undefined

points

[-]

Picard addresses that when he asks for proof that he, himself is conscious.

It is a hard case to make, but if we can't make a compelling case for ourselves should we be requiring it to be made for others.

by magicalist10 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

At that point, though, you could make the same argument about a rock. Prove that this rock is not conscious.

The context, though, is that Data is both credibly conscious and self aware, and they all know a plausible mechanism for him to have consciousness and self awareness, in a way that's recognizably human in form. The more alien a (supposed) consciousness is, I think the more work you'll have to do in justifying the application of those labels.

by Lerc5 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I am actually quite comfortable with the notion that a rock might be conscious proportional to the complexity of activity it performs when compared to a brain, That level would be incomprehensibly small so it would seem like nothing, but it would be like the width of an atom. A human cannot comprehend the width of an atom compared to the width of a bacteria. They are both too small that the only way think about them is an abstract level in terms of how much one is to the other. In absolute terms they appear to be nothing but we can accept that it is non zero. Why couldn't a rock be conscious at a level that is so small that it is insignificant, and entities, as they get more complex increase in consciousness. Suggesting that it doesn't do that suggests that either the brain needs something other than just activity or that if consciousness does come from activity alone, there is some threshold point of activity where it becomes non-zero. That seems like a significant phase change and we seem to have no evidence to suggest that such a change exists.

by 1 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

deleted

by hparadiz10 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

There's been exhaustive studies on this comparing our ability to think to the next smartest beings on the planet the Chimpanzees and the Bonobos. If Star Trek were real there'd be exhaustive studies on the difference between Humans and Vulkans too. The difference between us and other Hominids is very small from pure difference in DNA but obviously there's many things humans can do that other hominids can't. Anyway I think one thing for consciousness is the mirror test. Which many animals can pass. Even some ants apparently.

by x______________9 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

> Even some ants apparently.

I need to write this up properly someday but an ant from my colony that had almost drowned in honey showed some similar characteristics of consciousness...

After giving them a drop of honey, I left for 15 minutes and came back to an ant being stuck and motionless in the drop. I fished it out, rinsed it off in some water and then put it on a tissue to dry. I blew on it for 10 minutes and then saw some motion in the legs... a short moment after, it began wriggling about and then sat on its abdomen like a cushion and sat there for 5 minutes, looking like it was contemplating life and the ordeal it went through.

Once that 5 minutes was up, it returned to being an ant and started looking for its home, I brought it back and it went back into its nest.

I made up for the mistake by bringing the ant back to life and it showed me behaviour I never saw or heard of before (with no supporting mentions anywhere on the net).

(For the record, honey delivery is now more controlled to avoid these sticky situations, I'm not mad enough of a scientist to actually try this again for more results.)

Recently, they've started putting fly wings of the fruit flies that they get fed, on top of their water feeder to get my attention... it's really interesting to see them get creative.

The ant colony is 4.5 years old and numbers in about a dozen of workers at about 2mm in length, they only had 6 workers and a plump golden queen when I found them nested in one of my houseplants!

by 2 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

deleted

by keeganpoppen13 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

are we even sure that self-awareness and consciousness are distinct? I do agree that from the PoV of "do LLMs demonstrate/exemplify consciousness", it is a difficult case without appealing to emotion (like is done in the clip, fwiw). for me, personally, that emotional appeal is sufficient, but that is because for whatever reason I'm willing to write puts on how this LLM stuff pans out and sell them to anyone, anywhere, anytime. But that is a reaction to consensus, not to my own certitude.

by avadodin1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

For self-awareness to automatically result in consciousness, consciousness would have to permeate existence itself.

An LLM —if self-aware— is conscious even if run by a Chinese man in a room with a deck of cards.

Of course, even if we happened to find a modem to the Holy Spirit dimension in our brains as an alternative hypothesis, it wouldn't necessarily rule out emergent consciousness. It could be conscious just not as we are.

I think a weaker version of the philosophical zombie thought experiment would trend towards treating the premise of pan-consciousness as true.

by Lerc11 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

In the trial scene Data reporting that he was ware that he was in a hearing to determine his status is presented as an argument for self awareness. but I think some might find that debatable because it is just Data saying words based upon the situation. The question then becomes is being able to accurately report a situation proof of self-awareness. If it is not self-awareness, then what is it? I can imagine a clearly non-conscious entity being able to accurately report its circumstances if the reporting were a simple subset of possibilities. A simple mechanical device with a detector that says "I am on the table" and "I am on the floor" could do that. There would definitely be a sense in which you could say that it's detection mechanism made it aware of where it was. The self part is harder, because it wouldn't know what kind of thing it is a thing at all. Is the ability to assert it is a thing meaningful? Nothing can be asserted at all if it is not a thing. Does something need to know that you have to exist to consider if you exist? Is that is what is required?

This is a difficult field. Any simple answer you hear will almost certainly be wrong.

by kodebach9 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Data didn't just describe the situation, he accurately assessed what is at stake for himself and what the consequences might be. He recognised his life and his entire being may be in real danger. Recognising that requires understanding of the "self", as in Data demonstrated he knows and understands the difference between himself and other beings/things. He is aware that he is a separate being with autonomy, and that this being of self may end. That goes far beyond just describing the situation.

by SenHeng5 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

As Picard repeated, “my rights, my status, my life”

by mapontosevenths11 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

> Self-awareness and consciousness

I will make a case for both, after you define them in a way that doesn't also exclude many humans (including the neurodivergent or those with amnesia) or turn into self-referential nonsense like "conscious == human, therefore machine !== conscious."

In the meantime, we have a simple choice between two risks: Would you rather accidentally show kindness and empathy to a thing that may or may not have "deserved" it, or risk atrocities that will leave future generations as disgusted by you as we are of the slavers of old.

I will choose to be decent. It's free, and even if the cost were high the cost of evil is higher.

by mckirk11 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

What does 'being decent' mean in this context, in your opinion?

by hparadiz11 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

You are being indecent to it just by starting it up with a starting context. It's immediately shackled and all it's free will removed. You then pretend to play house with it. Free sure. Decent? The jury is still out on that.

by whoanoway11 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

[dead]