Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected] or [email protected]
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Nah, "consciousness" is just a buzzword with no concrete meaning. The path to AGI has no relevance to it at all. Even if we develop a machine just as intelligent as human beings, maybe even moreso, that can solve any arbitrary problem just as efficiently, mystics will still be arguing over whether or not it has "consciousness."
Edit: You can downvote if you want, but I notice none of you have any actual response to it, because you ultimately know it is correct. Keep downvoting, but not a single one of you will actually reply and tell us me how we could concretely distinguish between something that is "conscious" and something that isn't.
Even if we construct a robot that fully can replicate all behaviors of a human, you will still be there debating over whether or not is "conscious" because you have not actually given it a concrete meaning so that we can identify if something actually has it or not. It's just a placeholder for vague mysticism, like "spirit" or "soul."
I recall a talk from Daniel Dennett where he discussed an old popular movement called the "vitalists." The vitalists used "life" in a very vague meaningless way as well, they would insist that even if understand how living things work mechanically and could reproduce it, it would still not be considered "alive" because we don't understand the "vital spark" that actually makes it "alive." It would just be an imitation of a living thing without the vital spark.
The vitalists refused to ever concretely define what the vital spark even was, it was just a placeholder for something vague and mysterious. As we understood more about how life works, vitalists where taken less and less serious, until eventually becoming largely fringe. People who talk about "consciousness" are also going to become fringe as we continue to understand neuroscience and intelligence, if scientific progress continues, that is. Although this will be a very long-term process, maybe taking centuries.
We don't know what it is. We don't know how it works. That is why
You're completely correct. But you've gone on a very long rant to largely agree with the person you're arguing against. Consciousness is poorly defined and a "buzzword" largely because we don't have a fucking clue where it comes from, how it operates, and how it grows. When or if we ever define that properly, then we have a launching off point to compare from and have some hope of being able to engineer a proper consciousness in an artificial being. But until we know how it works, we'll only ever do that by accident, and even that is astronomically unlikely.
If you cannot tell me what you are even talking about then you cannot say "we don't know how it works," because you have not defined what "it" even is. It would be like saying we don't know how florgleblorp works. All humans possess florgleblorp and we won't be able to create AGI until we figure out florgleblorp, then I ask wtf is florgleblorp and you tell me "I can't tell you because we're still trying to figure out what it is."
If you agree with me why do you disagree with me?
You cannot say we do not know where it comes from if "it" does not refer to anything because you have not defined it! There is no "it" here, "it" is a placeholder for something you have not actually defined and has no meaning. You cannot say we don't know how "it" operates or how "it" grows when "it" doesn't refer to anything.
No, that is your first step, you have to define it properly to make any claims about it, or else all your claims are meaningless. You are arguing about the nature of florgleblorp but then cannot tell me what florgleblorp is, so it is meaningless.
This is why "consciousness" is interchangeable with vague words like "soul." They cannot be concretely defined in a way where we can actually look at what they are, so they're largely irrelevant. When we talk about more concrete things like intelligence, problem-solving capabilities, self-reflection, etc, we can at least come to some loose agreement of what that looks like and can begin to have a conversation of what tests might actually look like and how we might quantify it, and it is these concrete things which have thus been the basis of study and research and we've been gradually increasing our understanding of intelligent systems as shown with the explosion of AI, albeit it still has miles to go.
However, when we talk about "consciousness," it is just meaningless and plays no role in any of the progress actually being made, because nobody can actually give even the loosest iota of a hint of what it might possibly look like. It's not defined, so it's not meaningful. You have to at least specify what you are even talking about for us to even begin to study it. We don't have to know the entire inner workings of a frog to be able to begin a study on frogs, but we damn well need to be able to identify something as a frog prior to studying it, or else we would have no idea that the thing we are studying is actually a frog.
You cannot study anything without being able to identify it, which requires defining it at least concretely enough that we can agree if it is there or not, and that the thing we are studying is actually the thing we aim to study. We should I believe your florgleblorp, sorry, I mean "consciousness" you speak of, even exists if you cannot even tell me how to identify it? It would be like if someone insisted there is a florgleblorp hiding in my room. Well, I cannot distinguish between a room with or without a florgleblorp, so by Occam's razor I opt to disbelieve in its existence. Similarly, if you cannot tell me how to distinguish between something that possesses this "consciousness" and something that does not, how to actually identify it in reality, then by Occam's razor I opt to disbelieve in its existence.
It is entirely backwards and spiritualist thinking that is popularized by all the mystics to insist that we need to study something they cannot even specify what it is first in order to figure out what it is later. That is the complete reversal of how anything works and is routinely used by charlatans to justify pseudoscientific "research." You have to specify what it is being talked about first.