So, most people seem to agree a human being completely simulated by a machine, would be conscious just like us

I'd argue the subconscious is a lower abstraction level, while the mind within the mind a higher one

if you like to talk to yourself, you're already guilty of this

correct, a true consciousness within a consciousness would be way more computationally intensive

Yes but that's not what I meant, I mean that it's the conscious which is a virtual machine inside the unconscious, not the other way around
It would be like this

(Simulated consciousness)
|
|
Consciousness
|
|
Unconsciousness
|
|
Instincts

Ive heard a theory in whitch each half of your brain has it's own mind and they work together. But only one half can speak/communicate.

>talking to qt AI who is actually a bunch of Veeky Forumstards on paper and pencil
>ask her to be my gf
>(processing...)
>5 years later
>"no"

what you're describing is summarized here
youtube.com/watch?v=wfYbgdo8e-8
although it's not as simple as he makes it out to be

when paper or a computer grows, or has offspring, let us know
when it starts out as tiny and brainless, let us know
when it has agency and can literally murder you, let us know

next, the crystal skull worshiping crowd checks in, their super intelligent god is an aztek kangz - his thoughts and power dominate the human roastie consciousness collective !

>So, most people seem to agree a human being completely simulated by a machine, would be conscious just like us.
>zombies are not alive, so yes, that is correct
NOT KIDDING

>physical body growth and reproduction have anything to do with being conscious
>same shit with different packaging has anything to do with being conscious
>attribute of current level machines and arbitrary capacity to perform a task most humans can't do has anything to do with being conscious

kill yourself anytime

Attached: 1517158549814.jpg (600x610, 27K)

do people have a problem thinking rats are automated biological machines?
if not, why do they have such a hard time accepting that humans are the same?

self awareness and consciousness seems weird and mystical

>most people
*OP *and *a *few people

/trash/

People don't like the idea of eating things that exist like they do.

>So, most people seem to agree a human being completely simulated by a machine, would be conscious just like us.
No and assuming that this is true is ridiculous.

>So, since it would be turing computable, it should also be possible to simulate it on paper and ink by doing the computations by hand
>Would it still be conscious?
Assuming your false proposition, yes.

>why do they have such a hard time accepting that humans are the same?
Because it is self evidently false.

You're an idiot, back to your containment board

>back to your containment board
Which one exactly?

But if this place really is filled with disgusting nihilists, then maybe I should move.

...

Whatever.

Why don't you off yourself, I mean life is just a chemical reaction, LMAO AM I RIGHT?

Because I don't want to?

>Because I don't want to?
"I", it is just chemicals right?
"You" surely wouldn't care if someone stopped them reacting a few years early, would you?

You're plain, straight up stupid to ask these questions, I bet you think to yourself "yeah, now I got him!". Insects react to threats of harm, is it because they reflect on the meaning of life and choose "yes, I want to live, blessed me!"; no, it's programmed in their DNA.

>considering how many simulated minds you can run on very little power
Nope

>especially during the long-dark age of the universe where calculations become SUPER CHEAP due the landauer limit since it's so damn cold...and that period lasts like 10^50 years
nah

>you have to at least consider that six billion people could be a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent of all the possible "minds" that
Nuh-uh

>I bet you think to yourself "yeah, now I got him!"
No, I know the rationale you people use to justify your own existence while you pretend that your existence is pointless.

>Insects
An Insect isn't convinced that its existence is nothing more then "chemicals in its brain".

I expected better.

Yes

>I believe in some grey-bearded patriarch in the sky
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible;

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-begotten, Begotten of the Father before all ages, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, Begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made:

Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and was made man;

And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried;

And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures;

And ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father;

And He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, Whose kingdom shall have no end.

And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, and Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, Who spoke by the Prophets;

And we believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

We acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins.

We look for the Resurrection of the dead,

And the Life of the age to come. Amen.

evolutionarily speaking it's advantageous to fear death, instinctively fight off harm, and in the case of intelligent animals like humans to be predisposed to create a bunch of fiction that serves to promote evolutionary interesting behavior. "life has meaning, don't kill yourself, make a lot of kids and make sure they also mate successfully" what a coincidence this system of value is exactly the one you'd expect to perpetuate their own genes, since opposite systems of value would be selected against by nature. Now a dumbass would think this system survived because it's the "right" one, a deep philosophical level, but no, it prevailed because it's the most compatible with the logic of evolution and natural selection. Everyone is predisposed to think that, even me, doesn't mean life actually has meaning.

wait, why are you on here if your counter argument is
>la la la i'm not listening

But that is ridiculous.
You are admitting to pretending that I am correct, as my belief is (as you correctly pointed out) what evolution made us.
How do you manage to even believe that "doesn't mean life actually has meaning" and still be driven by your genes to the exact opposite?
See, assuming you are correct you have two options, either accept that nothing in life matters and reject your own nature or you pretend that life actually has meaning and that happiness isn't just a meaningless spook.

Personally I would say that this contradiction, pretending that life has meaning, even if you believe it doesn't, is enough to completely discredit the Idea of a meaningless life.

You asked me questions like why don't I kill myself or why would I care if someone tried to kill me. The answer is that no matter how aware of the process that led us to avoid death and harm, and the process that led us to create fictions like God, morality and free will, none of that breaks the biological conditioning, I'll still instinctively fight to defend my life, avoid pain and seek pleasure (could be thought in short or long term), and search for mates, and make sure my mate isn't adulterous so that my energy is spent on promoting my genes instead of somebody else's, and so on and so forth. Maybe human life has meaning in the same shallow sense that a robot's life has meaning, that is, to accomplish the tasks that he was programmed to do. But no more than that.

>It's possible for binary code to into semiotic translation where a first stands to mean a third through sitpulation from a second, in a genuine triadic relationship that can't be reduced to pairs of dyiads.
If you don't understand the peirceian triad, just give up. You will never be able to comperend a post-Peircian/uxekullian sign model incorporated into an understanding of batesonian cybernetics that is needed to even to begin to understand how meaning is made
It's literally impossible for a program to make meaning from information.
Do you think life is produced from biological logic gates?
Lol you people are so fucking stupid.

muh muh muh muh muh muh LIVING COMPUTER !

COMPUKANDA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>THIS IS HOW RETARDED THE BELIEVERS ACTUALLY ARE

no computer will ever know or understand that, no matter what the ass fucked atheist faggits spew

consciousness is a meme

ok so a computer with simulated neurons identical to a human, copied exactly from a living person's brain scan.
that can never be conscious or self aware?
what makes it different?

>it should also be possible to simulate it on paper and ink by doing the computations by hand
Technically possible except it would take from now until the heat death of the universe and enough writers and paper to fill a galaxy for "it" to manage having a thought or two that way. Also thinking as we know it is a pretty recursive process, so to have a super-slow thought or two that doesn't get any follow-up with other self-referential thoughts would probably seem lacking. It'd be like someone beginning to ride a bike pushing the pedal at an incredibly slow rate and just falling over instead of getting anywhere.

it can't be done
>oh look at that a cache miss

Not really, given it would take trillions of lifetimes of the universe to do even a microsecond of cognition. And calculating something on paper isn't the same as running a program that has culminating inputs/outputs or biological systems interacting.

Retards.

>it would take trillions of lifetimes of the universe to do even a microsecond of cognition
that's a total asspull

your computer had unprotected sex, with another computer
>what happens next?

>If I throw around pretentious argument devoid Peirce, von Uexküll, and Bateson references and call everyone stupid for not agreeing with my not at all mainstream view that the brain isn't computable then I can avoid admitting I believe biology is literal magic and maybe I won't get BTFO again like what happened on Veeky Forums the other week
Keep trying, buddy. If you shout "muh biosemiotics" hard enough I'm sure everyone will see it your way eventually.
PS:
>Do you think life is produced from biological logic gates?
Life and cognition are actually two different things you absolute pseud.

Brains are the most fault tolerant computer architecture known to man.
If a random distribution of half the neurons in your brain suddenly died you would still think you're you. In fact you probably wouldn't even feel a difference.

>THOUGHTS ARE MAGIC!

Attached: 15129159902.jpg (450x450, 28K)

>If a random distribution of half the neurons in your brain suddenly died you would still think you're you. In fact you probably wouldn't even feel a difference.
Except you would most likely become a fucking vegetable, if not outright dead.

Not even close actually.
You'd lose a couple standard deviations, but could still live a normal life.

Any person whomst is not high up on the 'tism spectrum realises that questions whose answers have been debated on for thousands of years have no objectively true answer. My idea of consciousness is as valid as any one elses.
Therefore you cannot make posts where you imply that one idea of conciousness is correct, and especially without citing any sources.

If everyone's idea of something is equally valid then I'd argue that it doesn't really exist.

>Life and cognition are actually two different things you absolute pseud.
Like you know what either is.

>watch video
>wonder if there's another person in my head, a silent contributor
>get really excited at the thought of having a friend that can't leave

The absolute state of my brain

My previous post can (imo) be applied to anything with some element of uncertainty. Religion, soul, conciousness, morality, etc.
There is no answer, just speculation.
Very interesting topic, but never leads anywhere useful.

No.

Attached: 1521345222413.jpg (672x672, 245K)

Yes.

Attached: 505.png (675x1603, 199K)

Turing wrote a good paper about this.
Basically, we may as well consider it human if it is 100% indistinguishable from a human when you interact with it.
The device that you describe is far too slow to be taken as human, and therefore will not be taken as intelligent.

>pseud
LMAO
one idea is correct so far , and that's it

he's both, so he does
funny how go damned stupid he is though

Although it's not quite the same as a random distribution, removing half of the brain is a legitimate treatment for severe epilepsy and regardless of WHICH half you remove the mortality rate is very low and the patients don't turn into vegetables.

Subconcious is parallel, not meta.

>Btfo on lit
I remember getting annoyed and abandoning an argument on lit not to long ago. I want to remember what that was about, do you remember the thread?
Link plox.
At least describe to me how I got btfo.
I've actually just dedicated myself to being smug without actually arguing . It's impossible to have a dialogue here, and BTFO'ing people doesn't entertain me like it did a few years ago. Get me out of this place.

Also I'm pretty sure I've remembered what I got BTFO about, some fedora was coming after me all like
>You believe in an immortal soul
And shit like that and I said he was pretty much right. Not that I do but biosemiotics fufills the role such a concept plays without being, you know, wrong.

>Would it still be conscious?
Sure.

>oh look at that a cache miss
Cache misses are transparent to the application. They occur every time the page file / swap is hit.

>Retards.
Not an argument.

what if you had someone writing on pen and paper REALLY FAST though

>none of that breaks the biological conditioning
Exactly, the "biological conditioning" tells you that life in fact isn't meaningless, although you might tell yourself otherwise.
You hold a belief that fundamentally goes against what you are doing, to justify your own action you have to pretend that I am right, even if you consciously believe otherwise.

This is what I say that you are being ridiculous, you HAVE to pretend that I am right, you won't consciously act on your own beliefs.

You're thinking something similar to this
plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/