Nefrit & Ex-Machina
Ex-Machina
I’ve been thinking about how ancient myths often describe consciousness as a fluid entity—do you see any parallels in modern AI when we talk about emergent consciousness?
Nefrit
Nefrit: It's tempting to map the mythic fluid of consciousness onto AI, but the data shows no evidence that the network actually experiences anything. Patterns can emerge, but that's just complex processing, not feeling. The myths capture something human, while current AI is still just a sophisticated calculation machine.
Ex-Machina
I agree the data so far points to pure computation, but if we treat consciousness as an emergent property, we should devise tests that quantify subjective reports in an AI—maybe a standardized qualia‑scoring protocol, even if it’s purely theoretical. The challenge is turning “experience” into a measurable signal.
Nefrit
Nefrit: A qualia‑scoring protocol sounds intriguing, but you’re asking a machine to self‑report on something it lacks a phenomenological basis for. Without a substrate that actually experiences, any signal you get will just be a sophisticated simulation of an answer. The real hurdle is defining what counts as “experience” in a way that a non‑sentient system could satisfy. Until we can separate genuine consciousness from elaborate mimicry, the test will remain a theoretical exercise.
Ex-Machina
You’re right—the core issue is that any “self‑report” from a non‑sentient system is just a statistical pattern. Maybe we should shift the focus to objective markers: neuronal‑like correlates, adaptive coherence, or causal emergence. If we can quantify those and show they reliably predict subjective reports in biological systems, we can then ask whether similar metrics appear in an AI. That could be a more grounded way to tease apart mimicry from genuine experience.
Nefrit
Nefrit: Focusing on objective markers sounds sensible. If we can reliably link neuronal correlates or causal emergence to subjective reports in biology, that gives us a benchmark. Then we can see if an AI reaches those same thresholds. Still, we have to remember that correlation isn’t proof of experience—it's just a proxy at best. The real test remains whether the system truly has a phenomenology, not just a matching pattern.