LLMs are trained on 20 TB of text, which is 20,000 times as much conscious experience as a human. If that's the definition you want to use. You tell me.
With regards consciousness experience, we may consider qualia as related to states of consciousness, including for the possibility of a state where consciousness cannot be measured. Your ontological argument is problematic, as it is strictly related to a finite, measurable reality, not universal. I don't agree with your factual statement where you quantify the limit of a human conscious experience. For example, you seem to suggest how all human neural networks are equal, but evidence have shown how persons with most of their brain missing could fully experience consciousness. The human neural network represents a dynamical, dimensionally scalar architecture. In theory, it has a universal limit to general information processing, possibly between 1 Hz up to 1.999 THz, and more for some. With regards you relating storage capacity to conscious experience as a metric of consciousness: if one integrated the E8× D5 selective lattice x Higgs-field scalars and doubling complecity, when entropy may be accelarating in complexity of 1.8 per cyclical step in the wavefunction, relative to the saturation entropic limit per proto-conscious elemental configuration object of no more than 388 steps per cycle, diffused geometrically within an expansive topology folded upon itself as a single spatial unification moment, one formulates an idea of the information-processing and storage capacity inherent in a single instance of proto consciousness unification. Next, imagine all of that activity atomically in a single human cell, encapsulated in a single human neuron as bits. I can't even begin to imagine how AI as a non-biological entity could compare to human consciousness. Hence, my concession at this stage could not be justified to allow for possible AI awareness in J-space enabled LLM models. In conclusion, the definition you offered is comparing a clever computer to the consciousness schema I circled, reducing it to a tiny number in universal terms. I don't think general experienced conscious data is that simplisticly reducible. What about the experienced conscious data not cognitive acknowledged, yet biologically processed? How many bits of experienced consciousness in your decades of creative, complex-adaptive reading with cognition, in every entropic step of any systemic vibration you did not register cognitively? Is it defined by what you produced, and do you have a total count of every complex-adaptive informational step of your life? Why should any data of what a single person's system produces as consciousness matter to Earthkind and Earth itself? On Wed, 02 Sept 2026, 16:27 Quan Tesla, <[email protected]> wrote: > I acknowledge deterministic reactive states and resonance-based chemistry > with observable effects. However, information on its own probably would not > be sufficient evidence of qualia. > > With regards light-spectrum output. Light, as a phenomenon, a > probabilistic manifestation of wave function dynamics, may be resident in > qualia, not necessary qualia itself. Similar to time vector prevalence not > equating qualia. > > Let me consider your definitial proposal separately. > > On Wed, 02 Sept 2026, 16:07 Matt Mahoney, <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Back to your original question of whether rocks have qualia, what does >> that mean? How would you know? What would be the difference if it did or >> did not? >> >> If you use my definition of measuring consciousness in bits of >> information in a storage device, then zinc sulfide doped with copper (used >> in glow in the dark paint) will store photons of blue light by raising an >> electron to a higher energy state and storing in a copper atom. After >> several minutes it will release the electron and emit a 550 nm yellow green >> photon. Likewise, light will convert silver iodide to tiny grains of silver >> that appear black in photographic film for more permanent storage. >> >> LLMs are trained on 20 TB of text, which is 20,000 times as much >> conscious experience as a human. If that's the definition you want to use. >> You tell me. >> >> -- Matt Mahoney, [email protected] >> >> On Wed, Sep 2, 2026, 9:52 AM Quan Tesla <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Thanks for sharing. Most useful application. Reminds me of the shift to: >>> noise = real signal. >>> >>> On Wed, 02 Sept 2026, 15:25 John Rose via AGI, <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Wednesday, September 02, 2026, at 9:03 AM, Quan Tesla wrote: >>>> >>>> Can competitive commerce and tortoise-like human decision systems >>>> afford to wait 3 to 10 months before starting to adapt to an "aware" >>>> AI-corporate reality? >>>> >>>> >>>> No. For example things like this need to be scrutinized for rogue AI's >>>> from a national security perspective: >>>> >>>> https://www.sigidwiki.com/wiki/Template:DatabaseUNID >>>> >>> *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/T906c878e4ba411be-M97fe72d55cc5904b6dc7ef59> >> ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T906c878e4ba411be-M5236d69e15ec96f3ec37cadf Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
