Believing a specific architecture is not capable of consciousness is a different matter. I am seeing statements that simply state things like "it is software or a machine and therefore cannot be conscious" without any further clarification. That clearly betrays a belief in souls.

Nah, it "betrays" an awareness of something implicitly obvious: All the software/machines we might discuss are ones from ~2026, rather than ones from ~2226.

Similarly, "pets can't do my taxes" is a reasonable statement, because it is implicit that it doesn't include hundreds of years of genetic engineering and cyborg implants.

Pets can't speak human languages or do thinking on logic or natural logic. Current AI's can. Its a very bad example. People saying "current archs are limited" are much less than people outright claiming "software therefore not conscious". And I haven't yet seen any proof why the current AI's already don't have some consciousness or not.

> Pets can't speak [...] Current AI's can. It's a very bad example.

You've misunderstood the comparison analogy. It's showing two situations where implicit timeframes are important when people talk about what is "true", where the second one makes the importance extra-obvious.

"Pets doing taxes" could just as easily be swapped with "cold fusion generator in your garage" or "rocket-ship for personal commutes."

If you're trying to figure out how LLM weights are like the weights of a rocket payload, then you're going in the wrong direction.

I get what you were trying to say, I still disagree, its an open question and I feel existing LLMs already might possess some consciousness. I cannot prove it of course so I am not saying so definitively. You haven't given any disproof of the same either.

Those who think future systems could have consciousness would explicitly say so, indeed I have talked with a few who clarified as such. On the other hand I have seen a lot of statements that simply state without further clarification "software therefore not conscious".

Sure, if your architecture include hardware that is known to be capable of generation consciousness, the no one will say that.

Problem is that we don't know any such hardware..

And I am sure that lolakutty will momentarily bestow the world with a consciousness test, solving a problem that has eluded millions of top thinking man hours over millennia of trying...

However, I feel rather certain, that deep down the proposed test will just be another "is it chemical goo?"

The test can only be done on oneself, and not on others. So I know I am conscious, and I am made up of a brain, among other things. So I know for a fact that this set of things that I am comprised of, can generate consciousness.

But then you are stuck being the only conscious entity...

To extended anywhere beyond the firm ground of "I know I am conscious", you need to step onto the progressively shaky ground of assumptions, which just amounts to "tests of consciousness"

i.e. I have a chemical goo brain that is conscious, therefore other chemical goo brains are conscious...

It is possible that you are the only conscious entity in the universe, and you have no tools whatsoever to disprove that. That knowledge is no help in determining the consciousness of anything besides yourself.

>It is possible that you are the only conscious entity in the universe, and you have no tools whatsoever to disprove that.

That is correct.

>Sure, if your architecture include hardware that is known to be capable of generation consciousness, the no one will say that.

Then circling back to your original comment, no architecture can include hardware that is known to be conscious, unless that architecture includes your personal brain, because lolakutty's brain is the only thing in the universe that is capable of generating consciousness...

Which is a totally meaningless statement. This is like im14andthisisdeep levels of philosophy here...the "Nothing is real therefore everything is real" kinda stoner riffing

He just goes around in circles saying inane non-sequiturs, then dodges when asked certain questions.

Looking for support?...lol..

Just commenting on what I see.

He gave the classic "I feel" argument. The problem is I am not him. To me lolakutty and an LLM both can only present their feelings or state via external indications. Both he and an LLM can say they are conscious. Who if any of them is lying?

Why? The human brain already exists. Unless you have some well defined criterion for what hardware can support consciousness how can you say that?

Oh, I thought you were talking about "architectures" not containing a human brain..

Why? What's so strange about a human brain? It is a physical system of molecules running electrical and chemical signals. We already have direct proof that physical systems support consciousness. So why do you believe other physical systems can't have consciousness? Give me your definition of what consciousness is.

>Give me your definition of what consciousness is.

It should have the ability to feel...

How do I know you can feel? You can say you feel just an an AI can say it feels.

You don't have to know that. All you have to know is that you can feel and is conscious, and this consciousness is a result of your physical body..

Yes but you are not me, I am me. I don't know you are conscious or can "feel". Both you and an LLM present themselves using words and other external indications only. If you argue brain scans, then similar experiments have been done on LLMs too.

To my argument to work, to answer "why is a brain special", you only have to consider two things.

1. That you are conscious.

2. That you have a human body with a brain.

This implies that your body can harbor consciousness. That is what is special about your body in this context. And that answers your question.

Yes and? Where is your disproof that other physical systems can't hold consciousness?

I am sure of my body, I am not sure of you. I can feel, but how do I know you are not faking the outputs of feeling?

1. Scooters can move from a place to a place. 2. That a scooter has a body with an engine.

Therefore scooters are special and cars don't exist.

>but how do I know you are not faking the outputs of feeling?

You won't..but it does not matter.

>Where is your disproof that other physical systems can't hold consciousness?

I said no such thing. Just that there is no reason to think that LLMs are conscious. If we find some natural or artificial entity with some unknown and un-inspectable thing inside it, that behaves in an intelligent manner, I would not be sure that it is not conscious.

Why unknown? The human brain is known and inspectable, then you should say it is not conscious. You haven't yet shown why you think an LLM can't be conscious. You are just saying "just because" with no reason or parameters given.

>The human brain is known and inspectable, then you should say it is not conscious.

Human brain is not "inspectable".

> LLM can't be conscious.

Because there is no reason to think so, and suggestion that would be like suggesting the existence of ghosts and goblins.

Extremely unscientific.

So what is the reason to not think it can be conscious? Brains are physical systems, so are LLMs.

How is a human brain not inspectable? Tell me what part of it is beyond inspection? You have been making up absurd non sequiturs throughout this chat, ending with this beyond absurd statement now.

> Brains are physical systems, so are LLMs.

So are rocks. Are rocks conscious? Idol worshipers might have a point after all!

>Tell me what part of it is beyond inspection?

Oh, you can dissect a brain as much as you like. Is that what you mean by "inspection". I was thinking more like "How does it work". In that sense, we don't know a lot.

Rocks don't talk to me and think and act intelligently. Current LLM's do.

We don't know a lot about how chaotic systems work either in terms of predicting its outcome even if we know every individual step. The argument you gave for the brain equally applies to the LLMs, or any other complex system. So your premise is wrong.