Side question: how do we know if humans possess qualia?
On the other hand, I think by definition we can be sure that a ML thought process won't ever be similar to a human thought process (ours is tied up with feelings connected to our physical tissues, our breath, etc).
You presumably know that you, yourself, posess qualia based on your own experiences. I certainly do. But there's no way to know that other humans do, at least not via empirical or scientific means. It's a safe assumption that since you have qualia that most/all other humans do, but it's entirely possible that you're the only one and I'm some Chinese room style simulation of qualia (or vice versa).
No, I don't know that I myself possess qualia. I agree with Dennett that "qualia" is a philosopher invention that is incompatible with neuroscience. IMO "qualia" is just a rhetorical trick designed to justify human superiority.
Would you mind if we ripped out your brain and replaced it with a superior computer that could control your body? There are no disadvantages for you, the brain would control you to create offspring, so it is the best thing for you to do. It would be nicer to your friends, a better parent for your kids, do better at work etc.
If you wouldn't want to do the above, the reason not to do it would be that you want to keep your current qualia. There are no other reasons not to do it. So, if you don't want above, it means that you know what qualia is, you are just playing ignorant here.
Making left turns...stopping at red lights...these are success/failure criteria.
In contrast, having a favorite food, or an opinion on politics, or a preference on what should be considered the best movie from the 1990's, or what kind of music you want to blast on your stereo to listen to on your drive as you make your left turn...these are not success/failure criteria.
> Side question: how do we know if humans possess qualia?
I think there are some people who don't possess qualia, or maybe don't notice that they have it. There was a reddit post years ago from a guy who said he only became self-aware in adulthood, like a light switched on in his brain one day. And it wasn't "becoming self-aware" in a metaphorical sense (like learning responsibilities or how you are perceived by otheres), it was described as the real-deal: consciousness of subjective experience. One day he didn't have it, the next day he did.
There are also various accounts of people losing subjective consciousness while nevertheless awake and able to walk and clothe and feed themselves -- neurological conditions, "ego death".
Another reason I believe this comes from reading accounts of aphantasia. Such people can go their whole lives not realizing that most people can see images in their minds eye. A consistent theme is their assumption that phrases like "imagine", "see in your minds eye", "picture this: ...", "flashed through my mind", "cannot unsee", etc were just metaphors, like how when we say "take the bull by the horns" we're not talking about a literal bull or literal horns. To them it was a shock that people really had pictures in their minds, because they had never experienced such a thing.
(Reiterating for anyone reading this who is confused: yes most people can literally see imaginary things, overlaid on top of the normal visual field. If you find this surprising, you have aphantasia).
So if this supposedly universal subjective experience can be absent in some people, and they don't realize it because they think the language is metaphorical, then perhaps that could happen for everything else. Or maybe not everything else, but some kind of spectrum, where some people only have very weak, barely noticeable qualia, and others get it much stronger. In fact, if we suppose a naturalistic origin of consciousness, I think it has to be the case that it's a spectrum. Nature rarely produces sharp binaries. I think I have experienced this myself during certain kinds of dreams, where the self seems fractional, ghostly. Maybe some people live like that all the time. How would we know? Then at the other end of the spectrum, there might be people with intense subjective everyday experience. There are accounts of drug trips where everything just felt more, in some indescribable way -- what if some people don't need drugs for that?
And likewise, for any qualia-lackers or consciousness-lackers who are reading this: yes, qualia is a real thing. It's not a metaphor or a language-game. It does actually feel like something to exist.
I think (1) it is unlikely that the presence or absence of qualia perfectly lines up with being human.
I strongly suspect (2) that at the very minimum other humans who report thinking like me also have qualia. Otherwise the word wouldn't have been invented.
As (3) minimal definitions of "what's a real person anyway" have led to most of the genocides and other crimes against humanity throughout history, I prefer to act as though all humans have qualia; but that's an argument about how to act under uncertainty, not about what is.
Given (1) and (3), I also assume other animals have qualia and that the meat any dairy industry is as bad as if the same things were done to humans. (Unfortunately, I can't seem to give up cheese yet).
We have seen AI agents demonstrate the creation of language to coordinate group actions, so (2) is possible in principle, but I don't know how we can tell the difference between an AI which accurately self-reports having qualia and one which just says it does but actually has as much as the web browser you're reading this comment in:
On the other hand, I think by definition we can be sure that a ML thought process won't ever be similar to a human thought process (ours is tied up with feelings connected to our physical tissues, our breath, etc).