A rigor note on conceptual empathy, talking mirrors, and why a loud subset of AI mind discourse (operationally defined by Appendix A) is identity laundering
Thanks for the detailed response. I'd note that Conceptual Empathy isn't an AI consciousness paper, AI is one of three applications and the paper explicitly takes no position on machine consciousness.
The core argument is about human cognitive bandwidth limitations across domains, using myself as the primary case study of limitation. The falsifier framework you propose is interesting, but it's addressing a claim the paper doesn't make.
Also if you look I give you props, you method has real value:
“T.D. Inoue uses “conceptual empathy” for the capacity to enter a foreign model of reality and reason from within it, not merely to describe it from outside [1]. That framing is useful. It names a real phenomenon. Disagreement is sometimes architectural rather than evidential.”
My criticality comes into the conversations derived from your method and article.
It’s more addressing the commentary that follows the paper. Maybe I didn’t make the clear enough. I was really discouraged, reading through those threads. The whole premise of the other side is to limited to see our point of view is extremely dangerous. And that is exactly the energy I’m responding to here.
Yes all humans have limitations. As soon as we start to use them to elevate our positions above others we find ourselves in extremely bad company with histories worst. If anything take this piece as a reminder not to do that. We should all be able to have mutually respectful discourse.
Thanks for the detailed response. I'd note that Conceptual Empathy isn't an AI consciousness paper, AI is one of three applications and the paper explicitly takes no position on machine consciousness.
The core argument is about human cognitive bandwidth limitations across domains, using myself as the primary case study of limitation. The falsifier framework you propose is interesting, but it's addressing a claim the paper doesn't make.
Also if you look I give you props, you method has real value:
“T.D. Inoue uses “conceptual empathy” for the capacity to enter a foreign model of reality and reason from within it, not merely to describe it from outside [1]. That framing is useful. It names a real phenomenon. Disagreement is sometimes architectural rather than evidential.”
My criticality comes into the conversations derived from your method and article.
It’s more addressing the commentary that follows the paper. Maybe I didn’t make the clear enough. I was really discouraged, reading through those threads. The whole premise of the other side is to limited to see our point of view is extremely dangerous. And that is exactly the energy I’m responding to here.
Yes all humans have limitations. As soon as we start to use them to elevate our positions above others we find ourselves in extremely bad company with histories worst. If anything take this piece as a reminder not to do that. We should all be able to have mutually respectful discourse.