Artificial Intelligence

[otokage007]

If it's such a great con why do the best scientists try to address it? How can there NOT be subjective experience. Everything is subjective. All emotions, color, sound etc are subjective.

They are not. Your sensitive organs and your brain, capture, process and interpret sounds and colors. It is not that "colors" are subjective, but your brain is interpreting the color in its own way rather than seeing the original color. For example, grass is green, it may not be exactly the green u perceive, and of course it is not the green that a daltonic person perceives, or the "green" a dog perceives (actualy gray). But it's still green. It is not something metaphysical, it is just neurons reacting to light with chemical reactions that will make your brain recognice the spectrum of green light the grass is reflecting and adress the green color.

I stated that if one was to be a PURE rationalist then they would have to accept the fact that there is no theory for qualia and as such the only subjective experience one could trust would be their own. Materialism is INCOMPLETE! And you cannot accept that because it contradicts your view of the world and in that sense you are no different from any creationist or ID.

You shouldn't stereotype people. Materialism and the other philosophical currents that you know, can not define how a person thinks, only give a general idea that will not help you make in-depth analysis.

Subjective experience has nothing to do with how our brains are created differently. You are simply do not understand what qualia are.

Subjective experience is determined precisely by experience, and experience can be reduced to memories, and memories are neuronal nets. So... Indeed subjetive experience depends on how the brain is created. That's why if you hit your head, your neuronal nets could brake and your experiences would be erased. This is known as "amnesia".

It's not according to me, it's according to what is true. And Dennett states that qualia do exist, he just states that they are illusions. And that's where scientists disagree with him, because he hasn't explained at all how these illusions just pop into existence. That random novel substances just become created in reality out of thin air.

Actually that is the CRUX of dennetts argument, that everything we describe as qualia are illusions. And consciousness is an illusion. You clearly haven't read his work and are just cherry picking quotes for your own argument. You can blab all you want about reason and rationality but your arguments have fallen flat.

I think you should clarify that a little more. Do you think subjective experiences are nothing? I mean, they just generate out of nothing? Magic maybe? Abracadabra?

Look man trying to explain this stuff to you is impossible. I've tried to be nice but you really don't understand the basic argument of qualia. One day when you do, get back to me. I think it's best if we end this because you're not budging on your perspective, which is flawed. You think the brain makes up all this stuff. That's magic. I'm saying that there's something else at play here.

...

Hocus pocus?

You said plants have no consciousness. I proved you wrong with scientific papers. You said that it's information processing in centers of the brain. I proved you wrong with scientific papers. Now I know how frustrated people get with creationists.

I’ve read your article. And indeed plants can see, smell, warn others, defend theirselves, etc. But man, this is done without conciousness, nor thinking. Plants can’t think, neither bacteria, neither any animal that lacks cephalization. Plants have chemical receptors that answer tactile, gravitational, light and chemical stimuli, it’s just receptors man, nothing like thinking And to warn others they just release chemicals, and they can’t even help it, they will do all those things when presented with a stimulli, that’s because THEY DON’T THINK, so they can’t control what they do. Robots this days are even more alive and functional than a plant, in fact, if you say that robots think, then it wouldn’t be at least as ridiculous than saying plants think, DUDE!

 

[1137]

Very true, there is a large difference between natural reaction that are not thought about and actually being conscious / aware. I suppose you would argue that the earth is conscious and chooses to orbit the sun? Actually, if consciousness is fundamental you'd have to think that...

 

[apophenia]

Materialism is INCOMPLETE!

I understand your position exactly. I find it funny that people dismiss the experience of existence as a magical theory, and then try to explain it with a 'scientific' version of a magical theory.

It's too close to be seen, too familiar to notice for most people it seems. Regarding the pervasive everpresent witnessing, whatever we call it, as an emergent property of matter in motion is a ridiculous position - but there is no 'position' which makes any sense.

This is what this discussion always leads to. Awareness is so baffling and outside the 9 dots that scientific fundamentalists tie themselves in knots to avoid facing an obvious fact - materialism in no way accounts for conscious awareness. It can account for all the behaviour observed (though the accounting is not necessarily correct ...), but not the experience of the behaviour.

Interestingly, the process of sanatan dharma is to focus on this aspect of experience, to recognise this empty, immeasurable, unfathomable core of experience.

Shahz - this is the kind of knowledge which science cannot reveal, analyse or in any way define. As such, it is floccinaucinihilipilified by materialists.

 

[apophenia]

If we could get back on subject to AIs that would be cool.

OK. Here's a different idea to think about

Let's assume a thinking machine is built which exhibits signs of being self-conscious, regardless of whether or not we now consider that possible.

Will we need to think about creating the SPCSA ( Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Synthetic Awareness) ?

If scientists ever claim to have created a conscious entity, then our ethics and laws would need to reflect the conscious existence,and therefore rights, of such synthetic intelligence. Animal life is protected by law from acts of cruelty, so we have a precedent of rights in law for non-humans.

At what point do we need to consider the rights of an android exhibiting a sense of identity ? If a droid tells you it feels like an oppressed slave, will you set it free ?

 

[1137]

I understand your position exactly. I find it funny that people dismiss the experience of existence as a magical theory, and then try to explain it with a 'scientific' version of a magical theory.

How come those who bash science always use straw man arguments? Who here has dismissed the experience of existence as a magical theory? No, there is no reason experience cannot be explained by the brain. I get tired of pointing out that just because we do not currently have a full understanding of something, that does not mean we throw all facts, evidence, and logical inference out the window and accept unobservable, untestable, metaphysical beliefs. Your brain and my brain do not work the exact same way. No two people have brains that work exactly the same way. The differences are subtle I am sure, but it is still true. That is more than enough to show why we may experience reality different, no untestable hocus pocus needed. We are not claiming that it is a magical theory, actually you two are trying to explain it in magical ways. Doesn't work.

 

[otokage007]

If a droid tells you it feels like an oppressed slave, will you set it free ?

I would. How about you?

 

[apophenia]

How come those who bash science always use straw man arguments?

I got to here and stopped reading, because you are making a huge and insulting error.

I am not bashing science.

That is a pathetic, superficial and ignorant interpretation of my position. It is a knee-jerk reaction from someone who confuses their materialist fundamentalism with science.

 

[apophenia]

I would. How about you?

So that's it ? "I would" ?

I think the subject is worthy of more than such flippancy.

 

[apophenia]

I get tired of pointing out that just because we do not currently have a full understanding of something, that does not mean we throw all facts, evidence, and logical inference out the window and accept unobservable, untestable, metaphysical beliefs.

Exactly what is the 'metaphysical belief' I have proposed in your opinion ?

 

[1137]

I got to here and stopped reading, because you are making a huge and insulting error.

I am not bashing science.

That is a pathetic, superficial and ignorant interpretation of my position. It is a knee-jerk reaction from someone who confuses their materialist fundamentalism with science.

Of course you stopped, there are points damaging to your position past that. You made a great point of using the term "scientific fundamentalism", obviously you do not have the respect for science it deserves. Now, perhaps there error is large do to misinterpretation on my part, I apologize. But materialist fundamentalism? Hahahah, I am not a materialist. If you did an unbiased read through of the thread I specifically pointed out not everything is physical, but it can be explained by it. Ask me to hold emotions and I will admit I cannot.

 

[1137]

Exactly what is the 'metaphysical belief' I have proposed in your opinion ?

Well, I figured that you position that not everything can be explained by the physical implied metaphysical (beyond physical). Silly me.

 

[1137]

I'd also point out that the world view I've been accused of having in this thread makes no sense. I definitely do not think everything will be directly explained by science, but that doesn't make it supernatural or metaphysical, just makes us limited.

 

[1137]

OK. Here's a different idea to think about

Let's assume a thinking machine is built which exhibits signs of being self-conscious, regardless of whether or not we now consider that possible.

Will we need to think about creating the SPCSA ( Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Synthetic Awareness) ?

If scientists ever claim to have created a conscious entity, then our ethics and laws would need to reflect the conscious existence,and therefore rights, of such synthetic intelligence. Animal life is protected by law from acts of cruelty, so we have a precedent of rights in law for non-humans.

At what point do we need to consider the rights of an android exhibiting a sense of identity ? If a droid tells you it feels like an oppressed slave, will you set it free ?

If we create strong AIs we probably will need such an organization. However, the more basic question is how to tell if an AI actually is a strong AI or just program to act and respond as one. We would have to program it with limited knowledge and see if it can figure out something it doesn't know based on what it does.

 

[apophenia]

Well, I figured that you position that not everything can be explained by the physical implied metaphysical (beyond physical). Silly me.

Silly you indeed.
You have no idea of what my position is, do you ?

BTW ... there is a difference between 'metaphysical' and 'not physical'.

What is between electron and proton in a hydrogen atom ? Is it physical ? If not, is it metaphysical ? See how easy it is to construct a stupid question ?

You are so used to the tedious predictable arguments between atheists and theists that you are dumbing yourself down. It's not always a choice of A or B. You are stereotyping yourself as much as you are stereotyping me.

 

[apophenia]

If we create strong AIs we probably will need such an organization.

What will that organisation be protecting ?

However, the more basic question is how to tell if an AI actually is a strong AI or just program to act and respond as one. We would have to program it with limited knowledge and see if it can figure out something it doesn't know based on what it does.

How would that imply a self-awareness ?

 

[1137]

What will that organisation be protecting ?

Actually I don't see the necessity for the organization. Our laws might as well apply, they arr pretty much artificial humans.

How would that imply a self-awareness ?

I'm sorry, when did I say it does? It implies the ability to reason.

 

[apophenia]

If we create strong AIs we probably will need such an organization.

Actually I don't see the necessity for the organization.

Well, that's a clear position.

Our laws might as well apply, they are pretty much artificial humans.

Here is the inevitable lamentable result of scientism ( which is NOT science, it is a secular belief system).

And what an inane reply ! You are saying we may as well reduce humans to the status of machines, because you can't technically define the difference. All hail The Great Leap Backwards !

I'm sorry, when did I say it does? It implies the ability to reason.

Switch and dodge.

 

[1137]

Well, that's a clear position.

Oh no, I reevaluated my position!

Really?

Here is the inevitable lamentable result of scientism ( which is NOT science, it is a secular belief system).

And what an inane reply ! You are saying we may as well reduce humans to the status of machines, because you can't technically define the difference. All hail The Great Leap Backwards !

Humans pretty much are machines, just flawed and organic. Strong AIs would obviously be superior. Don't let the human need to feel special and supreme get in the way.

Switch and dodge.

If you are referring to my explanation of how to tell when an AI truly is independent and able to reason it is being treated unfairly and you changing the subject to self aware...

 

[1137]

Self awareness is different story, there must be a way to tell. Actually should be easy. Don't program it to understand the concept and see if it figures it out.

 

[apophenia]

If you are referring to my explanation of how to tell when an AI truly is independent and able to reason it is being treated unfairly and you changing the subject to self aware...

Oh for ****'s sake. How could it reason that it is being treated unfairly without self awareness ?

What is unfair to a selfless process ?