@mattsheffield@mastodon.social
2026-10-21 22:40 UTC
This matters because if IIT and naturalistic panpsychism (the idea that "consciousness" is as fundamental as quanta) are presented by chatbot mindedness believers, then invoking IIT cannot be justified to refute them unless the panpsychist interpretation of IIT is disposed of.
The authors do not mention any of these other interpretations or Tononi's own rejection of the biological naturalism that is also invoked.
Replies (1)
-
@mattsheffield@mastodon.social 2026-10-21 22:41
The piece also argues that since there are no validated examples of non-biological consciousness (whatever that means), there is no alternative base to compare chatbots to. This is true, but the premise can be flipped around against the authors: We have no empirically adequate demonstration that biology is necessary for consciousness, so they are basing their skepticism on inference from an n of 1. Therefore, it is reasonable to claim that disembodied entities could be conscious.