These philosphical books could be hundreds of years old but still be on-point with the current discussion, as I'm more interested to think about the philosophical aspect ("what is consciousness") rather than a deep discussion about what an LLM is (which is, in my view, too soon to be able to grasp in its entirety).
Thank you in advance.
dabadabad00•55m ago
Prior generations of discourse on consciousness have been limited in the obvious ways.
LLMs have nothing to do with consciousness, they are automated statistical models guided by selective training materials.
Consciousness is not awareness is not that which is conscious. Awareness is the tip of consciousness, and conscious means “awake.” We are of consciousness whether we are conscious or aware, and one can attest they can be either aware or unaware as both conscious or unconscious.
Many wish for the “redness of red” and other perceptual aspects to be included in the discussion of consciousness, they call this “phenomenology”, however I believe this out of place. I assert that consciousness is “the inflection of the potential of existential being”, and that the quantum domain acts as a holographic sieve which our neurons may access through mass entanglement.
Our present technology or scientific understanding does not encompass either how our neurons interact with the quantum domain or how it behaves as a holographic sieve, or we would not be talking about qubits, which are merely spin disposition and not the information density of holographic memory.
We aren’t there yet and the discussion of consciousness is stuck on “the redness of red” which is merely a multidimensional property of the hologram and perceptual biotechnology of the observer as stored in this “holographic sieve of the mass entangled quantum domain.”
Many think that is bull datum until science can explain otherwise.