The thing that is inscrutable to me by virtue of not having been a Kalman filter myself is what I’m referring to as “point of view.”
I don’t really know that anything or anyone at all is conscious (except for me), but it sure seems like lots of other things are, based on the way they behave.
You still haven't said what a point of view is in this context, if you can have it, and some other unspecified beings have it but you can't say upfront if a kalman filter has it.
I’ve said multiple times what a point of view is, I think you’re just too caught up in argumentation to read the text in front of you.
You agree that you have experiences, correct? Your ability to experience experiences is what it means to have a POV. The name of that characteristic is “consciousness.”
It is probably the case that some objects experience experiences (like you presumably do and I definitely do), and other objects do not.
Prove it.
So you claim. I can prompt an LLM to do the same.
How do you figure? It’s not uncommon to fall asleep, wake up, and be convinced that you never fell asleep even when people next to you tell you that you were unresponsive, snoring, talking in your sleep, etc.
I would say yes and no. I think we all feel there's something different about wakeful consciousness vs sleeping consciousness, and also, it seems that we are indeed sometimes "out cold" and that something like an "activation loop" (new term to me) might be necessary to play a role in distinguishing these various states.
Why would you say that? Why can't you say "I don't fully agree".
2. We don’t actually know what the internal subjective state of apparently-unconscious people are e.g. in drug-induced states
Even if all of that were different, it still is not a disproof of panpsychism.