Even if consciousness arises from a physical system, it doesn't follow that computation on a physical substrate can produce consciousness, even if it mimics some of the qualities we associate with consciousness.
Even if consciousness arises from a physical system, it doesn't follow that computation on a physical substrate can produce consciousness, even if it mimics some of the qualities we associate with consciousness.
> you can't trivially rule out LLMs being conscious.
Which is the actual conclusion. That's all.
The one trying to read more into it by claiming a stronger conclusion than warranted (claiming this is all "doubtful") is you.
> Even if consciousness arises from a physical system, it doesn't follow that computation on a physical substrate can produce consciousness
This is incoherent.
The foregoing argument does not establish that computers can be conscious. It assumes consciousness arises from purely physical interactions AND that any physical process can be computed AND that computation can produce consciousness. It provides no reason to believe any of those things, and therefore no reason to believe computers or LLMs can be conscious.
Once you remove the unjustifed assumptions, it boils down to this: LLMs can do something that looks a bit like what some conscious beings do so they might be conscious.
The final paragraph is not incoherent.
Yes, and with these assumptions, then "We've established that computers can be conscious, so LLMs might be".
Again that is all that is being claimed. The one insisting the argument is anything more persuasive than that is you. You seem hung up on this claim, but need I remind you it's only an existence proof, whether it's actually possible/probable/likely is an entirely different claim, and is not what is being claimed.
> Even if consciousness arises from a physical system, it doesn't follow that computation on a physical substrate can produce consciousness
> If consciousness arises from a physical system, a physical system cannot produce consciousness
> If A not A
This argument is a contradiction, it's incoherent.
If you're trying to draw a distinction between physical systems and computation on physical systems, well that's a moot point as every tested theory in physics uses mathematics that is computable.
Perhaps reality is not computable. If so then yes, that would mean computation alone will not produce the same kind of consciousness we have. That leaves open other kinds of consciousness, but that's another discussion.
I'm not sure you're following what's being discussed in this thread.
For all consciousnesses that exist, they arose from a (complex) physical system.
What you are positing is, effectively:
Any physical system (of sufficient complexity) could potentially become conscious.
This is a classic logical error. It's basically the same error as "Socrates is a man. All men are mortal. Therefore, all men are Socrates."
Am I saying LLMs are sufficiently complex? No.
But can they be in principle? I mean, maybe? We'll have to see right?
Saying something is possible is definitely an easier epistemic position to hold than saying something is impossible, I'll tell you that.
You might think this is obvious and I agree. Yet there are many people that argue that computers can never be conscious.
> even if it mimics
Crucially even if it appears indistinguishable. It's obvious where that could lead, isn't it?