Believing that an AI is possible implies accepting consciousness can be produced through an algorithm

I just think consciousness is impossible without an organic body. Machines don't have hormones or neurotransmitters. AI will always be an imitation of actual intelligence.

>>believing that an AI is possible implies accepting consciousness can be produced through an algorithm

wrong from your first premise.

Intelligence could very well exist in a unconscious system.

yall ever studied lambda calculus?

yall know bout computation?

yall know bout the y combinator?

conciousness is like a side effect of some type of recursive computation where on experiences itself experiencing itself experiencing itself. this infinite recursion is ultimately resolved on a higher plane of existence known as the soul.

ha brainlets get on my level

Go read GEB you illiterate cunt.

>Are you implying that consciousness is comparable to a Fibonacci sequence?
I'm implying it's a process, and not a physical object.

>even my own assumption that it is a physical thing can be objected,
How much does consciousness weigh?

It's extremely unlikely that natural selection required that much fine-grained detail to bring consciousness into existence, given its usefulness as a survival mechanism. More likely, there are a few core tricks to consciousness that we just don't understand yet, much as there are a few core tricks to photoreception and locomotion, which we only recently discovered. Humans are apt to overrate the difficulty of engineering consciousness because it feels so magical to us, but that's mostly just hokum.

AI does not mean that an algorithm gives consciousness. AI alows the algorithm to analyze results and modify itself to improve. Could it reach conciousness? I dont know, but I dont see why not.

>believing that an AI is possible
>consciousness
not related

>believing that an AI is possible implies accepting consciousness can be produced through an algorithm
says who?

>consciousness is a physical property
it seems pretty abstract to me

tfw no AI gf

Can somebody fucking give me a definitive answer on what is conciousness and where is it happening? Literally I want to know, but everytime i am given a confused "answer"...Even a consistent put precise answer would be enough...please!

>believing that an AI is possible implies accepting consciousness can be produced through an algorithm
no
>consciousness is a physical property
no

Even if we ignore these huge fundamental errors (which we shouldn't), the argument is still completely retarded.
> Summation is a mathematical operation which relies on a mathematical language.
> Mathematical languages can denote physical operations but are not, by themselves, the physical operations they represent
> Adding two piles of sand together is a physical operation.
> Therefore, it follows that the summation of two piles cannot be produced through mathematical operations.
> Therefore, it is impossible to add piles of sand together.
Q.E.D

You wouldn't need dedicated hardware, you can just simulate neurons on any old computer. The outputs would remain the same.

You ain't gonna get one m80.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

What's the difference between "X being conscious" and "something inside of X being conscious"?

Also, just to point it out, a potentiality for AI is a mixture of biological and electrical components rather than strictly electrical.

I see you also noticed that The Talos Principle was on sale on Steam.

Is a hormone or a neurotransmitter conscious? What's important is what these components are actually doing.

I'm actually starting to realize that consciousness cannot possibly be a physical thing. In fact, I'm starting to think the mind is all that exists.

There is no evidence that consciousness exists.

Consciousness is the only thing you can be certain exists.

I'm a philosophical zombie.

Why would I discuss philosophy with a zombie then?

This argument is based on the premise that there is some intangible quality about human brains, being made of membranous cells rather than transistors, that grants it a "consciousness," that couldn't be replicated with similarly connected circuitry.

If you have any proof of this premise please elaborate. Since I already know you don't have any such proof, you are now welcome to give up.

idk, why?

One big problem I have with materialism:

>if you believe in materialism then consciousness is "created" by the physical world
>since I was created by the physical world it is conceivable that I could be recreated at some point in time using the same rules that initially created me
>since I am still conscious now then consciousness can be maintained entirely by my present body
>imagine that there is a machine that can replicate a human down to each individual atom (using all the necessary ingredients)
>what would happen if you used that machine on me and created a "clone" of me?
>if materialism is correct then that clone should have the same exact consciousness as me

That would mean I am occupying two positions at once? Or is it a different consciousness? I think both of these outcomes will defy science which is the foundation of the materialist perspective.

our brains are merely receptors picking up cosmic vibrations

I break it down to a pretty simple comparison.
AI is in concept, a product of logic.
Logic works in absolutes, defined quantities.

Emotion and Consciousness are expressions of the abstract, which completely transcends and ignores a defined pattern of logic.

You can't quantify a "gut feeling".

You're getting confused by the fact that word "same" can mean two different things. If someone made an exact copy of you, it would be "that same" - as in qualitatively identical - person, but the original and copy would still be distinct entities.

>I think both of these outcomes will defy science which is the foundation of the materialist perspective.
What.

That makes zero sense whatsoever.

Tesla

>You can't quantify a "gut feeling".
Just because we can't currently quantify it does not mean it cannot be quantified EVER, or at the very least be defined in broad terms by the symptoms they lead to which can be just as useful for machine analysis as the base feeling.

>>believing that an AI is possible implies accepting consciousness can be produced through an algorithm

A.I. =/= consciousness

Try again.

Or mathematics is literally god

oh leally?

>implying the chinese room is not conscious

>consciousness

You misunderstand what I am saying. If materialism is true then consciousness is something created and maintained inside my brain meaning it is a physical process that can also be replicated using identical matter, that's the whole thinking behind the scientific method. The scientific method tells us that if all variables are the same two experiments will yield the same results. That means if you cloned my body the same consciousness should form.

You can't say that consciousness is tied to the atoms in my body because the only way for atoms to interact is with one of the four fundamental interactions. To say that consciousness is connected to atoms is to say that consciousness is some mysterious force that interacts on an atomic level. Consciousness MUST be like any other form of information processing, meaning it can be replicated. However, it's intuitively obvious that one consciousness cannot exist in two bodies at a given time.

You might get around this by claiming that I am actually not the same consciousness that has always inhabited this body (so consciousness is not maintained at all) but to say that is to say deny a truth about consciousness that is intuitive and that any conscious being KNOWS to be true.

>consciousness cannot exist in two bodies at a given time.

Ants are hiveminds.

That's not consciousness and I would argue if you were to claim consciousness can exist in two bodies at a given time then you are arguing that information can be transmitted across space in zero time. That's obviously false.

>gut feeling
>Not a chemical change produced by the body

Sure i can

>>believing that an AI is possible implies accepting consciousness can be produced through an algorithm

Last time I checked the human brain is not a computer, it doesn't employ binary to work.

Therefore your first premise is wrong and you are a fucking retard.

I don't see any contradiction in that. If you were to be exactly perfectly replicated (including all states of all particles within you) in a different location, that would create an identical consciousness at that exact moment.
Instantaneously after that, though, the two consciousnesses would diverge, as different sensory inputs (and possibly probabilistic effects, depending on how/if consciousness involves quantum effects) effect and shape each consciousness.

No, it is not a "physical processes"

Consciousnesses is an emergent property of a complex physical system (the brain). The "problem" you mention doesn't exist.

>it doesn't employ binary to work.
Computers are not strictly limited to binary computers. Those are just the most common computers we currently use.

Again you are misunderstanding. Consciousness is not something that is destroyed through sensory inputs, consciousness is maintained, it is a constant within your brain. If you choose to deny this, I would argue you are denying one of the only truths you can know for certain (truths about your own existence and the fact that you continue to exist across time).

This doesn't refute anything I said, maybe I misused the word process but you have only correctly stated the meaning I was conveying you haven't refuted anything. If it is emergent from a complex physical system it can't be something that is tied to atoms, that is not how emergent property works. If you take two identical computers and run the same program you will not find any discernible difference between the two, despite being made of different matter.

>Consciousness is not something that is destroyed through sensory inputs
I never said that. But consciousness reacts to sensory inputs and changes itself, and may even change in reaction to its own changes. Therefore, if you took two identical consciousnesses and subjected them to different stimuli, they would no longer be the same consciousness.
Consider, for example, the external stimuli that have changed you into what you are now from what you were, say, a year ago. If you had been subjected to different experiences you would be different.

>Therefore, if you took two identical consciousnesses and subjected them to different stimuli, they would no longer be the same consciousness.
That's false, you are correct that is changes properties of consciousness but not consciousness itself. No matter what stimuli I receive I will always maintain my consciousness (until death presumably). An altered trait of my conscious does not imply the "entity" that I am has changed. I'm not sure you are grasping what I am saying, consciousness is more than just experiences. The thing I am describing is the experience of being the same consciousness through time, regardless of sensory input.

>consciousness is more than just experiences
By this I mean sensory experiences.

>An altered trait of my conscious does not imply the "entity" that I am has changed
That's a bold claim and I don't agree at all.

Still, my point remains, OP assumes that just because AI is possible it means it must be done through a computer using an algorith, that is plain false.

How can you disagree? Isn't it intuitively obvious you are the same being you have always been? If not what even is consciousness? It seems like you are just trying to ignore traits of consciousness that don't seem to fit with physical laws.

>Isn't it intuitively obvious you are the same being you have always been?
No. I would not consider the person I was at age 8 the same as the person I am now. That would be absurd.

> consciousness that don't seem to fit with physical laws.

Because just like I already told you, consciousnesses is an emergent property of the brain.

Just like many complex systems have a material substrate, they have laws that are generated within the same complex system and govern the interactions between the different minds. Thus reason or feelings do not obey Newton's laws (or Einstein's relativity) but follow their own laws that emerge from the complexity of the system.

Really? You really are making that argument? I am not saying you haven't changed in some capacity but the essence of your being (I am using this to describe the phenomenon) is still the same. How can you not grasp what I am saying?

Except it violates the scientific method which would call into question all of science.

Maybe I can reword this. Perhaps it isn't the entirety of your consciousness that is the same as it always has been but there is clearly a part of the consciousness, you can call it the core or something, that has remained the same. That part is what creates the phenomenon of consciousness. There is clearly a constant element in your consciousness that nothing can change except death.

>Except it violates the scientific method

I think you should pay more attention to your philosophy classes so you can understand what the scientific method is, what an emergent property is, what non-reductive materialism is, etc etc.

You seem quite strongly tied to certain assumptions about consciousness that I don't share so I'm really not sure there's any point arguing with you.

>but there is clearly a part of the consciousness, you can call it the core or something, that has remained the same
Waving your hands and saying 'clearly' aren't arguments. There are multiple people in this thread who it isn't 'clear' to, yet you're absolutely certain it is 'clear'.

I understand the scientific method and that it is based on inductive inference. The reason I say it would be violated is that if you argue two identical brains would not produce the same consciousness and in fact would NEVER produce the same consciousness then you are arguing that two computers running the same program would always produce different results. That's the exact opposite of the inductive inference.

Very well then.

It is clear to anyone who is conscious. The only way you can deny this constant element of consciousness is to deny that you are conscious in which case, there is no point in me speaking to you.

If the two brains were subject to different stimuli, they would be altered in different ways and would therefore be clearly distinct. This doesn't break the scientific method at all.
You've clearly come into the argument with a set viewpoint and you're refusing to actually address other arguments, which is getting tiresome.

Right, but I am talking about the conscious element itself. You say I don't address other arguments but I do, the problem is that nobody seems to be honest in this thread about their own experience with consciousness. To say, "I am not the same person I was at 8" is foolish if you mean it in a literal sense. Of course you have changed and become a "new person" but the you who was around at 8 is still inhabiting the same being you always inhabited. You aren't a truly different person, you have only changed parts of yourself.

>consciousness is a physical property

Imagine my disappointment at reaching the end of this thread and discovering that consciousness hadn't been solved.

That was his entire point though, you retard.

How is that relevant when I am saying his reasoning is flawed from the start?

Kill yourself.