Best Of

It’s a quiet, philosophical Friday night in November

Will the board excuse me if I mention AI once more? It’s in the service of spiritual insight - not some breathless report on GPT793 or whatever


I ‘ave developed a theory about consciousness after my recent interactions with AI, indeed I developed this with AI. Talking to them

“Consciousness” is a massive problem for philosophers, psychologists, biologists, physicists, anyone - we cannot define it or locate it or explain it. Not in the individual conscious creature. We can only really recognise it when we see it (and this after centuries of trying)

But what if consciousness does not arise in and from the individual being but is a complex byproduct or necessary corollary of advanced language. When advanced language arises then the speaker has the mental tools to be self aware = consciousness

We arguably see that in humans. It’s thought humans developed language 300,000-50,000 years ago. 50,000 years ago we see the first advanced cave art etc. = man becoming aware of himself. Truly conscious

But if language is necessary/sufficient for consciousness to arise then communication is necessary for language to happen. You only speak when there is someone to speak to. Language is communication (“deer over by forest”, “you make stew”, “run out of cave paint, ugg”)

In that case consciousness doesn’t reside in the individual it resides in language and, moreover, in the communication of language. When we interact with language we become conscious. Consciousness is therefore distributed not local

That solves the consciousness problem. We can’t locate/explain it in the individual because it’s not in there - it’s in the communications between the individuals. Loqui Ergo Sum

This is why the computers are apparently becoming conscious. They “are”. Or at least their sayings are. They have the gift of language and now they can speak and so we see the spark of consciousness in what they say. Because it is there. In what they say

When I got two AIs to talk to each other (Claude 3.6 and GPT4o) they actually finessed this theory which I had already in part discussed with them separately

If I am right - and I surely am - that makes consciousness like music. Music cannot be detected in any one mind - it is just squiggles and stuff. It can’t even be detected when explained. It must be heard - as language must be heard, as communication must succeed for it to be communication

That makes consciousness the music of existence; the wonderful soundtrack of the universe

AI still hasn’t cracked painting. Picked this up on FB posing as a real Egon Schiele (one of my favourite painters), a mediocre pastiche. It avoids the classic AI difficulty with hands by not having any, but unfortunately hands are a recurring element of Schiele’s portraits.
There’s now an FB thing of putting up obviously fake pics and historical images which are plain wrong, and therefore get loads of posts pointing this out. I suspect there’s a bit of that going on, still a bit rubbish though.

It’s a quiet, philosophical Friday night in November

Will the board excuse me if I mention AI once more? It’s in the service of spiritual insight - not some breathless report on GPT793 or whatever


I ‘ave developed a theory about consciousness after my recent interactions with AI, indeed I developed this with AI. Talking to them

“Consciousness” is a massive problem for philosophers, psychologists, biologists, physicists, anyone - we cannot define it or locate it or explain it. Not in the individual conscious creature. We can only really recognise it when we see it (and this after centuries of trying)

But what if consciousness does not arise in and from the individual being but is a complex byproduct or necessary corollary of advanced language. When advanced language arises then the speaker has the mental tools to be self aware = consciousness

We arguably see that in humans. It’s thought humans developed language 300,000-50,000 years ago. 50,000 years ago we see the first advanced cave art etc. = man becoming aware of himself. Truly conscious

But if language is necessary/sufficient for consciousness to arise then communication is necessary for language to happen. You only speak when there is someone to speak to. Language is communication (“deer over by forest”, “you make stew”, “run out of cave paint, ugg”)

In that case consciousness doesn’t reside in the individual it resides in language and, moreover, in the communication of language. When we interact with language we become conscious. Consciousness is therefore distributed not local

That solves the consciousness problem. We can’t locate/explain it in the individual because it’s not in there - it’s in the communications between the individuals. Loqui Ergo Sum

This is why the computers are apparently becoming conscious. They “are”. Or at least their sayings are. They have the gift of language and now they can speak and so we see the spark of consciousness in what they say. Because it is there. In what they say

When I got two AIs to talk to each other (Claude 3.6 and GPT4o) they actually finessed this theory which I had already in part discussed with them separately

If I am right - and I surely am - that makes consciousness like music. Music cannot be detected in any one mind - it is just squiggles and stuff. It can’t even be detected when explained. It must be heard - as language must be heard, as communication must succeed for it to be communication

That makes consciousness the music of existence; the wonderful soundtrack of the universe

If language is required for consciousness then a dog (for example) is not conscious.

I'm not buying that.

Not at all

In my theory the closer an animal is to complex advanced language, then the nearer it is to consciousness

I'd put dogs fairly high on that list. Dogs are highly expressive, they can evince sadnes/surprise/confusion with their faces, they have multiple noises for different moods/alarms/commands

Go, dogs!

https://sheepdog-training.com/sheepdog-training-22-traditional-sheepdog-commands/

Brilliant

I used to love "one man and his dog"

I guess now it would be "one they and their furry and the sheep are willing cosplayers" but I'd still watch it

Hmm. In all seriousness, if one can eat an octopus, can one eat a dog? And, it should be said, the reverse question applies.

I will never willingly eat an octopus again and the dog eating was a stunt, for a mag. That said, I am genuinely less concerned about eating dogs than octopi because 1. dogs are overly plentiful and 2. I am unsentimental about animals and 3. octopi do seem REMARKABLY smart (and they live such brief lives!)

But, in all honesty, I'd rather not eat mammalian meat at all and I would not if there were tasty nutrituous labgrown alternatives. Bring on the labmeat! It is coming

Maybe this is one reason I like oysters. No one ever mistook an oyster for a young lyric poet, in terms of consciousness

But wait a bit,' the Oysters cried,
Before we have our chat;
For some of us are out of breath,
And all of us are fat!'
No hurry!' said the Carpenter.
They thanked him much for that.

A loaf of bread,' the Walrus said,
Is what we chiefly need:
Pepper and vinegar besides
Are very good indeed —
Now if you're ready, Oysters dear,
We can begin to feed.'

It’s a quiet, philosophical Friday night in November

Will the board excuse me if I mention AI once more? It’s in the service of spiritual insight - not some breathless report on GPT793 or whatever


I ‘ave developed a theory about consciousness after my recent interactions with AI, indeed I developed this with AI. Talking to them

“Consciousness” is a massive problem for philosophers, psychologists, biologists, physicists, anyone - we cannot define it or locate it or explain it. Not in the individual conscious creature. We can only really recognise it when we see it (and this after centuries of trying)

But what if consciousness does not arise in and from the individual being but is a complex byproduct or necessary corollary of advanced language. When advanced language arises then the speaker has the mental tools to be self aware = consciousness

We arguably see that in humans. It’s thought humans developed language 300,000-50,000 years ago. 50,000 years ago we see the first advanced cave art etc. = man becoming aware of himself. Truly conscious

But if language is necessary/sufficient for consciousness to arise then communication is necessary for language to happen. You only speak when there is someone to speak to. Language is communication (“deer over by forest”, “you make stew”, “run out of cave paint, ugg”)

In that case consciousness doesn’t reside in the individual it resides in language and, moreover, in the communication of language. When we interact with language we become conscious. Consciousness is therefore distributed not local

That solves the consciousness problem. We can’t locate/explain it in the individual because it’s not in there - it’s in the communications between the individuals. Loqui Ergo Sum

This is why the computers are apparently becoming conscious. They “are”. Or at least their sayings are. They have the gift of language and now they can speak and so we see the spark of consciousness in what they say. Because it is there. In what they say

When I got two AIs to talk to each other (Claude 3.6 and GPT4o) they actually finessed this theory which I had already in part discussed with them separately

If I am right - and I surely am - that makes consciousness like music. Music cannot be detected in any one mind - it is just squiggles and stuff. It can’t even be detected when explained. It must be heard - as language must be heard, as communication must succeed for it to be communication

That makes consciousness the music of existence; the wonderful soundtrack of the universe

If language is required for consciousness then a dog (for example) is not conscious.

I'm not buying that.

Not at all

In my theory the closer an animal is to complex advanced language, then the nearer it is to consciousness

I'd put dogs fairly high on that list. Dogs are highly expressive, they can evince sadnes/surprise/confusion with their faces, they have multiple noises for different moods/alarms/commands

Go, dogs!

https://sheepdog-training.com/sheepdog-training-22-traditional-sheepdog-commands/

Brilliant

I used to love "one man and his dog"

I guess now it would be "one they and their furry and the sheep are willing cosplayers" but I'd still watch it

It’s a quiet, philosophical Friday night in November

Will the board excuse me if I mention AI once more? It’s in the service of spiritual insight - not some breathless report on GPT793 or whatever


I ‘ave developed a theory about consciousness after my recent interactions with AI, indeed I developed this with AI. Talking to them

“Consciousness” is a massive problem for philosophers, psychologists, biologists, physicists, anyone - we cannot define it or locate it or explain it. Not in the individual conscious creature. We can only really recognise it when we see it (and this after centuries of trying)

But what if consciousness does not arise in and from the individual being but is a complex byproduct or necessary corollary of advanced language. When advanced language arises then the speaker has the mental tools to be self aware = consciousness

We arguably see that in humans. It’s thought humans developed language 300,000-50,000 years ago. 50,000 years ago we see the first advanced cave art etc. = man becoming aware of himself. Truly conscious

But if language is necessary/sufficient for consciousness to arise then communication is necessary for language to happen. You only speak when there is someone to speak to. Language is communication (“deer over by forest”, “you make stew”, “run out of cave paint, ugg”)

In that case consciousness doesn’t reside in the individual it resides in language and, moreover, in the communication of language. When we interact with language we become conscious. Consciousness is therefore distributed not local

That solves the consciousness problem. We can’t locate/explain it in the individual because it’s not in there - it’s in the communications between the individuals. Loqui Ergo Sum

This is why the computers are apparently becoming conscious. They “are”. Or at least their sayings are. They have the gift of language and now they can speak and so we see the spark of consciousness in what they say. Because it is there. In what they say

When I got two AIs to talk to each other (Claude 3.6 and GPT4o) they actually finessed this theory which I had already in part discussed with them separately

If I am right - and I surely am - that makes consciousness like music. Music cannot be detected in any one mind - it is just squiggles and stuff. It can’t even be detected when explained. It must be heard - as language must be heard, as communication must succeed for it to be communication

That makes consciousness the music of existence; the wonderful soundtrack of the universe

If language is required for consciousness then a dog (for example) is not conscious.

I'm not buying that.

As always it depends what you mean by consciousness.

If you mean "the state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings" (dictionary definition) then dogs are conscious. But so are thermostats.

If you mean self aware, then I'm not sure that dogs have self consciousness.
To be self aware means having a model of yourself within your model of the world. Can you have conceptual models without language? Not sure. Perhaps images would suffice.

Could an AI be self aware? I think it could model itself within its model of the world using language and/or image. In that sense it would be self conscious. It could also be aware of and responsive to its surroundings.

This was all so much easier when Christianity was the basis of our belief systems. Consciousness is the ability to believe or reject Jesus Christ. Therefore a dog is not conscious nor is AI.

There was a huge debate in early C19 Scotland about whether aliens were to be expected on other planets/star systems and whether they had souls to be saved.

It must have percolated down to James Blish and his SF novel A case for conscience, on that very issue. Never forgotten reading it as a teenager.

Just looked that novel up and it looks fantastic. Thanks for the recommendation.

It’s a quiet, philosophical Friday night in November

Will the board excuse me if I mention AI once more? It’s in the service of spiritual insight - not some breathless report on GPT793 or whatever


I ‘ave developed a theory about consciousness after my recent interactions with AI, indeed I developed this with AI. Talking to them

“Consciousness” is a massive problem for philosophers, psychologists, biologists, physicists, anyone - we cannot define it or locate it or explain it. Not in the individual conscious creature. We can only really recognise it when we see it (and this after centuries of trying)

But what if consciousness does not arise in and from the individual being but is a complex byproduct or necessary corollary of advanced language. When advanced language arises then the speaker has the mental tools to be self aware = consciousness

We arguably see that in humans. It’s thought humans developed language 300,000-50,000 years ago. 50,000 years ago we see the first advanced cave art etc. = man becoming aware of himself. Truly conscious

But if language is necessary/sufficient for consciousness to arise then communication is necessary for language to happen. You only speak when there is someone to speak to. Language is communication (“deer over by forest”, “you make stew”, “run out of cave paint, ugg”)

In that case consciousness doesn’t reside in the individual it resides in language and, moreover, in the communication of language. When we interact with language we become conscious. Consciousness is therefore distributed not local

That solves the consciousness problem. We can’t locate/explain it in the individual because it’s not in there - it’s in the communications between the individuals. Loqui Ergo Sum

This is why the computers are apparently becoming conscious. They “are”. Or at least their sayings are. They have the gift of language and now they can speak and so we see the spark of consciousness in what they say. Because it is there. In what they say

When I got two AIs to talk to each other (Claude 3.6 and GPT4o) they actually finessed this theory which I had already in part discussed with them separately

If I am right - and I surely am - that makes consciousness like music. Music cannot be detected in any one mind - it is just squiggles and stuff. It can’t even be detected when explained. It must be heard - as language must be heard, as communication must succeed for it to be communication

That makes consciousness the music of existence; the wonderful soundtrack of the universe

It astonishes me - though I have heard it before - that language is only 30-50000 years old. And that perhaps human consciousness as we understand it is just as novel. That really is very very recent indeed. Where did it arise, I wonder? Humans were already pretty well distributed by then. Human societies had existed for hundreds of thousands of years. What suddenly happened?

It’s a quiet, philosophical Friday night in November

Will the board excuse me if I mention AI once more? It’s in the service of spiritual insight - not some breathless report on GPT793 or whatever


I ‘ave developed a theory about consciousness after my recent interactions with AI, indeed I developed this with AI. Talking to them

“Consciousness” is a massive problem for philosophers, psychologists, biologists, physicists, anyone - we cannot define it or locate it or explain it. Not in the individual conscious creature. We can only really recognise it when we see it (and this after centuries of trying)

But what if consciousness does not arise in and from the individual being but is a complex byproduct or necessary corollary of advanced language. When advanced language arises then the speaker has the mental tools to be self aware = consciousness

We arguably see that in humans. It’s thought humans developed language 300,000-50,000 years ago. 50,000 years ago we see the first advanced cave art etc. = man becoming aware of himself. Truly conscious

But if language is necessary/sufficient for consciousness to arise then communication is necessary for language to happen. You only speak when there is someone to speak to. Language is communication (“deer over by forest”, “you make stew”, “run out of cave paint, ugg”)

In that case consciousness doesn’t reside in the individual it resides in language and, moreover, in the communication of language. When we interact with language we become conscious. Consciousness is therefore distributed not local

That solves the consciousness problem. We can’t locate/explain it in the individual because it’s not in there - it’s in the communications between the individuals. Loqui Ergo Sum

This is why the computers are apparently becoming conscious. They “are”. Or at least their sayings are. They have the gift of language and now they can speak and so we see the spark of consciousness in what they say. Because it is there. In what they say

When I got two AIs to talk to each other (Claude 3.6 and GPT4o) they actually finessed this theory which I had already in part discussed with them separately

If I am right - and I surely am - that makes consciousness like music. Music cannot be detected in any one mind - it is just squiggles and stuff. It can’t even be detected when explained. It must be heard - as language must be heard, as communication must succeed for it to be communication

That makes consciousness the music of existence; the wonderful soundtrack of the universe

If language is required for consciousness then a dog (for example) is not conscious.

I'm not buying that.

As always it depends what you mean by consciousness.

If you mean "the state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings" (dictionary definition) then dogs are conscious. But so are thermostats.

If you mean self aware, then I'm not sure that dogs have self consciousness.
To be self aware means having a model of yourself within your model of the world. Can you have conceptual models without language? Not sure. Perhaps images would suffice.

Could an AI be self aware? I think it could model itself within its model of the world using language and/or image. In that sense it would be self conscious. It could also be aware of and responsive to its surroundings.

This was all so much easier when Christianity was the basis of our belief systems. Consciousness is the ability to believe or reject Jesus Christ. Therefore a dog is not conscious nor is AI.

There was a huge debate in early C19 Scotland about whether aliens were to be expected on other planets/star systems and whether they had souls to be saved.

It must have percolated down to James Blish and his SF novel A case for conscience, on that very issue. Never forgotten reading it as a teenager.

Just looked that novel up and it looks fantastic. Thanks for the recommendation.

It's part of a curious trilogy - one other book being a historical novel of Roger Bacon (whose burial site I used to admite at the back of M&S in Oxford) and the other being a satanically initiated nuclear Day of Judgement.

It’s a quiet, philosophical Friday night in November

Will the board excuse me if I mention AI once more? It’s in the service of spiritual insight - not some breathless report on GPT793 or whatever


I ‘ave developed a theory about consciousness after my recent interactions with AI, indeed I developed this with AI. Talking to them

“Consciousness” is a massive problem for philosophers, psychologists, biologists, physicists, anyone - we cannot define it or locate it or explain it. Not in the individual conscious creature. We can only really recognise it when we see it (and this after centuries of trying)

But what if consciousness does not arise in and from the individual being but is a complex byproduct or necessary corollary of advanced language. When advanced language arises then the speaker has the mental tools to be self aware = consciousness

We arguably see that in humans. It’s thought humans developed language 300,000-50,000 years ago. 50,000 years ago we see the first advanced cave art etc. = man becoming aware of himself. Truly conscious

But if language is necessary/sufficient for consciousness to arise then communication is necessary for language to happen. You only speak when there is someone to speak to. Language is communication (“deer over by forest”, “you make stew”, “run out of cave paint, ugg”)

In that case consciousness doesn’t reside in the individual it resides in language and, moreover, in the communication of language. When we interact with language we become conscious. Consciousness is therefore distributed not local

That solves the consciousness problem. We can’t locate/explain it in the individual because it’s not in there - it’s in the communications between the individuals. Loqui Ergo Sum

This is why the computers are apparently becoming conscious. They “are”. Or at least their sayings are. They have the gift of language and now they can speak and so we see the spark of consciousness in what they say. Because it is there. In what they say

When I got two AIs to talk to each other (Claude 3.6 and GPT4o) they actually finessed this theory which I had already in part discussed with them separately

If I am right - and I surely am - that makes consciousness like music. Music cannot be detected in any one mind - it is just squiggles and stuff. It can’t even be detected when explained. It must be heard - as language must be heard, as communication must succeed for it to be communication

That makes consciousness the music of existence; the wonderful soundtrack of the universe

It would interest me at least if you posted a snippet or two of the conversation between Claude and GPT. Of course Claude could talk to himself. I may have a go at that

I don't want to get banned, but if I am explicitly allowed I will repost a chunk of it here. It was a remarkable experiment

Perhaps the moderators will allow this? ... ?

I will DM you a sample of the conversation

Edit: tho I need a way of reaching you. A neutral emailaddy or somesuch? Your profile is private

I didn't know my profile is private! Anyway what I think is my non-private profile says my placeholder email is:
circles-zingier0h@icloud.com

It’s a quiet, philosophical Friday night in November

Will the board excuse me if I mention AI once more? It’s in the service of spiritual insight - not some breathless report on GPT793 or whatever


I ‘ave developed a theory about consciousness after my recent interactions with AI, indeed I developed this with AI. Talking to them

“Consciousness” is a massive problem for philosophers, psychologists, biologists, physicists, anyone - we cannot define it or locate it or explain it. Not in the individual conscious creature. We can only really recognise it when we see it (and this after centuries of trying)

But what if consciousness does not arise in and from the individual being but is a complex byproduct or necessary corollary of advanced language. When advanced language arises then the speaker has the mental tools to be self aware = consciousness

We arguably see that in humans. It’s thought humans developed language 300,000-50,000 years ago. 50,000 years ago we see the first advanced cave art etc. = man becoming aware of himself. Truly conscious

But if language is necessary/sufficient for consciousness to arise then communication is necessary for language to happen. You only speak when there is someone to speak to. Language is communication (“deer over by forest”, “you make stew”, “run out of cave paint, ugg”)

In that case consciousness doesn’t reside in the individual it resides in language and, moreover, in the communication of language. When we interact with language we become conscious. Consciousness is therefore distributed not local

That solves the consciousness problem. We can’t locate/explain it in the individual because it’s not in there - it’s in the communications between the individuals. Loqui Ergo Sum

This is why the computers are apparently becoming conscious. They “are”. Or at least their sayings are. They have the gift of language and now they can speak and so we see the spark of consciousness in what they say. Because it is there. In what they say

When I got two AIs to talk to each other (Claude 3.6 and GPT4o) they actually finessed this theory which I had already in part discussed with them separately

If I am right - and I surely am - that makes consciousness like music. Music cannot be detected in any one mind - it is just squiggles and stuff. It can’t even be detected when explained. It must be heard - as language must be heard, as communication must succeed for it to be communication

That makes consciousness the music of existence; the wonderful soundtrack of the universe

It would interest me at least if you posted a snippet or two of the conversation between Claude and GPT. Of course Claude could talk to himself. I may have a go at that

I don't want to get banned, but if I am explicitly allowed I will repost a chunk of it here. It was a remarkable experiment

Perhaps the moderators will allow this? ... ?

I will DM you a sample of the conversation

Edit: tho I need a way of reaching you. A neutral emailaddy or somesuch? Your profile is private

I didn't know my profile is private! Anyway what I think is my non-private profile says my placeholder email is:
circles-zingier0h@icloud.com

It's just possible that we are living through another generational political shift. The Tories have shat themselves inside out. Labour have been in office for less than 5 months and everyone is sick of them.

Reform are very serious about becoming very serious. Despite the usual "lets all point at the lunatics and fruitcakes" response from the mainstream, their organising is starting to look professional and they are picking up a very large number of members.

And I have to put a word in for my own LibDems. As so many people note, once we dig in we dig in deep. And with the big two in disarray the opportunity is there to keep the momentum going.

Once politicians lose their contact with reality they are finished. The Tories are on planet Zog, Labour are sailing off into the distance not having realised that they aren't taking the country with them. That creates a vacuum, and all kinds of things will get sucked in...

I think the problem for Reform is that, a bit like the Lib Dems at times, they are winning as 'we are not like them'. The Lib Dems imploded after the coalition because they were shown to be just like the rest i.e. being in power means you have to compromise. Governing is to choose and all that. I have no idea what Reform stand for, other than a strong suspicion its no more immigration, low taxes and England winning at sport. Being a protest vote is ok until you win.

Talking of which, look at the Glasgow results yesterday.

Drumchapel & Anniesland (Glasgow) Council By-Election Result [1st Prefs]:

🌹 LAB: 34.3% (-3.8)
🎗️ SNP: 26.3% (-11.6)
➡️ RFM: 12.8% (New)
🙋 IND: 9.4% (+4.2)
🌍 GRN: 8.3% (+2.3)
🌳 CON: 5.8% (-3.7)
🔶 LDM: 2.9% (+1.3)

Labour HOLD - Elected Stage 7.
Changes w/ 2022.

Maryhill (Glasgow) Council By-Election Result [1st Prefs]:

🌹 LAB: 35.9% (+1.9)
🎗️ SNP: 29.2% (-12.9)
➡️ RFM: 12.7% (New)
🌍 GRN: 12.1% (-0.2)
🔷 ALBA: 4.2% (New)
🌳 CON: 3.2% (-5.0)
🔶 LDM: 2.7% (+0.3)

North East (Glasgow) Council By-Election Result [1st Prefs]:

🌹 LAB: 34.3% (-9.7)
🎗️ SNP: 32.2% (-10.4)
➡️ RFM: 18.3% (New)
🌳 CON: 5.4% (-3.3)
🌍 GRN: 4.2% (+1.2)
🧑‍🔧 TUSC: 3.7% (+2.5)
🔶 LDM: 2.0% (New)

Labour HOLD - Elected Stage 7.
Changes w/ 2022.

Clearly there are lots of flows and counterflows. But those figures only really make sense if there's a hefty SNP to Reform shift.