this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2024
37 points (78.5% liked)

Showerthoughts

29851 readers
349 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. A showerthought should offer a unique perspective on an ordinary part of life.

Rules

  1. All posts must be showerthoughts
  2. The entire showerthought must be in the title
  3. Avoid politics
    • 3.1) NEW RULE as of 5 Nov 2024, trying it out
    • 3.2) Political posts often end up being circle jerks (not offering unique perspective) or enflaming (too much work for mods).
    • 3.3) Try c/politicaldiscussion, volunteer as a mod here, or start your own community.
  4. Posts must be original/unique
  5. Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
37
The old primary argument against panpsychism has now become the primary argument for it (lemmy.world)
submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
17 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Panpsychism is the idea that everything is conscious to some degree (which, to be clear, isn't what I think). In the past, the common response to the idea was, "So, rocks are conscious?" This argument was meant to illustrate the absurdity of panpsychism.

Now, we have made rocks represent pins and switches, enabling us to use them as computers. We made them complex enough that we developed neural networks and created large language models--the most complex of which have nodes that represent space, time, and the abstraction of truth, according to some papers. So many people are convinced these things are conscious, which has many suggesting that everything may be conscious to some degree.

In other words, the possibility of rocks being conscious is now commonly used to argue in favor of panpsychism, when previously it was used to argue against it.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (2 children)

You ask someone if the ugly spoon is human, they know it's not.

We asked people if they were talking to a human, and it said yes.

These are not the same.

I see it as the opposite, and now that it's getting uncomfortably close to seeming human, that makes people uncomfortable and so we are rejecting the turing test in favor of.. what? It seems like nothing. It's convenient that what makes us human is intangible.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

FYI, "anthropomorphizing" doesn't strictly mean "viewing as human". I never meant to imply that people see a spoon as a human being.

Anthropomorphization is the act of associating human qualities with non-human entities.

My point is that humans are remarkably good at doing this, even as far as, e.g., ascribing "unhappiness" to a spoon simply for being unused.

This kind of behavior is why we must be extremely wary of the Turing test and other measures of machine "intelligence" - humans may see intelligence even where none exists simply because it's our nature.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

I didn't say they were the same thing; my whole point is that they are different. We're talking about people thinking they're talking to a human, compared to people attributing a single human attribute to a spoon. But probably not even really for the latter because if you ask someone if the spoon is actually sad, most everyone will say no.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

We are the Pinnacle of creation! Nothing can be better than us by definition! Even the thought that a mere complex computer can be a person is heresy and absurd and can only be answered by ridicule and mockery. /s

Unfortunately a lot of professional philosophers think a bit like the above :(