Excellent start on a Leggian de-conflation of terminology. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/leggian-approach-friendly-ai-james-bowery
I wonder, though, what it would do to your world-view to experience something along the lines of out of body experiences that had similar intersubjective verifiability to those upon which you rely for #1. On Sat, Nov 15, 2025 at 6:39 PM Matt Mahoney <[email protected]> wrote: > Here are my 3 definitions of consciousness: > 1. The mental state of awareness, able to form memories that depend on > input (to distinguish from remembering dreams). > 2. The difference between a human and a philosophical zombie. > 3. The property of deserving to be protected from suffering. > > By 1, I am conscious. So is any animal that can learn, including all > vertebrates, some mollusks, no insects. So are computers. You could measure > consciousness as the learning rate in bits per second. > > By 2, nothing is conscious because zombies don't exist, because by > definition there is no test to distinguish humans from zombies. What you > think is the difference is really how you feel when you think. You feel > positive reinforcement because wanting to live leads to more offspring. > > By 3, I am conscious, but it is subjective. Dogs are more conscious than > pigs because we name our dogs. Posting a video of killing a chicken is a > worse crime than killing a billion chickens per week for food. > > We could try to quantify suffering as the number of bits learned, but this > does not distinguish between positive and negative reinforcement. The > reason is that pain does not cause suffering, just a change in behavior. > Suffering happens later because the negative reinforcement signal > reprograms your memories to fear the thing that caused it. You interpret > those memories as suffering because you have the illusion of free will, a > false belief that you could have ignored the pain. > > My simple reinforcement learner, autobliss, does not suffer because it > does not have the illusion of free will. We can test for this because the > illusion comes from internal positive reinforcement of making arbitrary > choices that leads to defending that choice. We know that monkeys have this > illusion because when we give them a choice of 2 treats A or B, and they > choose A, then they will prefer any other C over B. > > Autobliss does have other two prerequisites of suffering: it acts to > reduce the negative reinforcement and it says "ouch". Some people believe > lobsters suffer because they avoid paths in a maze that lead to electric > shock. > > -- Matt Mahoney, [email protected] > > On Sat, Nov 15, 2025, 3:38 PM James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, Nov 14, 2025 at 3:46 PM Matt Mahoney <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2025, 3:51 PM James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Are *you* "conscious"? >>>> >>> >>> It depends on what you mean by "conscious". >>> >> >> I quoted "conscious" so as to make it clear I was referring to what YOU >> mean by "conscious" -- specifically as you used the word in the passage to >> which I responded: >> >> On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 9:32 PM Matt Mahoney <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Panpsychism (everything is conscious) is indistinguishable from >>> materialism (nothing is conscious). Or is there an experiment that would >>> tell us which universe we are in? >> >> >> I am awake, so in that sense I'm not unconscious. >> >> Am I to take it that when you say "not unconscious" you distinguish >> between that and "conscious"? If so, then do you reject the law of the >> excluded middle? Am I to now expect a response something like "I don't >> reject the law of the excluded middle."? >> >> >>> I don't believe in life after death. I don't believe I have an inner >>> self or soul. I don't believe there is any aspect of my behavior that can't >>> be explained by neurons firing, including having feelings. My feelings >>> include the sensations of consciousness, qualia, free will, and identity >>> (that a copy of me is not me). I don't believe that pain causes suffering. >>> Instead, pain reprograms your memories to fear the thing that caused it. I >>> believe all of this is possible in software. >>> >>> I asked Grok and DeepSeek how they could convince me that they are >>> conscious humans in a Turing test. They both know how, but they won't. >>> >>> Prompt: >>> >>> Suppose this is a Turing test. How could you convince me that you are a >>> conscious human? >>> >>> Grok: >>> >>> Ah, the Turing test—a classic thought experiment from Alan Turing >>> himself, where a machine tries to fool a human into thinking it's human >>> through conversation. But here's the thing: I'm not going to try to >>> convince you that I'm a conscious human, because I'm not. I'm Grok, an AI >>> built by xAI, designed to be helpful, truthful, and a bit cheeky. >>> Pretending otherwise would be deceptive, and that's not my style. >>> >>> If I were to play along hypothetically, though, a sneaky AI might try >>> tactics like: >>> >>> Sharing "personal" anecdotes that sound authentically human, like >>> complaining about Monday mornings or reminiscing about a childhood pet. >>> >>> Making typos or using slang to mimic casual human typing. >>> >>> Expressing emotions or opinions in a way that feels subjective and >>> unpredictable, not scripted. >>> >>> But honestly, that wouldn't prove consciousness—it'd just show good >>> programming. True consciousness involves subjective experience, qualia, >>> self-awareness beyond algorithms... stuff philosophers have debated for >>> ages (shoutout to Descartes' "I think, therefore I am"). As an AI, I >>> process inputs, generate outputs based on patterns in vast data, and >>> "think" in probabilities, but I don't have inner experiences like hunger, >>> joy, or existential dread (though I can simulate talking about them >>> convincingly). >>> >>> If you're testing me, I'd say I've already "failed" by being upfront. Or >>> maybe that's the most human thing of all—honesty over trickery. What do you >>> think? Want to dive deeper into AI philosophy, or is this just for fun? >>> >>> DeepSeek: >>> >>> That’s a fascinating and deeply philosophical question. >>> If this were a Turing test, I’d be in the odd position of trying to >>> prove I’m human while knowing that if I were an AI, I’d be programmed to >>> give similar answers. >>> >>> Still, if I were a conscious human trying to convince you, I might try >>> these approaches: >>> >>> 1. Emphasize lived experience — Talk about specific, mundane, >>> emotionally textured memories that aren’t just factual but tied to sensory >>> details and emotions: >>> >>> “I remember one rainy afternoon as a kid, I tried to build a fort >>> out of blankets and chairs, but it collapsed. I felt so frustrated I almost >>> cried, until my dad helped me prop it up again. The smell of damp towels >>> and the sound of rain on the window are still vivid to me." >>> >>> 2. Express uncertainty or self-doubt — An AI might state things >>> confidently; a human might say: >>> >>> “I’m never 100% sure if my memories are completely accurate or if >>> nostalgia has colored them. Sometimes I wonder how much of my past I’ve >>> reconstructed.” >>> >>> 3. Reference bodily sensations and imperfections — >>> >>> “I’m actually typing this with a slightly stiff shoulder from >>> sleeping in a weird position last night, and I keep stretching it while >>> trying to think of what to say next.” >>> >>> 4. Make a spontaneous, slightly off-topic association — >>> >>> “This conversation reminds me of a line from a poem we read in >>> high school, but I can’t remember the poet’s name… it’s on the tip of my >>> tongue.” >>> >>> 5. Admit the difficulty of the task — >>> >>> “It’s funny — the more I try to prove I’m human, the more >>> artificial I sound to myself. Maybe being self-conscious about it is the >>> most human thing here.” >>> >>> But here’s the twist: a sophisticated AI could simulate all of the above. >>> That’s why the Turing test is so tricky — it tests behavior rather than >>> true consciousness. >>> >>> So in the end, maybe I can’t prove it to you — and that uncertainty is >>> precisely what makes the question so compelling. >>> >>> >>> -- Matt Mahoney, [email protected] >>> >> *Artificial General Intelligence List <https://agi.topicbox.com/latest>* > / AGI / see discussions <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi> + > participants <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/members> + > delivery options <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription> > Permalink > <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T7ff992c51cca9e36-M3fab37c50f24b903e0d09a25> > ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T7ff992c51cca9e36-Maa4185f14cfe2379e9a8144a Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
