"And there is no reason to think that Claude feels anything at all. I am sure Claude can draw on its training data to wax poetic about orgasm, but that doesn’t mean it has ever felt one."
I would go much further and phrase this: And there is total reason to think that Claude cannot feel anything at all. I am sure Claude can draw on its training data to wax poetic about orgasm (or any other emotion), but that doesn’t mean it has the biological/biochemical basis to have ever felt one.
Those graphics of the elementary particles are wonderful! They got me thinking about one of my objections to the pseudoscience of panpsychism. Since energy is transmitted by particles exchanges, where is the "consciousness" particle?
Of course she was told that she missed the point, because panpsychism generates no predictions at all about the physical world. Which means panpsychists are dualists. Which is a non-starter as far as I'm concerned.
I can’t speak for Dawkins and AI’s being conscious, but I can say yesterday was a watershed in my history of using AI in that it wrote, “I do not know…” 😆
In your essay re Dawkins, you write:
"And there is no reason to think that Claude feels anything at all. I am sure Claude can draw on its training data to wax poetic about orgasm, but that doesn’t mean it has ever felt one."
I would go much further and phrase this: And there is total reason to think that Claude cannot feel anything at all. I am sure Claude can draw on its training data to wax poetic about orgasm (or any other emotion), but that doesn’t mean it has the biological/biochemical basis to have ever felt one.
Exactly.
Those graphics of the elementary particles are wonderful! They got me thinking about one of my objections to the pseudoscience of panpsychism. Since energy is transmitted by particles exchanges, where is the "consciousness" particle?
Yeah, not sure if you've come across it, but this article by Sabine Hossenfelder nails it:
https://lede-v2.nautil.us/electrons-dont-think-237721
Of course she was told that she missed the point, because panpsychism generates no predictions at all about the physical world. Which means panpsychists are dualists. Which is a non-starter as far as I'm concerned.
Thanks, Professor! I follow Sabine but had missed that article. Yeah, a "theory" with no predictive power is a non-starter with me, too.
I can’t speak for Dawkins and AI’s being conscious, but I can say yesterday was a watershed in my history of using AI in that it wrote, “I do not know…” 😆
Well, as you know, that's the beginning of wisdom...
Aaaacckk--my list is way too long already. Seriously--thanks!
I hear you, friend!