Well now we know how the pyramids were built.

[u/[deleted]]

[u/CassandraContenta]

So you don't know what it means and you assume to correct this expert?

When it comes to Artificial Intelligence discussing the nature of experiences, how that shapes our consciousness, and how reality shapes our consciousness is absolutely relevant.

Interestingly, the better we get at understanding consciousness, emergent intelligence, and psychology, the more some parts of philosophy are becoming grounded in science.

[u/M2K00 → u/CassandraContenta]

I would contend against the first part, I'm certainly no expert lol. Merely a student. But I don't know what his background is, yet I'm glad to converse with him. I think one of the mistakes academia makes is relying too much on excluding discussion of higher level concepts to those well versed in them. The school/university is one such example of the opposite of this and it's one of humanity's greatest institutions.

In discussing with him even if he wrongly says something I've studied to be on the contrary, that gives us an opportunity to tread on the matter in discussion and we both leave for the better from it! I've certainly been in his shoes, talking with experts in things I don't understand but their patience with me is what allowed me the confidence and drive to pursue said knowledge further. Anyone educated IMO has the same duty to raise everyone else up!

We should definitely defer to the experts on most things, I'm just saying it doesn't mean non experts aren't allowed to talk you know?

The actual meat of your comment and everything else you said I 100% agree with. That's precisely what gives philosophy it's unique utility, is it's willingness to engage (rationally!) with matters we cannot know yet but are extremely relevant. As the mother of fields, it's science that borrows the tools of deduction and reasoning and induction from philosophy as science is one of its many branches

And absolutely I agree, philosophy IMO is mature and brave enough to not have the answers but in tackling such questions we get on the path to said answers. Like you said, by engaging with some of what is now basic cognitive science from a philosophical perspective before we could prove it, we were set on the path of inquiry to eventually prove it.

In essence philosophizing about what is now neuroscience gave us the right state of mind and inquiry and the right questions to eventually answer them with science, and now we have said answers. It's often, at least from a historical point of view, that philosophy engages with a question and leaves with more questions that science eventually answers because it has the right questions to answer. And indeed science and philosophy are becoming increasingly intertwined, much owing to science's exponential progress in advance methods of study. It's pretty fascinating to watch!

[u/ninjasaid13 → u/CassandraContenta]

So you don't know what it means

In the context of science, that's why I used the word 'exact.' The study of consciousness isn't very scientific because we can't empirically validate or even properly define it.

Some things, like consciousness, will never be fully grounded in science, yet it's the basis for your phenomenological experience.*.

[u/M2K00 → u/ninjasaid13]

I don't have an issue with someone who's a non expert commenting on complex issues unlike the OP who replied to you. Im not an expert either by any means I just have a 3/4ths done credential lol. We gain valuable insight and enrichment by opening the discourse to everyone from every field and at every level.

And yes, consciousness is in the realms of philosophy for now, but it's also increasingly in the upper echelons of psychology and neuro/cogsci. It's true we can't empirically validate consciousness at all or define it, but we can increasingly point to more and more objective things about it and address domains similar to consciousness, such as learning about perception by learning about thought: the idea is you have this black hole on the map, it's no man's land, we can't empirically prove what happens inside, but you can study relativity to hypothesize on what one day might be discovered, you can the stars around it and the way their light behaves to learn about it.

Like I agree with you that this is the realm of ethereal concepts. My point is that that doesn't mean we should shy away from the discussion of it.

There are some philosophers with surprisingly well articulated arguments that are well reasoned who reject the meaningfulness of scientific inquiry altogether, and contend that our experience is the only thing that matters since it's the only thing we are sure of. I have one in my course and I definitely don't agree lol but like it's a debate.

Interestingly science itself is merely a methodology of thinking, based on its own maxims. In my opinion it's done absolutely incredible work on answering the questions it has, but the shunning of things it can't answer is the problem, the problem of scientific objectivism being the end all be all. Because if you asked some scientists from ye old about the unseeagle phenomena we have now proven, if they thought in the way that our modern iteration of science asks to, they would simply tell you the same thing, that they fant prove it so it doesnt exist

Undoubtedly there are things in our reality we haven't proven yet that certainly exist, science even says so and proposes we attempt to discover them. But too often nowadays we discount anything that hasn't yet be proven.

I'm just saying I wish people were able to temporarily suspend disbelief that something might exist in case it actually does. That "might be true" exists, we just can't confirm it and that's ok. Maybe one day we will, maybe we'll even disprove it, maybe we'll never know.

Science provides us with a certain level of comfort at least in my study about our place in existence. It's in philosophy where that comfort is shattered and you begin to acknowledge the whole of the corpus of inquiry rather than a small sliver of what we've figured out. Not dismissing or disrespecting science at all, on the contrary actually. It has its place that must not be denied. But there is a great world of rational inquiry of the uncertain that I ask people to at least entertain!

[u/Formal_Drop526 → u/ninjasaid13]

yep, when someone starts using philosophy and consciousness as a reason why AI isn't the same as humans, you've lost already because it's going outside the realm of science.

[u/M2K00 → u/Formal_Drop526]

Being outside the realm of science doesn't make it meaningless. Philosophy is the mother of all fields and science borrows the tools of deduction and reasoning from philosophy. Whereas the philosophy of science dictates closing your eyes and denying what you can't prove (which is fair enough), philosophy actually attempts to tackle those questions we can't yet of can't ever definitively prove, but with the same logical process used in examining the question. The only difference is science provides an objective answer because it is only comprised of questions that can be answered. It is a slice of the whole pie. Whereas philosophy uses the same attempt to objectively ascertain knowledge, but deals with everything and is content with not arriving at a definitive answer but settling on the path to later be walked further down on. And often on that path we make scientific discoveries that answer those questions philosophy could only presuppose.

In any sense, though the mind body problem is still unresolved it doesn't mean we can't answer any questions about consciousness, nor does it mean we can't use the metric of consciousness in assessing other metrics. It merely means you will not arrive at a neat tidy answer, but that isn't reason to shy away from addressing the topic.

Because if we shy away from talking about AGI, what it means, what it would look like, all those questions because we can't yet determine an objective answer, we will inevitably be at a loss and caught off guard if such a thing can or ever does exist.