|
|
|
|
|
|
by panda-giddiness
1107 days ago
|
|
|
> I agree that there is a significant sliver of a philosophical problem which remains stubborn (how precisely does physical activity produce qualia) But that "sliver" of a problem is known as the hard problem of consciousness for a reason [1], which is exactly the sort of problem neuroscience can only address in a limited capacity. Understanding how nerves propagate a signal to produce a sensory input (an "easy" problem of consciousness) doesn't inform us as to why certain physical mechanisms result in conscious experience (or more fundamentally what it even means to have a conscious experience). To return to the topic at hand, a stochastic parrot generates grammatical, sensible language without understanding its underlying meaning. Of course, you can debate what it means to understand something; but for a person to vocalize an idea they understand, they must first somehow consciously process that idea. This is firmly a hard problem to which neuroscience offers limited guidance. Of course, I'd agree that human beings aren't stochastic parrots -- if human beings were stochastic parrots, then what would it even mean to understand something? But I doubt you could use neuroscience to ascertain whether large language models are or aren't stochastic parrots. Indeed, depending on your definition of "understanding", consciousness might not even be a prerequisite, making the comparison to neuroscience moot. --- [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness |
|
|