If our experience of qualia reflect some poorly understood phenomenon in physics, it could be part of a cluster of related phenomena, not all of which manifest in human cognition. We don’t have as precise an understanding of qualia as we do of electrons; we just try to gesture at it, and we mostly figure out what each other is talking about. If some related phenomenon manifests in computers when they run large language models, which has some things in common with what we know as qualia but also some stark differences from any such phenomen manifesting in human brains, the things we have said about what we mean when we say “qualia” might not be sufficient to determine whether said phenomenon counts as qualia or not.
If our experience of qualia reflect some poorly understood phenomenon in physics, it could be part of a cluster of related phenomena, not all of which manifest in human cognition.
Right.
We don’t have as precise an understanding of qualia as we do of electrons
It’s a big understatement; we are still at a “pre-Galilean stage” in that “field of science”. I do hope this will change sooner rather later, but the current state of our understanding of qualia is dismal.
the things we have said about what we mean when we say “qualia” might not be sufficient to determine whether said phenomenon counts as qualia or not.
Oh, yes, we are absolutely not ready to tackle this. This does not mean that the question is unimportant, but it does mean that to the extent the question is important, we are in a really bad situation.
My hope is that the need to figure out “AI subjectivity” would push us to try to move faster on understanding the nature of qualia, understanding the space of possible qualia, and all other related questions.
If our experience of qualia reflect some poorly understood phenomenon in physics, it could be part of a cluster of related phenomena, not all of which manifest in human cognition. We don’t have as precise an understanding of qualia as we do of electrons; we just try to gesture at it, and we mostly figure out what each other is talking about. If some related phenomenon manifests in computers when they run large language models, which has some things in common with what we know as qualia but also some stark differences from any such phenomen manifesting in human brains, the things we have said about what we mean when we say “qualia” might not be sufficient to determine whether said phenomenon counts as qualia or not.
Right.
It’s a big understatement; we are still at a “pre-Galilean stage” in that “field of science”. I do hope this will change sooner rather later, but the current state of our understanding of qualia is dismal.
Oh, yes, we are absolutely not ready to tackle this. This does not mean that the question is unimportant, but it does mean that to the extent the question is important, we are in a really bad situation.
My hope is that the need to figure out “AI subjectivity” would push us to try to move faster on understanding the nature of qualia, understanding the space of possible qualia, and all other related questions.