‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

If materialism is true, the United States is probably conscious

35 points · 103 comments · ashergill

  1. jhickok · · focus · HN ↗
    The cool thing about Eric and his work is that he consistently challenges "folk psychology" in ways that aren't just doom and gloom. I think the best way to understand his argument in the paper isn't as supporting panpsychism necessarily since the proliferation of "consciousness" might be because it's cheap and easy to get like an illusionist[0] might support. I think the universe might be conscious, but that's not entirely interesting because being conscious is just a behavioral disposition to get labelled conscious, i.e. it's more akin to a speech act than some deep metaphysical classification.

    As always, reading Eric is a treat and if you enjoy reading about the oddities of our world and the weird conclusions that fall out of our best theories, then you would enjoy reading his work.

    0: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;keithfrankish.github.io&#x2F;articles&#x2F;Frankish_Illusionism%20as%20a%20theory%20of%20consciousness_eprint.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;keithfrankish.github.io&#x2F;articles&#x2F;Frankish_Illusionis...

    1. qarl · · focus · HN ↗
      The answer is probably that consciousness is an illusion like continuity of existence is an illusion. Which is why most attempts to define it are circular.

      The U.S. definitely takes actions to defend and protect itself. Seeks growth. I&#x27;m not so sure about inner dialogue... but is that a requirement? Or maybe the dialogue between the humans in the system qualifies?

      1. jhickok · · focus · HN ↗
        I&#x27;m not so sure humans have an inner dialogue. I think what we need to investigate is why humans believe they have an inner dialogue (even though not all humans report having an inner dialogue), and one of the explanations might be that we actually do have an inner dialogue, and another might be that we have the illusion of an inner dialogue. In fact, this is one of the research areas that Eric Schwitzgebel from OP has explored: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;direct.mit.edu&#x2F;books&#x2F;monograph&#x2F;3242&#x2F;Describing-Inner-Experience-Proponent-Meets" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;direct.mit.edu&#x2F;books&#x2F;monograph&#x2F;3242&#x2F;Describing-Inner...
        1. qarl · · focus · HN ↗
          Oh that is delicious, thank you.

          I am reminded of how my LLMs will make things up to explain their behavior that are entirely fictional.

          1. jhickok · · focus · HN ↗
            Yes, another assumption is that our thought process is what leads to an action, when it fact it could possibly be a ride-a-long confabulation that doesn&#x27;t materialize until needed, i.e. we are asked about why we did what we did.
            1. qarl · · focus · HN ↗
              Yes. I remember the &quot;passenger&quot; episode of Westworld.

              And that is EXACTLY what LLMs do. They will entirely confabulate a reason for something they have no idea about, if they think they should know about it.

              They do an incredible job of replicating human behavior.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.