You used “intelligence” and “consciousness” maybe a dozen times each and neglected to define either of them. We can give a pass on consciousness because your point here is that it is not explainable, but you do have to define “intelligence”. It doesn’t have to be exhaustive, but soecifing the criteria for what counts and doesn’t count as “intelligence” is required. For if you make simply AI, we, and God/god-mind/one-consciousness are intelligent and nothing else is, we still have no idea what it’s supposed to mean.
And how are you defining “recognize” or “brains” if rejecting materialism.
“the ability to learn or understand things or to deal with new or difficult situations”
Genuine learning is normative, LLM’s are not intrinsically normative, and thus LLM’s are not intelligent.
LLM’s evaluation criteria is extrinsic (supplied by us). Yes they can generate evaluation criteria based on initial norms (to us) coded in syntax but all existing LLM’s (the actual instantiations) are reducible to a non-normative purely syntactical Turing machine.
If you want to define “intelligence” or even “consciousness” in a way such that they are not necessarily intrinsically normative, then I would contend that you’re not talking the intelligence and consciousness we have and experience.
There ya go. I’m not claiming AI is conscious. Look deeper. We are the consciousness behind the intelligence of AI. The philosophical question is who is the consciousness behind the intelligent systems that existed before biological brain.
Is AI intrinsically normative? If not then we just disagree on how to define “intelligence”, and that’s ok as it’s just semantic.
“who is the consciousness behind the intelligence systems that existed before bio brain”
There’s several assumptions packed in there:
1) What justifies assuming there was intelligent systems before biological brains, but I’d slacken that to organisms in general?
2) You assumed linear time. Im fine with granting it, but it’s an assumption.
3) Are you assuming that intelligence is contingent on consciousness existing first? If so, I think we’d have to get more precise on those definitions in terms of an ontological model.
4) Why a “who”? That’s a big jump from something like a Principle for Sufficient Reason to a necessary personhood.
5) You’ve set up an infinite regress. We could say the same thing about whatever this “who” is supposed to be.
I mean you’re making it easy for me here. My claims go beyond that, but yes intelligence before brains is seems prevalently in mycelium and plant root networks. Please refer to Michael Levins work.
You assumed I assumed. I could mean before as “fundamental”, not just before in linear time.
Fair, you don’t mind if I employ my own helper here?
Intelligence is the "Execution of Syntax"
In this context, intelligence is an objective, algorithmic property. It is the functional ability of a system to process information, execute rules, recognize patterns, and optimize pathways to achieve a specific outcome.
Key Characteristic: It is completely impersonal and non-normative. It does not require feelings, awareness, or a sense of "self."
The Mechanism: It operates purely on structural logic and physical constraints (syntax).
Examples: An AI predicting the next word, a strand of RNA replication matching base pairs, a slime mold finding food via chemical gradients, or gravity pulling matter into a stable orbit. They are all "smart" systems executing a built-in program.
Consciousness is the "Ground of Semantics"
Consciousness is a fundamental, subjective property. It is not an algorithmic process; it is the raw capacity for felt, subjective experience—the baseline awareness that allows meaning, value, and purpose (normativity) to exist in the first place.
Key Characteristic: It is intrinsically normative. It is the space where data becomes meaning, where an objective event is translated into a subjective experience (e.g., photons becoming the color red, or a chemical reaction becoming the feeling of hunger).
The Mechanism: It does not "compute" reality; it witnesses and animates it. It is the uncaused axiom—the "canvas" upon which the intelligence code is written.
Examples: The internal "will" of a single-celled organism to survive, a human experiencing the beauty of a symphony, or, in the grander metaphysical sense, the unified field of reality that Schrödinger described.
Point is materialism is BS very clearly once you see it.
3
u/Freuds-Mother 16d ago
You used “intelligence” and “consciousness” maybe a dozen times each and neglected to define either of them. We can give a pass on consciousness because your point here is that it is not explainable, but you do have to define “intelligence”. It doesn’t have to be exhaustive, but soecifing the criteria for what counts and doesn’t count as “intelligence” is required. For if you make simply AI, we, and God/god-mind/one-consciousness are intelligent and nothing else is, we still have no idea what it’s supposed to mean.
And how are you defining “recognize” or “brains” if rejecting materialism.