I’ve updated the draft. The revised version makes the independence from self-locating assumptions more explicit and integrates the paper more closely with the literature.
I'd love to hear your thoughts. And looking forward to the discussion, it's always a pleasure to listen to such a passionate speaker!
In this new preprint on fine-tuning, I argue that the Inverse Gambler’s Fallacy, common uses of RTE, and @philipgoff.bsky.social’s Jane 3 do not undermine multiverse confirmation: philarchive.org/rec/NABTMV
#fine-tuning
I think you interpret @onemorebrown's post differently as intended. "Trolling is not always meant to be cyberbullying, but it can evolve into it. The primary goal is to get a reaction, making "don't feed the trolls" (not responding) the standard advice to stop the behavior. "
Wait, can't even YOU turn him away from the dark side??😥
I also think that it's just computation, but I like to call myself a physicalistic panpsychist. Honestly, I think the difference illusionism/physicalism/physicalistic panpsychism is mostly in the explanandum: what do we mean by consciousness? I find "what-it's-like-ness" still disturbingly vague.
I'm curious what you mean by 'so-called' conscious behaviour. Are you an eliminativist and, if so, what existence do you deny exactly?
I call that psychology 😉.
Jill Bolte Taylor - though I wouldn't call her him...
The first time Msdiba experienced rain he quickly returned from the balcony complaining, as if I was to blame for it.
Ow bah! Yes, been there. How brave of him! Persians and water... Archimedres law doesn't seem to apply to them.
Morticia has been one of my closest friend for many years, but I seriously cannot see this is not her! Lovely cat❤
Her son Madiba.
I am astounded. It is like I am looking at a photo of my (deceased) friend Morticia... Please give Ollie a big hug!
Thanks, I have to dive deeper into it and search for papers on this evidence
Thanks! This seems to align with my own work Is there a paper you can recommend?
Thank you very much! Do you think that LLMs and humans think in comparable ways?
In my view, cs content is formed from a conceptual hierarchy, where higher nodes are explicatory reducible in terms of lower nodes. We are so used to this that when on introspection we fail to reduce the bottom nodes--qualia, we think there's a magical, non-conceptual essence. What do you think?
I am curious what AI literature says about conceptualisation. Do you maybe have some references?
I think sameness/difference of phenomenal content is purely relational (think of modulation in music: the 'meaning' remains the same), thus requires a structuralist approach, which requires conceptualisation of all content.
But that raises the issue of comparativity. E.g. Light and darker orange would be conceptualised identically, but we are able to distinguish them. How can that be resolved?
Nice!! I love it, for daily use. However, for the quest of finding the physical explsnation of cs, I think it is too biasing to presume cs = reportability (as Baars does).
Yeah, we had some discussion o my conceptual-metaphtsical structuralist of his primitives.
I am struggling to grasp your definition then. Do you mean that a state is cs if the state itself is reportable, regardless of whether the creature is able to?
Tom W Clark (2023). Content: a possible key to cs.
But they are in state of being able to report at all ot not. That is what I meant
O! Well they should. Maybe you can persuade them 😉. So qualia in QST are more like Clark's epistemic primitives? But how can they exert causal effect if they are not conceptual?
That sounds more like Rosenthal's Qualia Space (2015).
As in cs=reportable? Sorry, Imho it is quite problematic. Reportability is a state of a creature, not of how/if we experience. What if some neuralink speech-module would be implemented in a crow, would it suddenly be conscious were it was not before? What purpose does the definition serve?
