philosopher david pearce's argument for "phenomenal binding" is compelling, and is one of the things that keeps me wary of false positives around machine consciousness in this clip from his Worthy Successor episode, Pearce explains "phenomenal binding" - what convinces me: -- It seems plausible that the way a sentient entity (human, dolphin, bee?, etc) develops is fundamentally different from a machine. A living organism develops outward, unfolding its interconnected parts in a way that is coherent and interconnected throughout its unfolding. -- A machine is build from pieces attached to each other. Sentience in organisms (at least within myself, I can't speak for others) seems "bound" to this "whole" coherent form of our organism, rather than existing as flickering specks of sentience inside individual cells. -- the mystery of this "bounded" experience MAY be pretty inherent to how we (as organisms) develop, and so even if little pieces of a computer chip are "sentient", it may be in flickering little bits, not as a coherent and larger "field of awareness" in the morally relevant way that we experience. i'm NOT totally convinced that this means AI is not and likely cannot be conscious - and in fact I'm less convinced by it than pearce himself. But overall it lends credence to my wariness of ppl who express total confidence that AI is consciousness today LMK what you think (and I hope you'll enjoy the rest of this episode with David)

few thinkers have influenced my work (esp my early work, 10+ years ago) as @webmasterdave. when I had NO audience, pearce read my work, occasionally referenced it, and challenged my ideas. It was a kindness I'm grateful for see his full ep :) youtube.com/watch?v=b-iARM-h…