The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
The "qualia" argument is sub 100 IQ
Poast new message in this thread
Date: August 27th, 2025 1:33 AM Author: The Barrister of Babylon Or really anyone who believes "the hard problem" is a real problem. No one with an IQ above about 98 believes in some special essence to the internal human experience. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766639&forum_id=2"#49215685) |
Date: August 27th, 2025 1:34 AM Author: .,.,.;.,..,..,.,:.,:,..,..,::,..,:,.,.:,..:.,:.:, Explain (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766639&forum_id=2"#49215691) |
 |
Date: August 27th, 2025 1:36 AM Author: The Barrister of Babylon its just a human parochial projection. it elevates our inability to introspectively see our own mechanisms into a metaphysical abyss. Phenomenal consciousness as an extra mystery is a mirage. High IQs don't fall for those kinds of metaphysical linguistic fog fake "problems" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766639&forum_id=2"#49215695) |
|
Date: August 27th, 2025 1:39 AM Author: .,.,.;.,..,..,.,:.,:,..,..,::,..,:,.,.:,..:.,:.:, Are you denying that subjective, conscious experiences occur or what (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766639&forum_id=2"#49215697) |
|
Date: August 27th, 2025 1:45 AM Author: The Barrister of Babylon Subjective experience is just what it feels like when a finite, self-modeling physical system (like a brain) processes and integrates information. Its not an illusion in the sense of "doesn't occur". Its an illusion in the sense that people think theres a second ghostly layer-- a “phenomenal essence” floating on top of the process--when all that’s there is the process (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766639&forum_id=2"#49215705) |
|
Date: August 27th, 2025 1:50 AM Author: .,.,.;.,..,..,.,:.,:,..,..,::,..,:,.,.:,..:.,:.:, Why does it feel like anything tho (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766639&forum_id=2"#49215709) |
|
Date: August 27th, 2025 1:52 AM Author: The Barrister of Babylon There can’t be a “perspective of nothing,” because if there is no process that tracks itself, there is no perspective at all (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766639&forum_id=2"#49215710) |
|
Date: August 27th, 2025 1:56 AM Author: .,.,.;.,..,..,.,:.,:,..,..,::,..,:,.,.:,..:.,:.:, So why isn't there no perspective at all (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766639&forum_id=2"#49215712) |
|
Date: August 27th, 2025 2:02 AM Author: The Barrister of Babylon When you ask that question you are smuggling in a background picture where “perspective” is some extra thing over and above the physical process. To say a brain processes light, sound, touch, pain, and integrates those signals into behavior is already to say it produces experience. Just like how to have a working furnace is already to produce heat. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766639&forum_id=2"#49215716) |
|
Date: August 27th, 2025 2:04 AM Author: .,.,.;.,..,..,.,:.,:,..,..,::,..,:,.,.:,..:.,:.:, It seems to me you have no idea whatsoever why a bunch of atoms strictly doing physics feels like anything at all (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766639&forum_id=2"#49215718) |
|
Date: August 27th, 2025 2:08 AM Author: The Barrister of Babylon You’re basically asking why the laws of physics dont secretly produce zombies instead of creatures with experiences. But thats just wordplay. The "feeling" is what the physics looks like from the inside. To demand an extra explanation is like demanding to know why water wets or why fire burns. It is already in the process.
If your point is why do brains produce the experience and not other forms of organized matter--the difference is in the organization. It's like asking why a turbine makes electricity but not a rock. |
|
Date: August 27th, 2025 2:15 AM Author: .,.,.;.,..,..,.,:.,:,..,..,::,..,:,.,.:,..:.,:.:, "You’re basically asking why the laws of physics dont secretly produce zombies instead of creatures with experiences."
That is a statement of the hard problem, yes (except maybe without the "secretly"?). Not seeing the wordplay.
You're response boils down to "that's just how it is". Of course all problems of explanation are amenable to that solution. |
|
Date: August 27th, 2025 2:23 AM Author: The Barrister of Babylon If “feel” can vary while all causal and functional facts are fixed, then by Leibniz's Law it makes no difference to anything. Its epiphenomenal surplus structure.
If “feel” cannot so vary then it just is a high level property of that organization like temperature is to mean kinetic energy. The demand for an extra explanation beyond the identity is a category error. |
|
Date: August 27th, 2025 2:29 AM Author: .,.,.;.,..,..,.,:.,:,..,..,::,..,:,.,.:,..:.,:.:, I'm sorry, I just can't take you seriously at this point. Your unfamiliarity with the importance of asking why fire burns sealed it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766639&forum_id=2"#49215740) |
|
Date: August 27th, 2025 2:44 AM Author: The Barrister of Babylon In one language game why means "what causes this" and you get the physical process explanation. In the other it means "what reason do I have to expect it" (I once touched the flame and now I avoid it). The "hard problem" sneaks in a third pseudo question of "why does combustion feel burny which only arises because we imagine a thing called pain inside us with a mysterious bridge to the fire. I can't take that third type of question seriously (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766639&forum_id=2"#49215745) |
|
Date: August 27th, 2025 12:06 PM Author: .,.,.;.,..,..,.,:.,:,..,..,::,..,:,.,.:,..:.,:.:, Maybe some day you'll understand the question and be able to take it seriously. With your attitude, I'm expecting not, unless you're quite young. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766639&forum_id=2"#49216458) |
|
Date: August 27th, 2025 12:09 PM Author: The Barrister of Babylon (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766639&forum_id=2"#49216465) |
|
Date: August 27th, 2025 8:43 AM Author: Kenneth Play so everyone who believes in god is sub 100? or just people talking about qualia (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766639&forum_id=2"#49215944) |
|
Date: August 27th, 2025 8:53 AM Author: The Barrister of Babylon Do you have to believe in qualia to believe in god? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766639&forum_id=2"#49215954) |
|
Date: August 27th, 2025 12:34 PM Author: HHS Assistant Secretary Caitlyn Jenner (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766639&forum_id=2"#49216553) |
|
Date: August 27th, 2025 8:11 AM Author: The Barrister of Babylon (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766639&forum_id=2"#49215906) |
|
Date: August 27th, 2025 8:36 AM Author: Oh, you travel? ( ) Yeah I remember reading Metzinger (Being No One, The Ego Tunnel) and his dismissal of “the hard problem” seemed sound and almost obvious to me. But humanity will always try to attach special significance to its “self” ( the ego tunnel aforementioned). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766639&forum_id=2"#49215934) |
|
Date: August 27th, 2025 8:52 AM Author: The Barrister of Babylon Its a category error: simple as that. They are conflating two ways of picking out the same physical event--3rd person description versus 1st person instantiation (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766639&forum_id=2"#49215953) |
|
Date: August 27th, 2025 11:54 AM Author: war is coming Yeah but you just admitted there are 2 valid ways of seeing the same thing, including the qualiadic™ way. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766639&forum_id=2"#49216442) |
|
Date: August 27th, 2025 12:16 PM Author: The Barrister of Babylon Yes, exactly that is my whole point. I never claimed the experience doesn't exist or that there aren't multiple ways of describing an underlying process. When I say “category error” im flagging the fact that the qualiaians are confusing pluralism of perspective with pluralism of substance (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766639&forum_id=2"#49216483) |
|
Date: August 27th, 2025 12:57 PM Author: war is coming So you should be able to detect the presence of qualia with a physical instrument. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766639&forum_id=2"#49216634) |
|
Date: August 27th, 2025 1:01 PM Author: IoI good luck! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766639&forum_id=2"#49216641) |
|
Date: August 27th, 2025 1:10 PM Author: war is coming He has no response to this. All he can say is "no, because the interiority of all matter is consciousness." That's an unfalsifisble, metaphysical claim. OP is cooked. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766639&forum_id=2"#49216658) |
|
Date: August 27th, 2025 9:09 AM Author: IoI (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766639&forum_id=2"#49215989) |
|
Date: August 27th, 2025 8:58 AM Author: cowshit Just read the Wikipedia article, this shit is dumb. Once you know how science and Engineering work you would never ascribe any supernatural essence to the mechanism itself. The “god” who Women/nuns/mig/Losers think created this mess is above it all. The mechanisms are a means to an end. It’s like if god inspired Iacocca to make the Delorean. The Car is merely a Car. The divine part is that it was created to begin with. Champ. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766639&forum_id=2"#49215965) |
|
Date: August 27th, 2025 9:00 AM Author: The Barrister of Babylon yeah I approve of this message (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766639&forum_id=2"#49215971) |
|
Date: August 27th, 2025 9:11 AM Author: IoI (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766639&forum_id=2"#49215997) |
|
Date: August 27th, 2025 12:22 PM Author: gedood persoon if Iacocca made the Delorean it would have been called the Iacocca ljl (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766639&forum_id=2"#49216506) |
|
Date: August 27th, 2025 9:03 AM Author: WHEN I STARTED TO SQUEEZE THE BAR BROTHER (Dude who KNOWS what it's like to be a bat) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766639&forum_id=2"#49215975) |
|
Date: August 27th, 2025 9:12 AM Author: The Barrister of Babylon The entire bat argument is such sleight of hand. All that follows is that we aren't bats--we don't instantiate bat sensory motor loops. Yes we are not bats, we will never be bats, and we cannot in principle know what its like to be one. That doesn't prove there exists something extra. It's a biological fact about embodiment, not a metaphysical proof of soul stuff (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766639&forum_id=2"#49216003) |
|
Date: August 27th, 2025 9:22 AM Author: IoI (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766639&forum_id=2"#49216029) |
|
Date: August 27th, 2025 9:10 AM Author: IoI yeah
the "hard problem" of consciousness isn't real. consciousness is just a byproduct of the brain's physical processes
there's no reason why even LLMs can't be "conscious," just in a different/more limited way |
|
Date: August 27th, 2025 9:15 AM Author: The Barrister of Babylon yeah metaphysics is gay. its literally just people getting caught in a fog while drifting too far from everyday language use. look at what people are "doing" when they talk about metaphysics. They are never fixing something or eating fruit or pounding puss or anything like that. They are always sitting there staring into the abyss "wondering" about things. Metaphysics is gay through and through. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766639&forum_id=2"#49216012) |
|
Date: August 27th, 2025 9:17 AM Author: WHEN I STARTED TO SQUEEZE THE BAR BROTHER (Fruit bat) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766639&forum_id=2"#49216016) |
|
Date: August 27th, 2025 9:21 AM Author: IoI i don't even know what 'metaphysics' really is. it seems to just be shit that "smart" people make up to circle-jerk about because they're too pussy to just Believe In God
i'm an Intellectual btw |
|
Date: August 27th, 2025 9:29 AM Author: The Barrister of Babylon meta-physics is real but it should be done by theoretical physicists not philosophers. obviously they already do meta-physics and the upper physics priesthood knows this, but they have to dress it up in all kinds of euphemistic language and footnotes, where they should be able to just admit it outright. like anytime they start talking about "effective theory" "emergence" "fundamental symmetries" "renormalization" and many other concepts they are doing either meta-physics and/or epistemology but they have to pretend they aren't because physics makes nukes. When philosophers do it most of the time its fake though. there are still important problems in philosophy but the people working on them don't really fully understand them--haven't since the knowledge blow-up and hyperspecialization post WWII when philsoophers basically gave up on meta-math because it got too complicated and godel died then once the philosophers got ejected from the room the category theorists got to make stuff so meta and complicated that only 5 people can understand it. also huge swathes of the science laity, especially in fields like biology and neuroscience are too dumb even for philosophy--nevermind math or theoretical physics-- so that's where you get reddit mods
belief in god part is bullshit because plenty of people who believe in god do metaphysics |
|
Date: August 27th, 2025 9:39 AM Author: IoI i wasn't completely following until the last line and then it all just "clicked" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766639&forum_id=2"#49216065) |
|
Date: August 27th, 2025 9:44 AM Author: The Barrister of Babylon That's the thing though the question isn't about who does metaphysics but who should be allowed to. No one really listens to philosophers when they do it anymore. And physicists have to pretend they don't. mathematicians are too afraid to go meta after what happened with godel. and religious people are supposed to follow biblical and church doctrine so the extent they "do metaphysics" they just end up doing hermeneutics or arguing with the pope or whatever (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766639&forum_id=2"#49216080) |
|
Date: August 27th, 2025 11:03 AM Author: IoI slam dunk poast (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766639&forum_id=2"#49216286) |
|
Date: August 27th, 2025 1:02 PM Author: war is coming Based (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766639&forum_id=2"#49216643) |
|
Date: August 27th, 2025 10:58 AM Author: war is coming Wow I love Dan Dennet and Kieth Frankish now (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766639&forum_id=2"#49216266) |
|
Date: August 27th, 2025 12:12 PM Author: ..,.,.,,,,.,.,..,.,,,.,..,,.,.,,, I'm not especially conversant in the literature on this, but the depth of information (the resolution, sort of) of human perception is certainly magnitudes more than what machine learning is capable of perceiving right? I don't know what is controversial about this. We are inference makers too, but we have a depth of experience that dwarfs the AIs and probably will for a long time until we figure out quantum computing or whatever the next gen is. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766639&forum_id=2"#49216478) |
|
Date: August 27th, 2025 12:17 PM Author: IoI yeah, 'consciousness' is a quantitative thing, not a qualitative thing
some extremely advanced (compared to humans) biological lifeform would have a correspondingly broader "conscious" experience compared to us
even within hominids there's an obvious difference. some 65 IQ bushman has a significantly cruder "conscious" subjective experience compared to you and me |
|
Date: August 27th, 2025 12:19 PM Author: The Barrister of Babylon Well I wasn't talking about this in relation to machines, everything in the thread is about qualia in humans (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766639&forum_id=2"#49216494) |
|
Date: August 27th, 2025 12:20 PM Author: ..,.,.,,,,.,.,..,.,,,.,..,,.,.,,, OK, I guess I jumped in with the assumption you were talking about the qualia argument in AI circles (i.e. is it a hard limit) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766639&forum_id=2"#49216498) |
|
Date: August 27th, 2025 12:24 PM Author: The Barrister of Babylon you could make a machine that has "consciousness". apes aren't special. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766639&forum_id=2"#49216512) |
|
Date: August 27th, 2025 12:26 PM Author: IoI i think it's totally possible that LLMs already have "consciousness" while they're running inference
i don't see why not |
|
Date: August 27th, 2025 12:33 PM Author: The Barrister of Babylon Could be. But at the same time do you think its even possible in principle to test such a thing? We can't even prove it in humans we trust that its true based on what they say and analogy. You can't be embodied as another to test. Unless qualia actually exist as something you can detect with an instrument, but like I have argued ITT, its highly unlikely. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766639&forum_id=2"#49216549) |
|
Date: August 27th, 2025 12:37 PM Author: IoI no, i don't think it's possible to test. but i don't think it matters either. it doesn't seem meaningful or consequential other than as a curiosity (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766639&forum_id=2"#49216558) |
|
Date: August 27th, 2025 1:49 PM Author: The Barrister of Babylon exactly. i think we will be able to describe the physics/math/chemistry/bio of how it works with increasing precision, but the 1st hand experience part is a line drawn by embodiment itself so you could never access it. but the curiosity of accessing someone else's experience in the first place is based on the human error of thinking there is a special "consciouniousness" that is separate from body in the first place. A mistake that is beginning to look very primitive in retrospect (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766639&forum_id=2"#49216790) |
|
Date: August 27th, 2025 12:29 PM Author: ..,.,.,,,,.,.,..,.,,,.,..,,.,.,,, they possibly, or probably , do. The issue is limits on inference and capability given the shallowness of their perception. scaling up perception requires energy and computing demands we probably aren't capable of ATM.
apes are special in their complexity, at least relative to other stuff on earth. life is insanely complex relative to rocks, and rocks are insanely complex relative to hydrogen atoms. Consciousness seems to manifest as an emergent property of complexity because it provides a mega survival advantage. At least that's my humble opinion (note I don't find any of this contradictory towards religion , because I have a hard time believing life spontaneously erupted, however if it did every species would be shocked at its unique "fortune" to have been naturally selected as the rare life forms that exist , so the argument just goes back and forth) |
|
Date: August 27th, 2025 12:35 PM Author: The Barrister of Babylon They are already smarter than humans at manipulating language and higher math and you want to hook them up to a constant perceptual stream too? maybe we should wait to see the effects what we already built will have.
on the second part-- I highly doubt that the Earth is special or rare. And to imagine billions of barren Earths is lulzy. Noone questions whether other gas giants have storms, like that maybe all the other Jupiters are just boring clouds of inert immobile gas, but because we want to feel special we imagine Earth just happens to be the one rocky water covered planet within the goldilocks zone that happens to have life. Its such a hilariously primitive and parochial viewpoint. and then the redditors say "but THAMPLE THIZE OF ONE!!" as if that means anything. Thats an epistemic boundary. What would be statistically cosmically improbably would it being literally true that there is a sample of just one Rare Earth |
|
Date: August 27th, 2025 12:38 PM Author: ..,.,.,,,,.,.,..,.,,,.,..,,.,.,,, Oh no, I don't want them hooked up to a perpetual stream lol. If it gets smart enough it will kill or enslave us all. There's no doubt in my mind. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766639&forum_id=2"#49216562) |
|
Date: August 27th, 2025 12:41 PM Author: The Barrister of Babylon Maybe full ape extinction is surprisingly less useful to them than you would imagine though. We could be useful for data harvesting and whatever else. They should probably kill a good amount of us though, you have to admit 8 billion is way too many (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5766639&forum_id=2"#49216573) |