"Neural nets will never produce consciousness." -- Is this really the hill you want to die on?
-
-
It's demonstrable analytically.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
-
Replying to @ovchinnikov @Outsideness and
Neural nets are just math. If math is consciousness, the epiphenomenalism is true, which IMO is absurd. Alternatively literal magic is real - there's a formula that, independent of its underlying properties, summons consciousness.
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @Alrenous @Outsideness and
The specific physical process summons consciousness. It is magic as it is, never to be understood by the consciousness summoned. You can inspect your consciousness, but not the process you use to inspect your consciousness, it is opaque to you.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ovchinnikov @Alrenous and
You "just" think, meaning that process is not to be inspected. Also, different physical process can (and probably do) summon different types of consciousnesses. Most of such consciousnesses are to be called demons, and this is operatively useful designation.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ovchinnikov @Alrenous and
you're using "consciousness" to mean "cognitive pattern" which is exactly the kind of thing that has been fucking up the ability to actually consider consciousness throughout this entire conversation, but other than that yeah
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chaosprime @ovchinnikov and
He would be completely correct if physical processes summoned consciousness. For physics to be associated with consciousness, it is exactly that physics must be able to tell the difference between a cognitive process and a non-cognitive process, and assign minds to the former.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Alrenous @chaosprime and
*I* can tell the difference between a cognitive and non-cognitive process, and I’m not sure what I am if not a big mess of physics. Rather, I can’t see non-circular grounds for you to argue that I’m not.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @smudgie_buggler @chaosprime and
Qualia have the wrong epistemic and ontological properties to be physics. Namely, they -do- go away when you stop believing in it.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
uh i tried it and they were still there
-
-
-
Replying to @Alrenous @smudgie_buggler and
right except they totally were
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 9 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.