Curious to get your thoughts on how panpsychists argue for or against machine consciousness. My intuition tells me that the mechanistic nature of digital computers excludes panpsychists explanations of their sentience, but the argument is hard to nail down since panpsychism seems to be missing clear agreed upon axioms that would allow us to reason about it.
There is a straightforward rejection of micropanpsychism, which mirrors the arguments against materialism, but the cosmopanpsychist case is more difficult. There are no clear mechanisms for dissociation, so adherents seem to be free to assign sentience to any object they chose to. Then we’re back to unresolvable metaphysical arguments.
IT/AI experts are usually materialists and don't believe in panpsychism and, thereby, assume that it is only a matter of time and machine consciousness will be possible by mere computation. As a panpsychist I point out that this is the real reason why they have those issues in AI outlined in the essays here:
Thanks, I will check these out. I’ve come across strong AI adherents who claim that machines could be conscious because “everything is conscious”. Koch seemed to voice similar sentiments when I spoke with him, though I didn’t specifically press him on whether he considers himself a panpsychist.
Beautiful piece! Reminds me of the Vedic concept of Lila, the divine play of consciousness, playing hide and seek with itself, fragmenting into countless forms to experience itself, until it remembers that it has always been one.
That's right. In fact, I'm inspired by Sri Aurobindo's cosmology where the notion of involution and evolution as an aspect of the Lila plays a central role.
Curious to get your thoughts on how panpsychists argue for or against machine consciousness. My intuition tells me that the mechanistic nature of digital computers excludes panpsychists explanations of their sentience, but the argument is hard to nail down since panpsychism seems to be missing clear agreed upon axioms that would allow us to reason about it.
There is a straightforward rejection of micropanpsychism, which mirrors the arguments against materialism, but the cosmopanpsychist case is more difficult. There are no clear mechanisms for dissociation, so adherents seem to be free to assign sentience to any object they chose to. Then we’re back to unresolvable metaphysical arguments.
IT/AI experts are usually materialists and don't believe in panpsychism and, thereby, assume that it is only a matter of time and machine consciousness will be possible by mere computation. As a panpsychist I point out that this is the real reason why they have those issues in AI outlined in the essays here:
https://marcomasi.substack.com/p/no-consciousness-no-agi
https://marcomasi.substack.com/p/what-is-cognition-in-ai-and-humans
https://marcomasi.substack.com/p/the-mystery-of-consciousness-and
If a machine is supposed to become conscious it must be able to connect to something beyond mere materiality and functionality.
Thanks, I will check these out. I’ve come across strong AI adherents who claim that machines could be conscious because “everything is conscious”. Koch seemed to voice similar sentiments when I spoke with him, though I didn’t specifically press him on whether he considers himself a panpsychist.
Beautiful piece! Reminds me of the Vedic concept of Lila, the divine play of consciousness, playing hide and seek with itself, fragmenting into countless forms to experience itself, until it remembers that it has always been one.
That's right. In fact, I'm inspired by Sri Aurobindo's cosmology where the notion of involution and evolution as an aspect of the Lila plays a central role.
Marco, I hope you get yourself on some podcasts. There is so much nonsense out there, and you could provide a clarifying view.