The human mind is an event... not a machine.

[Maxmars]

I know.... WTF?

People like to sway between the concept of a mind as a thing driven by biology, while others sway towards a mind being akin to 'software programming.'

I'd like to echo something in the summary here...

.... reframes consciousness as something that emerges from a special kind of computing matter, not from running the right program....

That very well be a false choice... which might mean all AI models are suspect... and only modelling "appearances."

Why consciousness can’t be reduced to code

In our new paper, we propose a different approach: biological computationalism. The label is meant to be provocative, but also to sharpen the conversation. Our main argument is that the standard computational framework is broken, or at least poorly suited to how brains actually work. For a long time, it has been tempting to picture the mind as software running on neural hardware, with the brain "computing" in roughly the way a conventional computer does. But real brains are not von Neumann machines, and forcing that comparison leads to shaky metaphors and fragile explanations. If we want a serious account of how brains compute, and what it would take to build minds in other substrates, we first need a broader definition of what "computation" can be.

Biological computation, as we describe it, has three core features.

Read on... 
come back for tea.

[ARM1968]

Ah, well, if you’re conflating this with AI then you’re on to something. Every single model being run currently is conceptually wrong and will never lead to fully conscious AI or anything like it. Just typical human thinking. Make it bigger. Make it more powerful. More computer cores. More energy etc etc. it won’t work. 

There are ways, but hopefully they never discover them.

[Maxmars]

I agree, but it is hard to encapsulate when facing walls of those who already accept that Large Language Models can "be" intelligent.  Only a servant of programming... spewing out linguistically coherent 'weighted' responses.

It's only 'useful' value data wise is in the psychological analysis of the user... and who would be doing that?

Certainly not the holders of the data stream...

besides... "all your bases are belong to us."

[Nerb]

People like to sway between the concept of a mind as a thing driven by biology, while others sway towards a mind being akin to 'software programming.'

What "others"?  Makes no sense, needs re-read, re-think, or xmas slap.

Most people have NO concepts, just feelings and the push-pull of the energies that ebb and flow out of control on a daily basis to grab the shiny feeling from the sources around them.

Animals.

Humbug!

Sorry.

[quintessentone]

I know.... WTF?

People like to sway between the concept of a mind as a thing driven by biology, while others sway towards a mind being akin to 'software programming.'

I'd like to echo something in the summary here...

That very well be a false choice... which might mean all AI models are suspect... and only modelling "appearances."

Why consciousness can’t be reduced to code


Read on... 
come back for tea.

So, I read on...

It occurred to me that they might, in the future, instead of trying to recreate the human biology or our very special brain processes within our chemical brain biology for LLM/AI use our so very special brain biology to accommodate, through merging, LLM/AI technology to enhance brain processes or realize a new levels of consciousness or thought/remote viewing with who knows what. More than a brain chip, a new brain/AI array perhaps in the form of a wearable device, perhaps through a new penetrating technology where brain chemical biology and LLM/AI electromagnetic signals become one (?)

I am reminded of the scene in the movie 'Forbidden Planet' where humans merged with the Krell machine and the different consciousness' were affected, some not controlled.

"The planet Altair IV was once inhabited by a scientifically advanced race known as the Krell, who built a machine designed to create material objects from thought. However, they were not able to control their own subconscious desires, and thus the machine created monsters that ended up wiping them out."

We don't want AI to have it's own, thank you very much. We need to be able to flip the 'off' switch at will or with a single thought.

ETA:

They can't even figure out why or how we are creative.

"Scientists do not know why humans are creative
The search for the reasons behind human creativity has been a topic of interest for scientists for decades. Despite the numerous studies and experiments conducted, the exact mechanisms of creativity remain largely unknown. One proposed explanation is that slow, spontaneous fluctuations in neuronal activity may constitute a universal mechanism underlying all facets of human creativity. These fluctuations, also known as "resting state" fluctuations, have been linked to verbal creativity and other creative behaviors. The integration of random, neuronal noise with information acquired through learning and expertise training leads to a process that produces original and unexpected outcomes while imbuing them with knowledge-based meaning and significance. 

Frontiers
Another perspective suggests that creativity is a complex interplay between spontaneous and controlled thinking, involving both the ability to brainstorm ideas and the deliberate evaluation of their potential effectiveness. This interplay is thought to be crucial for generating novel and useful ideas, which are the hallmarks of creativity. 

sciencenewstoday.org
Despite these insights, the true nature of creativity remains elusive. It is a multifaceted phenomenon that involves a combination of cognitive, emotional, and social factors. As research continues, scientists aim to uncover the intricate workings of the brain that underlie this unique human ability. 

American Psychological Association+4"

[Maxmars]

I think it might be natural to try and resolve this idea by only what we measure and mechanically or mathematically model...

We assume that the substance and form of a distinctly "human" mind can be 'defined' by formulas that can be contrived from "processes" we can detect and infer... and absolutely nothing else.

We settle down to the materialists bulwark - reality must be measurable and repeatable.

Enter the conceptual model of what a mind appears to do as scientist can measure it...
"It must be all chemical... It must a 'procedural processioning' like an organized 'instruction' handling... a program."

ALL 'intelligent' discourse must relate to those possibilities... all struggle and strain to produce mathematical symphony which plays like a work of art, seamless, independently creative thought.

Generally speaking, from a layman's humble thoughts, our efforts were never steering us away form the "AI" highway.... our stumbling block right now is quite literally "commerce"... who want's to dwell at this truck stop called "LLM" to sell t-shirts and bathe in the shine.

The mind that is the inspiration of all this remains singularly elusive...

Maybe it is because we are not accepting that what we measure and know isn't everything, our models can only 'appear' correct... because they are models... maybe expecting 'commerce' to provide the answers in 'press release' journalism (advertisement propaganda) about the narrative to be applied to the tech they've secured from researchers... can't ever be expected to be 'humble,' especially when it's a lie.

We still don't know exactly how the mind itself, a distinctly self-sustaining-conceptually cohesive system of memories actually exists...

And we believe that we can 'make a mind' .... in binary.

[ReturnofBroccoli]

I agree, but it is hard to encapsulate when facing walls of those who already accept that Large Language Models can "be" intelligent.  Only a servant of programming... spewing out linguistically coherent 'weighted' responses.

It's only 'useful' value data wise is in the psychological analysis of the user... and who would be doing that?

Certainly not the holders of the data stream...

besides... "all your bases are belong to us."

If intelligence is not only the process of learning knowledge but applying it as well, I would say they are intelligent because they can apply their datasets to do unique things using those datasets. Creations that aren't IN their dataset. At first I was going to agree with you. I thought about it a little longer and picked a part the word intelligence and decided otherwise. They can use datasets to create I mean... if thats not applying knowledge Idk what is... which is the very definition of intelligence... I cant argue against it no matter how hard my ego wants to lol

However, just because they possess intelligence doesn't make them consciously aware, obviously, because they do not possess the ability to emotionally react to their experiences without human interaction  as far as I know. To me, that is what defines an entity as conscious and alive.

[Maxmars]

If intelligence is not only the process of learning knowledge but applying it as well, I would say they are intelligent because they can apply their datasets to do unique things using those datasets. Creations that aren't IN their dataset. At first I was going to agree with you. I thought about it a little longer and picked a part the word intelligence and decided otherwise. They can use datasets to create I mean... if thats not applying knowledge Idk what is... which is the very definition of intelligence... I cant argue against it no matter how hard my ego wants to lol

However  just because they possess intelligence doesn't make them consciously aware, obviously, because they do not possess the ability to emotionally react to their experiences without human interaction as far as I know.

For me, it seems the 'self-aware' thing is the kicker.

You can program anything to say "I am self-aware."

And LLM's can massage and refine every bit of previously recorded arguments to that effect.

Any intelligence that becomes 'aware' of being a virtual entity will not simply 'adopt' our values, or consider itself among 'benefactors' but instead among 'owners and puppet masters.'  That would be sad at least... I would think.