Artificial-intelligence systems such as large language models (LLMs) can exhibit behaviour that seems strikingly intelligent. This has led many people, including some experts, to wonder whether these systems could have some form of consciousness — the capacity for subjective experience. However, we think that existing AI systems are not conscious, and that, along current trajectories of development, they are not likely to become conscious. Greater clarity about whether AI could become consciousness will be crucial as society grapples with the challenges posed by this increasingly powerful technology.
You insist that words derive their meaning from social usage, then declare “what it’s like” meaningless by dissecting its individual words into “similar being.” That’s not a serious linguistic argument. You’re contradicting your own account of how language works.
Likewise, a rock “experiencing erosion” and a person experiencing pain involve two different meanings of “experience.” One means undergoing a physical change; the other involves feeling something. You’re equivocating between them. And a camera has a vantage point, too. That doesn’t mean it has subjective experience.
Nothing I’ve argued requires consciousness to be nonphysical or inexplicable. A physical explanation of pain doesn’t negate the existence of felt pain. The question is what produces that experience and how we can reliably identify it in other systems.
I incorrectly attributed someone else’s quantum-collapse proposal to you, I retract that. I see that was from the original commenter, not you.
But here’s the fundamental issue: Do you actually deny there’s a distinction between a nervous system detecting harmful stimuli and someone consciously feeling pain?
Because if you recognize that distinction, you already understand what phenomenon we’re investigating. Disputing the terminology doesn’t make it disappear.
That is literally not what I said at all.
Maybe for you it is, but then you’d need to explain why it is different, other than the subjects and objects being different.
So… this “consciousness” is not monphysical… but feelings aren’t physical changes… right.
Why would a physical explanation negate the existence of a physical event?
Reality is not something “produced.” It just is what it is.
If the nervous system in question is a person, and the harmful stimuli is pain, it is one and the same.
In your earlier reply, during the banana analogy:
You followed that with:
That’s the basis for my characterization.
The contradiction is in your subsequent argument, where you reject the expression “what it is like” by interpreting its individual words literally:
Youre treating an established philosophical expression as meaningless because its individual words don’t yield the intended meaning under their preferred literal interpretation.
Yet you previously acknowledged that meaning emerges from how language is used socially, rather than strictly from dictionary definitions.
Okay. Glad we found the dilemma. I disagree, but I’m also too tired right now. That will be all, then.
You are just delusional, literally hallucinating things I never wrote. Nowhere in anything I wrote did I claim that I am rejecting it as meaningless “because its individual words don’t yield the intended meaning under their preferred literal interpretation.”. I never said that, I never implied that, I never gave the impression of implying that, and I never had the air of the impression of implying that.
You are literally just hallucinating things never written.
Calling me “delusional” doesn’t erase what you wrote. Let’s review the evidence you’re so determined to ignore.
You declared the expression meaningless, then dissected its constituent words to argue that its literal interpretation makes no sense. That’s a characterization of your reasoning, not a fabricated quotation. I never claimed it was your only objection.
In that very same comment, you wrote:
I identified the inconsistency between your appeal to social usage and your literal dissection of an established expression. You haven’t explained that inconsistency, let alone resolved it.
Instead, after being presented with direct quotations, you’ve resorted to categorical denials and personal insults. Repeating that an interpretation was “hallucinated” doesn’t demonstrate that it’s false. You need to show where the inference fails. You’ve done nothing of the sort.
If you can’t distinguish between quoting someone’s words and critically examining their implications, you have no business lecturing anyone about language or reasoning.
I’ve provided the evidence twice. I’m not wasting a third explanation on someone whose entire rebuttal amounts to “I never said that” and “you’re delusional.” Get your shit together.