david-p-reichert.bsky.social
David P. Reichert
@david-p-reichert.bsky.social
36 followers 170 following 2 posts
AI researcher at Google DeepMind -- views on here are my own. Interested in cognition & AI, consciousness, ethics, figuring out the future.
Posts Media Videos Starter Packs
Pinned
david-p-reichert.bsky.social
David P. Reichert @david-p-reichert.bsky.social · 9d
Can only biological organisms ever be conscious?

Yes, argues @anilseth.bsky.social in a recent paper on biological naturalism.

I'm less convinced, and have written an in-depth response in a blog post here:

davidpreichert.substack.com/p/is-biology-necessary-for-consciousness
Is biology necessary for consciousness? A response to Seth's paper on biological naturalism
In this post, I explain why I think that Anil Seth’s recent paper does not make a convincing argument that phenomenal consciousness is inherently biological and that therefore artificial intelligence ...
davidpreichert.substack.com
4 3 19
david-p-reichert.bsky.social
David P. Reichert @david-p-reichert.bsky.social · 9d
TLDR: Seth makes many valid points, but the case for biological naturalism isn't clear-cut IMO. In either case, I don't think his conclusion quite follows from the premises.
 
Ultimately, uncertainty still wins out for me.
1
david-p-reichert.bsky.social
David P. Reichert @david-p-reichert.bsky.social · 9d
Can only biological organisms ever be conscious?

Yes, argues @anilseth.bsky.social in a recent paper on biological naturalism.

I'm less convinced, and have written an in-depth response in a blog post here:

davidpreichert.substack.com/p/is-biology-necessary-for-consciousness
Is biology necessary for consciousness? A response to Seth's paper on biological naturalism
In this post, I explain why I think that Anil Seth’s recent paper does not make a convincing argument that phenomenal consciousness is inherently biological and that therefore artificial intelligence ...
davidpreichert.substack.com
4 3 19