On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 11:13 PM Stathis Papaioannou <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Tue, 23 May 2023 at 10:48, Terren Suydam <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 8:42 PM Stathis Papaioannou <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, 23 May 2023 at 10:03, Terren Suydam <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> it is true that my brain has been trained on a large amount of data - >>>> data that contains intelligence outside of my own. But when I introspect, I >>>> notice that my understanding of things is ultimately rooted/grounded in my >>>> phenomenal experience. Ultimately, everything we know, we know either by >>>> our experience, or by analogy to experiences we've had. This is in >>>> opposition to how LLMs train on data, which is strictly about how >>>> words/symbols relate to one another. >>>> >>> >>> The functionalist position is that phenomenal experience supervenes on >>> behaviour, such that if the behaviour is replicated (same output for same >>> input) the phenomenal experience will also be replicated. This is what >>> philosophers like Searle (and many laypeople) can’t stomach. >>> >> >> I think the kind of phenomenal supervenience you're talking about is >> typically asserted for behavior at the level of the neuron, not the level >> of the whole agent. Is that what you're saying? That chatGPT must be >> having a phenomenal experience if it talks like a human? If so, that is >> stretching the explanatory domain of functionalism past its breaking point. >> > > The best justification for functionalism is David Chalmers' "Fading > Qualia" argument. The paper considers replacing neurons with functionally > equivalent silicon chips, but it could be generalised to replacing any part > of the brain with a functionally equivalent black box, the whole brain, the > whole person. > You're saying that an algorithm that provably does not have experiences of rabbits and lollipops - but can still talk about them in a way that's indistinguishable from a human - essentially has the same phenomenology as a human talking about rabbits and lollipops. That's just absurd on its face. You're essentially hand-waving away the grounding problem. Is that your position? That symbols don't need to be grounded in any sort of phenomenal experience? Terren > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAH%3D2ypW9qP_GQivWh_5BBwZ%2BNSVo93MagCD_HFOfVwLPRJwYAQ%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAH%3D2ypW9qP_GQivWh_5BBwZ%2BNSVo93MagCD_HFOfVwLPRJwYAQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAMy3ZA_fnyGDNxfQJXaqdUsYdSw7Sm5kx5j_5n94K8trJA57Jg%40mail.gmail.com.
