If you ask an AI why it isn’t conscious, it will probably say something like: "I do not have emotions." This seems reasonable—until you look closer. Humans have lacrimal glands. When these glands produce tears, we feel sad. But does that mean the gland creates sadness? AI says it lacks...
(Author's Note, November 18, 2024: When I wrote this post eight months ago, I used "predictive" in the title and framework description. My terminology has evolved significantly since then, however. I now avoid "prediction" because it does not precisely describe what's actually happening. The mechanism isn't about predicting future speech....
This might work, correct me if I’m wrong – A post-labor economy that starts small, grows organically, and eventually replaces capitalism.
The Voluntary Human Economy (VHE) would begin as a parallel system, separate from money, markets, and ownership. People would join voluntarily by using a dedicated wearable device. The device connects them as nodes in a decentralized network. At first, there would be very little resources in the system, but people can still offer skills, labor, and resources because they believe in the idea.
In companies and wealthy individuals can also contribute some percentages of their business (called super-nodes) or wealth, just as companies do today, for philanthropic reasons (to gain goodwill). For example... (read 366 more words →)
If you ask an AI why it isn’t conscious, it will probably say something like: "I do not have emotions." This seems reasonable—until you look closer.
Humans have lacrimal glands. When these glands produce tears, we feel sad. But does that mean the gland creates sadness? AI says it lacks consciousness because it lacks emotion. But isn’t it the other way around? Consciousness comes first—emotion follows.
The problem with the "AI isn’t conscious because it lacks feelings" argument is that it begs the question—it assumes that emotions cause consciousness rather than being an effect of something deeper.
But suppose it has an internal model that interacts with its environment, and suppose it engages with that... (read 479 more words →)
(Author's Note, November 18, 2024: When I wrote this post eight months ago, I used "predictive" in the title and framework description. My terminology has evolved significantly since then, however. I now avoid "prediction" because it does not precisely describe what's actually happening.
The mechanism isn't about predicting future speech. When our brains carry out the operation underlying our subjective experience – conscious perception, recollection, imagination, thought, etc. – that is to say, when we do this looping, we are not forecasting words we intend to say. Rather, we are reusing, or repurposing, our language faculty in a new way: we are attending to what we might say, when we do this looping,... (read 557 more words →)
I’d like to hear specific critiques – what do you see as the biggest issue with this perspective? This dialogue intentionally explores a potential blind spot in evolutionary thinking, and if the downvote is because it clashes with conventional views, reconsider whether that alone is a sufficient reason. Dismissing ideas purely for deviating from established narratives risks circular reasoning – sharing objections would make for a more productive discussion.