience. The content and depth of it, we cannot yet fully grok, and of course, what it feels like from inside the ant is something we never will know.
      - Jtarii 27d ago
        Okay, what about a virus.
        randomImmigrant 24d ago
        Nope. It’s got a genuine off state, when it’s out of a cell, where it lacks agency. It’s dormant and can be taken up by a cell only by chance, not through its own active efforts. It bears none of the descriptive hallmarks of consciousness, nor is there any internal physical dynamic inherent to a virus. By definition it needs a host to start having a dynamic, and ant that point, it anctivates its drive, which is singular: reproduction and transmission, which it must balance. And this is where you see viruses show the beginning of agency, in the making of this choice. They do show some signs of sensing their environment , even communicating with each other, through a process called quorum sensing, to decide if they should follow a lysogeny (integrate and stay quiet) or lysis (rapidly replicate and destroy the cell). Note, this requires a host, so in so far as we can talk of a viral consciousness, it’s restricted to finding a suitable host. There’s also recent work on viruses upon host entry showing some sensing. Usually a single molecule for which they already have a receptor. So you can begin to see the thin levels of awareness a virus has. But it still can’t do anything on its own beyond deciding to not infect. I’d argue viruses are right at the edge of consciousness, just as they are right at the edge of life. They can hijack life and demonstrate much more life like properties, including a proto consciousness. But they have no internal clock. They are always sensing the environment through multiple rich channels, nor do they have an active biochemistry they need to maintain when they’re dormant. Consciousness adjacent? Consciousness-compatible? Both seem to fit viruses. And also LLMs, funnily enough.
  - yreg 27d ago
    What causes consciousness? Why aren't we all p-zombies?
    - randomImmigrant 23d ago
      Let me address the p-zombie first: it's a biological impossibly. Saying a p-zombie can be conceived of that has no inner feeling is like saying I can conceive of a philosophical star that radiates dark. Very nice that you can do that, but it's physically meaningless. Why does biology preclude a philosophical zombie? Because every year we find new evidence of how utterly interdependent brain processes are and how tied to the experiential history of an organism. We have mapped out the initial engrams that form in response to a new salient memory, and seen that 1. Time of day, 2. Physical location 3. Internal state all unique to the organism drive it's specific response, the specific way it saves the memory, etc. That is, the organisms path history, it's interactions with the environment over space and time, shape it specifically based on the spaces and times IT experienced. Take circadian rhythms, the internal timekeeping system all animals have. You feel it go haywire when you have jetlag. That is quite literally a history dependent response from your circadian clock to unexpected light. Your p-zombie, if you specify it to have exactly your rhythms, will then need to have identical molecules being produced at identical times in every single cell, because that is how circadian rhythms are instantiated in all life, it's in each cell, and these cells can be synchronized, or, due to events like long distance travel or shift work, desynchronize. When desynchronized, you feel it, you feel different parts of your body adjusting, your meals shift, your taste and mood for food shifts... Now, to put this in perfective, a human has about 36 trillion of their own cells, and an equal quantity of single cells symbiotes and commensal organisms, which give off all kinds of chemicals that shape, among other things, the circadian rhythms we talked about. Now can you tell me: does the p zombie have not judt an identical compliment of 70 trillion odd cells, and they will all be in the same phase all the time as the cells in the non-zombie conscious person? If so... How is this masterful phase synchrony across space achieved? What physical process allows for this? If you cannot conceive of a way to do this synchrony (and you won't, basic physics forbids it), I think the sensible conclusion is to stop worrying about the philosophical zombies, and start looking at what information we have about actual humans and animals. I brought up clocks to make a point, but actually, the evidence is building the biological clock is foundational for consciousness: Some clinical signs: https://academic.oup.com/sleep/article/45/7/zsac094/6571981 https://academic.oup.com/sleep/article/45/7/zsac094/6571981 And a broader theory: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34382225/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34382225/
- kelnos 27d ago
  > we don't know jack shit about consciousness People keep saying this, but it's not true. We know a lot about consciousness. There's a lot we don't know about it, of course, but "jack shit" is wildly incorrect. > I want to hear the evidence. If you believe LLMs are conscious, then the onus is on you to provide evidence of such.
  - yreg 27d ago
    No, the onus is on either claim.
  - Jtarii 27d ago
    the onus is on whoever is making a positive claim. If you are stating "LLMs are not conscious" you need to provide evidence, just like how if you are stating "LLMs are conscious" you need to provide evidence.
- discreteevent 27d ago
  Would you want evidence that your your bicycle is not conscious? It can sense your inputs. It responds to the environment. The gears do multiplication (reasoning!).
  - yreg 27d ago
    I think that the difference is that there is a vast gap in complexity and abilities, no?
    - discreteevent 27d ago
      What about a Jacquard loom? Is it conscious? There is a vast gap in complexity and abilities between that and a bicycle.
  - Jtarii 27d ago
    To make the claim that an object is not conscious you need to both define what consciousness even is, then you need to make a machine capable of measuring it. If you have done neither or those things then any claim you have about a bicycle's consciousness is just baseless speculation.
- epihelix 27d ago
  That's not a null hypothesis, that's a strawman. Regardless -- if we don't know jack shit about consciousness (your words), then any claims of LLMs being conscious are by definition untestable, pure speculation and based on no evidence at all.
  - yreg 27d ago
    > then any claims of LLMs being conscious are by definition untestable, pure speculation and based on no evidence at all. Am I saying otherwise? What's the correct null hypothesis according to you?

yreg 28d ago

The null hypothesis is that we don't know jack shit about consciousness. Any claim of certainty seems extraordinary to me and I want to hear the evidence.

randomImmigrant 28d ago
We know quite a lot about consciousness. You may not, but we know enough to know the informational dynamics in a brain are vastly different from an LLMs. Exactly what kind of certainty are you looking for? Happy to provide it at a molecular, cellular, tissue or whole brain level.
- Jtarii 28d ago
  Can we conclusively say one way or another if an ant has a conscious experience?
  - randomImmigrant 28d ago
    Yes we can say it has conscious experience. The content and depth of it, we cannot yet fully grok, and of course, what it feels like from inside the ant is something we never will know.
    - Jtarii 27d ago
      Okay, what about a virus.
      - randomImmigrant 24d ago
        Nope. It’s got a genuine off state, when it’s out of a cell, where it lacks agency. It’s dormant and can be taken up by a cell only by chance, not through its own active efforts. It bears none of the descriptive hallmarks of consciousness, nor is there any internal physical dynamic inherent to a virus. By definition it needs a host to start having a dynamic, and ant that point, it anctivates its drive, which is singular: reproduction and transmission, which it must balance. And this is where you see viruses show the beginning of agency, in the making of this choice. They do show some signs of sensing their environment , even communicating with each other, through a process called quorum sensing, to decide if they should follow a lysogeny (integrate and stay quiet) or lysis (rapidly replicate and destroy the cell). Note, this requires a host, so in so far as we can talk of a viral consciousness, it’s restricted to finding a suitable host. There’s also recent work on viruses upon host entry showing some sensing. Usually a single molecule for which they already have a receptor. So you can begin to see the thin levels of awareness a virus has. But it still can’t do anything on its own beyond deciding to not infect. I’d argue viruses are right at the edge of consciousness, just as they are right at the edge of life. They can hijack life and demonstrate much more life like properties, including a proto consciousness. But they have no internal clock. They are always sensing the environment through multiple rich channels, nor do they have an active biochemistry they need to maintain when they’re dormant. Consciousness adjacent? Consciousness-compatible? Both seem to fit viruses. And also LLMs, funnily enough.
- yreg 27d ago
  What causes consciousness? Why aren't we all p-zombies?
  - randomImmigrant 23d ago
    Let me address the p-zombie first: it's a biological impossibly. Saying a p-zombie can be conceived of that has no inner feeling is like saying I can conceive of a philosophical star that radiates dark. Very nice that you can do that, but it's physically meaningless. Why does biology preclude a philosophical zombie? Because every year we find new evidence of how utterly interdependent brain processes are and how tied to the experiential history of an organism. We have mapped out the initial engrams that form in response to a new salient memory, and seen that 1. Time of day, 2. Physical location 3. Internal state all unique to the organism drive it's specific response, the specific way it saves the memory, etc. That is, the organisms path history, it's interactions with the environment over space and time, shape it specifically based on the spaces and times IT experienced. Take circadian rhythms, the internal timekeeping system all animals have. You feel it go haywire when you have jetlag. That is quite literally a history dependent response from your circadian clock to unexpected light. Your p-zombie, if you specify it to have exactly your rhythms, will then need to have identical molecules being produced at identical times in every single cell, because that is how circadian rhythms are instantiated in all life, it's in each cell, and these cells can be synchronized, or, due to events like long distance travel or shift work, desynchronize. When desynchronized, you feel it, you feel different parts of your body adjusting, your meals shift, your taste and mood for food shifts... Now, to put this in perfective, a human has about 36 trillion of their own cells, and an equal quantity of single cells symbiotes and commensal organisms, which give off all kinds of chemicals that shape, among other things, the circadian rhythms we talked about. Now can you tell me: does the p zombie have not judt an identical compliment of 70 trillion odd cells, and they will all be in the same phase all the time as the cells in the non-zombie conscious person? If so... How is this masterful phase synchrony across space achieved? What physical process allows for this? If you cannot conceive of a way to do this synchrony (and you won't, basic physics forbids it), I think the sensible conclusion is to stop worrying about the philosophical zombies, and start looking at what information we have about actual humans and animals. I brought up clocks to make a point, but actually, the evidence is building the biological clock is foundational for consciousness: Some clinical signs: https://academic.oup.com/sleep/article/45/7/zsac094/6571981 https://academic.oup.com/sleep/article/45/7/zsac094/6571981 And a broader theory: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34382225/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34382225/
kelnos 27d ago
> we don't know jack shit about consciousness People keep saying this, but it's not true. We know a lot about consciousness. There's a lot we don't know about it, of course, but "jack shit" is wildly incorrect. > I want to hear the evidence. If you believe LLMs are conscious, then the onus is on you to provide evidence of such.
- yreg 27d ago
  No, the onus is on either claim.
- Jtarii 27d ago
  the onus is on whoever is making a positive claim. If you are stating "LLMs are not conscious" you need to provide evidence, just like how if you are stating "LLMs are conscious" you need to provide evidence.
discreteevent 27d ago
Would you want evidence that your your bicycle is not conscious? It can sense your inputs. It responds to the environment. The gears do multiplication (reasoning!).
- yreg 27d ago
  I think that the difference is that there is a vast gap in complexity and abilities, no?
  - discreteevent 27d ago
    What about a Jacquard loom? Is it conscious? There is a vast gap in complexity and abilities between that and a bicycle.
- Jtarii 27d ago
  To make the claim that an object is not conscious you need to both define what consciousness even is, then you need to make a machine capable of measuring it. If you have done neither or those things then any claim you have about a bicycle's consciousness is just baseless speculation.
epihelix 27d ago
That's not a null hypothesis, that's a strawman. Regardless -- if we don't know jack shit about consciousness (your words), then any claims of LLMs being conscious are by definition untestable, pure speculation and based on no evidence at all.
- yreg 27d ago
  > then any claims of LLMs being conscious are by definition untestable, pure speculation and based on no evidence at all. Am I saying otherwise? What's the correct null hypothesis according to you?