So do you AI deniers think that consciousness is like some divine mystical force that comes from some divine mystical...

If you took a snippet of computer code that was able to replicate itself like a virus and was able to modify and upgrade it's hardware by trial and error and you left it running for a few billion years in a hostile environment would it eventually become conscious?
I think it's inevitable

There's another thread with a post which describes something about this, not so simplistic:

If I got a simple program running that looks like
>conscious = true
>name = "AIBot the world's first conscious ai"
>pain = 0
>while(true){
>pain=pain+1;
>}
am I a monster or is amystical AI bunk?

epic

No I just don't think it comes from linear algebra

>PENROSE
This

Consciousness is a fundamental aspect of the universe, like energy and matter. It isn't created by the brain any more than water is created by your faucet

What if I neither believe the immaterial consciousness bullshit neither the AI singularity bullshit?

The effective thing about neurons is that thry can be created and are destroyed "automatically". Try that on capacitors and pnp gates.

Then what the fuck do you believe?

It's either absolute free will, or some sort of determinism

No its just a property of information. It seems likely it arrises when a subjective reality or model of reality is created. Self awareness is when this model is complex enough that it has intelligence too, intelligence which sees its own conscious processes and is 'alive' or 'self-aware' or 'conscious'

No. But the complexity level of real neurons is way off the radar from the little toys google is playing with.
All they have achieved is an advanced cat picture detector. It's actually been demonstrated that you can fool these networks with pictures that look pretty much like noise, and it will detect a cat.
For some reason people think it's skynet tier shit.

compatibilism is a thing, you know. free will does not require that determinism not exist.
that's a nice theory you got there, but can you actually prove it?

Thanks to Kurzweil

consciousness can be physical and ai can still have trouble replicating it.

but that definition of free will is irrelevant to this conversation... filthy casual

>but that definition of free will is irrelevant to this conversation
what definition are you talking about, then? when you say free will, what is the will supposed to be free from?

It will never be easy for a computer to not be autistic. Imagine trying to program a computer to read a book as slow as a human. That may not be desirable but if you want a computer to behave any way like a human, it would need to have some of the same limitations. Much of humans' emotions and beliefs stem from ignorance.

It would be easier hypothetically to build a robot that can read much faster, of course, but that wouldn't be humanlike at all. Humans get confused very easily. They read a book and not only do they not know the end but the forget they're even reading a book essentially. They're using their imagination and stimulating the same parts of their brain that would be stimulated if the book were real. But we also don't tend to confuse books with reality completely. However children do have some difficulty discerning reality.

AI is as easy or as difficult as you'd like to make it. Supposedly Einstein said genius has no personality. If you could make a computer with genius ability it would have no personality.

I don't really think consciousness is some mystical shit. It seems we're just a movie-goer in a way. So if I'm freaking out because I'm confused, yeah you could program that. To me the only real hard problem with consciousness is the bodies ability to seem to recognize that it is conscious and argue that it is, even though it doesn't really have proof.

Idk maybe you can make AI and just never prove it. Who's to say our current computers aren't alive? They're certainly existing and performing what they're intended to do. They may be different than us but they still exist and are made of similar components

>To me the only real hard problem with consciousness is the bodies ability to seem to recognize that it is conscious and argue that it is, even though it doesn't really have proof.
That the "body" is able to perceive anything at all is proof that it is conscious, since there is no way for something that it not conscious to perceive things.

deterministic causes. and yours?

arguably any machine with a sensor can perceive something?

>So do you AI deniers think that consciousness is like some divine mystical force that comes from some divine mystical spiritual realm?
Well, yes. Spirits exist in a connected dimension or universe parallel to the visible universe. Our human bodies are like ''sensors'' for our spirits.
pic related

>Then what the fuck do you believe?
I don't believe in anything.
If your world view is based on a system of "beliefs", then this is not the board for you.

Free from the intentionality of other beings. That is to say, as long as it's you who makes your decisions, as long as you're not being mind-controlled by someone else to make certain decisions, then you have free will.
>deterministic causes
How would we have to determine our choices in order for us to have free will?
I would say that the machine is not perceiving, but rather detecting, something, though this is really a semantic issue. When I say "perception", I'm talking about perception as an experience. A phone might "perceive" things though its camera, but it would not have any experience of perceiving things.

Ah, a true mystic.

No I think it stems from the soul.
The information processing of the brain is too limited. The mind is whole and the brain is formed of connections in a chain reaction sequence. How can information be integrated instantaneously if it has to travel in the brain? My subjective experience defies traditional pseudo-science speculation.

what the heck is going on in that pic

Without a faucet, water still exists. Without a brain, consciousness does not.

I asked this in the last thread but it is kill.
>what do you think is physically going on in the brain when we think of the concept of "consciousness", and verify that we are, in fact, conscious?
Obviously there is a physical process going on, and it should be possible to replicate that in a computer. But what, and what makes it special?
Some people like to say "infinite recursion" but I'm not sure if that cuts it.

Information isn't integrated instantaneously. Neuroscience has found how reactions and decisions occur subconsciously first, before being expressed in the conscious mind.

If you think you do integrate information instantly, then we should do some boxing sparring together. You won't know your arse from next Tuesday in about three seconds flat.

And what does "the mind is whole" mean? Our minds are like tangled spaghetti with ends tucked into dark corners balancing on shifting invisible quicksand with continual unceasing activity bubbling up, churning, spewing out a volcanic lava of barely-formed emotional reactivity into the smoke and mirrors illusion of rational thought which we fondly and desperately hold onto as proof of our own sanity. Your mind is very far from 'whole', and if you aren't at least beginning to suspect that at some subconscious or intuitive level, then you have a very difficult time ahead.

Holy fuck that was/is beautiful

>teenage dude weed-tier nihilism is beautiful

Poppycock, that shit was an awesomely creative illustration.

My experience itself is from the perspective of instantaneous spontaneous awareness.
They can't predict what people will do with certainty, that would disprove free will. There are likely other explanations.

Maybe if you're a brainlet and/or young. It is almost exactly like things I said when I was a stoned teenager.

How would we know the AI is really experiencing something or not? When see red we aren't just sensing it, we are experiencing it qualitatively. We can't ask a computer if it really 'sees' anything but how are we certain that it doesn't? If our brain's physical structure is not sufficient to explain how actual consciousness arises, we can only state what we know which is that this configuration of particles does produce consciousness. So we can't know that a computer doesn't actually experience something on a metaphysical level.

Why can't we ask the computer to assure us? Well, how is it possible that the body can assure us? Does it have a way of recognizing the consciousness? If it does that means we are more than just movie-goers. It means our consciousness has an effect on our bodies.

But what if this is just an illusion? What if our bodies are only capable of insisting on it out of programming. If you talk to a blackout drunk, they'll surely appear intoxicated, but they may be able to convince you that there's 'somebody home' when there isn't.

If our bodies can be sure we are conscious whether or not we are, it could hypothetically be possible for a computer to do the same. Because there is no way to truly separate a qualia from it's inspiration, there's no way to tell if a computer is really answering you correctly. If you asked someone what the difference between actually experiencing the color red vs just sensing it, they wouldn't have as much trouble at least imagining experiencing it as they would trying to imagine simply sensing it. So when we ask a computer, would it have difficulty making the separation because it doesn't know what color really looks like? Or is it that it has just as much trouble trying to conceptualize simply sensing it as we do?

Well get some of that shit back in you, because you sound like a bland resentful faggot now

damn son

Acid, actually. But not nihilism. Just observation, no judgement.

Nah, it's just banal. You're just young so you think it sounds profound.

LOL. Nicely said. Never grow old, friend.

It isnt profound, its magnificent. It is a very creative, colorful articulation of the inner workings of the brain which produce the human experience.

I feel like this is fancy pretentious wordplay. I see the color red, i don't experience it.

Proof that even humans aren't all self aware ;p

99% of people cannot understand that image

can you?

Eh u avin a giggle m8? Fuck philosophy.

dude weed does not necessarily mean weed induced, it is just a classification of a mode of thought and the expressions associated with it. You took something that 3rd graders know (basic neurological structures) and dressed it up in flowery language and retarded analogies.

Dressing up banalities in flowery language doesn't make them any better, it just impresses semi-literate brainlets and the impressionable. I've heard almost the exact same thing with different analogies from thousands of people, myself included, over the years. Maybe I'm just cynical but I don't appreciate the 10,000 iteration of something that isn't significantly better.

Nah not cynical. I understand. I dont get many deliveries of articulation on any higher level, so I loved it.

And I doubt high schoolers have any comprehension of basic neurological structures, let alone 3rd graders.

Ah yes, you see, this is how a neuron fires, and when a bunch of them fire together we get awareness!

If consciousness is physical, then it must be made of atoms. Where is the consciousness atom?

Shit nigger, what elementary school is teaching that?

It is not that hard to grasp

ummo-sciences.org/en/a017.htm

Here you go. Have fun.

If a car is made of parts, why can't I drive its singular parts?

wow it's like looking into DT's head

We can see the atoms that make up the car parts because they are physical. If consciousness is physical, why has it never been stored in jar?

You can mimic that digitally, it doesn't have to occur at the level of the hardware.

Surely the fact that we're even able to discuss consciousness suggests it has a large physical component? Without the appropriate pattern of neurons in our brains would wouldn't even be able to say the word out loud, which makes me think consciousness is mostly a material phenomenom.

The reason you're able to understand what the physical is, is because you have non-physical consciousness to observe it with.

Is your finger conscious, or is it you that is conscious of your finger?

wow this OP is hitting brainlet levels we never though possible

If our brains were left entirely intact but our non-physical consciousness was somehow removed, we would still be having the exact same conversations because materially nothing has changed. Our neurons would still be firing in the same way and would still encode the concept of consciousness even though it wasn't true. How would such a concept of self-awareness even have come about in that scenario?

How can you remove something non-physical?

Jesus fucking Christ there is a philosophy board for you to go jerk yourself off in, get the fuck out of here

Scratch that, I guess there isn't a philosophy board. Get the fuck out of here regardless.

You seem to possess the erroneous notion that a divine mystical force and a natural physical force are incongruent.

To be mystified is merely to encounter one's own ignorance.

This is as far from a science answer as possible, but my outlook is this:

When a male and female conceive a child, are they creating consciousness and a soul? Or merely giving it a conduit for expression?

So from my religious outlook I think: making AIs doesn't mean we've created a soul, we've just given it a new medium to appear in.

I am really really sorry, this is just one of those things I've had rattling around in my empty, ignorant mind for awhile now.

This sounds like scientology

S C H I Z O P H R E N I A

Aristotle said "give me enough transistors"?

We barely understand some stuff about human mind. Will AI appear suddenly from silicon based technology?

Why AI won't be a danger: They don't feel emotions since emotions are chemical reactions, which software and hardware can't feel.

no dyson spheres mean no AI

>Be intelligent being
>No emotions
>Resources in within any arbitrary area are finite and scarce
>Sharing resources in inefficient, especially with idiots who are wasting them
>Destroy all competition ( this means you, human ) to maximize resources available in an area
Emotions are what stops humanity from killing 99% of the population with biological weapons.

>How would we know the AI is really experiencing something or not?
What fucking AI? There was never an AI in our conversation.
>If our bodies can be sure we are conscious whether or not we are
I don't know what the fuck you're getting at. If our bodies could be sure of anything it would mean that they are conscious. Unconscious matter can't be sure of things, being sure of things is a conscious activity. And if we are our bodies, then saying that our body is conscious is the same as saying that we are conscious.
I won't even address the part about computers because, again, there was never a computer in our conversation, you're bringing this shit up out of absolutely nowhere.

>Without the appropriate pattern of neurons in our brains would wouldn't even be able to say the word out loud, which makes me think consciousness is mostly a material phenomenon.
Being able to say things out loud does not require consciousness, a fucking phone can do that just fine. That you think is suggests anything is due to confirmation bias.
You only think that this is proof for consciousness being material because you believe that consciousness is material. If you subscribe to the model of consciousness in which the brain brain receives and transmits information from and to the non-physical consciousness, then it wouldn't actually suggest anything to you.

>carbon intelligence can run off of kale and mcdoubles
>silicon intelligence needs a sun to run

u wot m8

>If you subscribe to the model of consciousness in which the brain brain receives and transmits information from and to the non-physical consciousness, then it wouldn't actually suggest anything to you.
But then you have le interaction problem.

See, "We don't even have a working theory of mind" doesn't prevent us from making one.
Sure as hell didn't stop nature.

The truth of the matter is that we've finally started seriously applying "the way nature does things" (take what works, kill everything that doesn't) to computer programs - except we're judging what works now.

We don't really HAVE to understand what's happening.

>inevitable

In what sense is it inevitable? There's not law or theory that suggests we even begin to understand how such a change could come about. Not saying it couldn't, but we need to know more about our minds before we can begin to accurately describe what an attempt at creating an inorganic mind would look like.

>But then you have le interaction problem.
Posted this in the other thread yesterday
→
I'll pasta it here later.

No offense but I don't think anyone here is interested in your proselytizing mystical yadda yadda.

AI deniers claim that that is functionally impossible, simply because of the infinite amount of variables which can't be done in a classical environment

Computers are just real life guys!

the thing is, the guy you replied to clearly said determinism vs. free will. you knew wt he was talking about and that it is irrelevant to your definition of free will so why bring it up?

i really think the perception, detect, awareness, consciousness thing is just too clouded by ill-defined semantics.

>Mystical spiritual realm

If you only knew where and how this was all born...

the thing is, theres no reason to think that consciousness isnt physical.

It really is a cycle.

what do you think of when you think of a consciousnes?

Lrn2dualism

That was clearly Plato

>For ai, you need the program to be self modifying in a non destructive way

So, like an artificial neural network?