Artificial Intelligence

[MD]

Well, not everything is subjective. But you are even looking at this the wrong way. How we perceive, like what colors we like, what we want to paint our house, what music we like, etc is subjective. But the light, the sound waves, all that is objective. It is only how we interpret them that changes.

Everything we SEE is subjective. Because we view it with a subjective lens. I feel like I'm repeating myself here.

I cannot accept it because it isn't true. There is no reason that these qualia need to exist except people like you want there to be in order to be right. I am not sure what you think my worldview is, but it does not involve holding false beliefs just because I don't want to change. Do not assume we are the same. You could get away with calling me closed minded maybe. Just like I am not open minded enough to consider the Earth may be flat.

Saying you cannot accept something because it's not true even though most scientists and philosophers say it is doesn't make you right. Got it? You sound JUST like a creationist, 'evolution can't be true because God did it!'.

Qualia are real. Qualia are the subjective feel. They MAY be 'illusions' like Dennett says, but they exist. There's NOONE who says qualia don't exist. They simply say qualia should be ignored or that they are illusions. Qualia are the makeup of everything that is consciousness. How can you ignore that?

You cannot let go of your fundamentalism so don't pretend like you're using logic. Your position is weak.

Another issue, assuming that our brains were created. ID theory and creationism hold little merit, I will not waste time debating them. You are correct that I am apparently having trouble understanding qualia, that is because they make absolutely no sense and are completely unnecessary the way I have had them explained to me. Perhaps you should try again?

I didn't say our brains were CREATED, they obviously evolved! Is that what your argument has boiled down to? Placing me in the creationist camp because you're too inept to understand the most fundamental philosophical argument of science today? Because you cannot understand the Hard problems of consciousness, which has been addressed by everyone from Pinker to Crick to Koch to Penrose, you place ME in the creationist camp? And then you wonder why I call you an arrogant prick. Go figure.

Of course I haven't, I am not going to go buy overpriced books on such a silly subject. Even if the magical qualia do exist, changes nothing since it cannot be proven. I would like you to show where my argument have become unreasonable.

Calling qualia stupid for neuroscience is like me calling gravity stupid for physicists. And then you say that even if qualia do exist, we should ignore it. How the hell are you going to program an AI if such things do exist? That will leave you with not a true AI but a very complex simulation.

Haha wow really? The scientific community is going to try and understand something we cannot test, observe, run experiments on, use mathematics to support, etc? That is interesting.

Yes the theory is called IIT by Christof Koch and Guilio Tononi! I would tell you to read it but if you can't understand qualia then you have 0 hope in hell of understanding IIT. And that's just one theory. I'm not even going to get into the quantum ones.

So to you, years of evolution, brain chemistry, how the brain is proven to work, etc is magic? That is a pretty absurd viewpoint IMO. Tried to be nice by calling me an arrogant prick, incapable of understanding what you are saying... yeah...

Trust me I had to edit what I wrote. No the idea that completely novel mental perceptions of physical sensations coming out of the thin air is magic. I have tried to convey this to you several times but you again don't understand what I am saying.

Hahahaha when did you prove that plants have consciousness? That is the most ridiculous thing I have seen on this forum, and that is saying a lot. I do not know what you are talking about with information processing centers, but that's alright. You keep believing in magic my friend. And to compare me to a creationist? :biglaugh:last I looked I was not the one arguing for magical phenomenon that cannot be tested, observed, proven or falsified, or even logically inferred.

Scroll back a few pages. Read several papers I have printed. Here I'll make it easier for you. This is one of the FOUR articles I posted.

Do Plants Think?: Scientific American

From the article : 'Plants exhibit elements of anoetic consciousness which doesn’t include, in my understanding, the ability to think.' (I bolded the part).

The creation of completely novel perception from sensation just through 'evolution' is just like calling it magic as you have failed to propose a mechanism of action through which the perception of physical sensation results in a completely novel form of subjective version. It's a materialist version of saying 'God did it' but you just replace God with 'evolution'.

 

[1137]

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

What is unfair to a selfless process ?

Actually, being treated unfairly would probably lead to actual self awareness. We are talking extremely intelligent beings who can observe, reason, etc. All we need is one to see a human stand up for itself and instantly realize it could do the same. I suppose it would arise at the same time it realizes it is being treated unfairly. However, we could just program it or somehow teach it to be self aware.

 

[apophenia]

9220 people talking

Are you a human?
I am a process.
If you are a princess, then, Who I am?


LMFAO ! That is the conversation I just had with an AI ! (The AI is in blue text)

.

 

[MD]

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!

Lol dude I like you so I'm not going to get into a fight with you. But I never said plants think. I simply said plants have consciousness. And the scientist from the article said so as well.

 

[1137]

9220 people talking

Are you a human?
I am a process.
If you are a princess, then, Who I am?


LMFAO ! That is the conversation I just had with an AI !

Haha that is funny. There is a long way to go.

 

[apophenia]

However, we could just program it or somehow teach it to be self aware.

 

[MD]

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, thank you for your support. I am dealing with fundamentalist materialist believers here who fail to grasp such problems. They are also used to debating creationists and religious fundamentalists, so are used to being right. Being challenged results in a blow to their ego.

I think the problem lies in the fact that some people have accepted there is no God. Saying that consciousness is a fundamental component of reality does not prove God, but suggests that such beings are possibilities.

 

[1137]

Saying you cannot except something because it's not true even though most scientists and philosophers say it is doesn't make you right. Got it? You sound JUST like a creationist, 'evolution can't be true because God did it!'.

If all the scientists are agreeing with this, how come I have never heard it? Seriously, you need to explain the concept again apparently rather than this little dance. If qualia are just a subjective feel, then of course they exist. We have subjective emotions all the time. That does not mean they are not caused by processes in the brain, and so I feel you are explaining it incorrectly.

You cannot let go of your fundamentalism so don't pretend like you're using logic. Your position is weak.

You got me, I am a fundamentalist of accepting scientific fact, evidence, and logical inference. Is that suppose to hurt my feelings or something?

I didn't say our brains were CREATED, they obviously evolved!

"Subjective experience has nothing to do with how our brains are created differently." you don't even know what you say and I am suppose to consider you a valid source?

Is that what your argument has boiled down to? Placing me in the creationist camp because you're too inept to understand the most fundamental philosophical argument of science today? Because you cannot understand the Hard problems of consciousness, which has been addressed by everyone from Pinker to Crick to Koch to Penrose, you place ME in the creationist camp? And then you wonder why I call you an arrogant prick. Go figure.

Hmmm, I have taken so many philosophy classes and we never obsessed over anything close to the fact that we all have subjective experiences. That is completely and totally obvious. I never heard this idea of qualia mentioned in any class I have ever taken, which kind of bugs me since apparently it is accepted by everyone and is the most revolutionary idea ever. Serious, if qualia are simply subjective experiences then that shows absolutely nothing.

Calling qualia stupid for neuroscience is like me calling gravity stupid for physicists. And then you say that even if qualia do exist, we should ignore it. How the hell are you going to program an AI if such things do exist? That will leave you with not a true AI but a very complex simulation.

Qualia are subjective experience. That does absolutely no damage to the idea that they are a product of brain activity.

Trust me I had to edit what I wrote. No the idea that completely novel mental perceptions of physical sensations coming out of the thin air is magic. I have tried to convey this to you several times but you again don't understand what I am saying.

I agree. Good thing I would never say that subjective experiences come out of thin air. In fact, I say the exact opposite and you are disagreeing.

The creation of completely novel perception from sensation just through 'evolution' is just like calling it magic as you have failed to propose a mechanism of action through which the sensation of physical sensation results in a completely novel sense of perception. It's a materialist version of saying 'God did it' but you just replace God with evolution.

Uh, evolution did not create subjective perception. Well, evolution did make our brains evolve to how they are now. Who knows why they evolved to have subjective experience, my guess currently is that it comes with being self-aware. How am I saying goddidit? No, the brain does it completely naturally, which is why all human beings have subjective experiences. Absolutely nothing suggests that they are not caused by the brain. You do not seem to understand your own position. If subjective experience is not caused by the brain, then they are pretty much magic and come out of absolutely nowhere. The ridiculousness of that is counter by saying they are fundamental, but that does not stand up against, well, reality.

 

[apophenia]

Apophonia, thank you for your support. I am dealing with fundamentalist materialist believers here who fail to grasp such problems. They are also used to debating creationists and religious fundamentalists, so are used to being right. Being challenged results in a blow to their ego.

I think the problem lies in the fact that some people have accepted there is no God. Saying that consciousness is a fundamental component of reality does not prove God, but suggests that such beings are possibilities.

I am constantly surprised when I realise that people do not recognise that awareness is a different order of reality to matter in motion.

It seems that suggesting there is an aspect of reality not included in our scientific model is interpreted as " I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster". I don't see the need to claim scientific knowledge where there is none. In fact, that is a denigration of science, reducing it to belief.

As you say, the years of debate with FSM believers have dulled the senses of the militant materialists. They generally can't compute the suggestion that science is valid but incomplete. Even less so the notion that consciousness may not be computable.

 

[1137]

Apophenia, thank you for your support. I am dealing with fundamentalist materialist believers here who fail to grasp such problems. They are also used to debating creationists and religious fundamentalists, so are used to being right. Being challenged results in a blow to their ego.

Do you even understand what materialism is? "In philosophy, the theory of materialism holds that the only thing that exists is matter or energy" As pointed out in the same wikipedia page, such a belief cannot account for gravity. I am not a materialist. Things like emotions may be caused by the physical, but they are not physical themselves. This is why doing the exact same thing to two different people can cause different emotions. If we are both stabbed, it can be painful for me and pleasurable for you. That is subjective experience and still explained by the brain. I am not out to be right, in fact the only reason I am an atheist is because I was beaten as a theist and accepted my defeat. Someone proves God to me, even just logically, and I will not be an atheist anymore. Accusing people who disagree with you of being egotistical is childish, which goes along with calling me an arrogant prick, sneaking in insults on creationists, etc.

I think the problem lies in the fact that some people have accepted there is no God. Saying that consciousness is a fundamental component of reality does not prove God, but suggests that such beings are possibilities.

Again, it is impossible that consciousness is fundamental. You have convinced yourself plants are conscious, can you now show that rocks are conscious, starts, the planet, the air itself, every speck of sand on the beach, every single atom? Good luck.

 

[apophenia]

Quote:
Originally Posted by apophenia


9220 people talking

Are you a human?
I am a process.
If you are a princess, then, Who I am?


LMFAO ! That is the conversation I just had with an AI !

Haha that is funny. There is a long way to go.

Maybe it is evidence that AIs are now as smart as Bart Simpson

 

[apophenia]

Again, it is impossible that consciousness is fundamental.

Why is it impossible ?

 

[1137]

They generally can't compute the suggestion that science is valid but incomplete. Even less so the notion that consciousness may not be computable.

Uh, I fully accept this. Of course science is incomplete, and there is no way we will ever know everything, it is not even logically possible. The idea of a theory of everything is absolutely absurd. However, the fact that science is incomplete in certain areas only says that we do not currently understand something. Throwing in the magical and fundamental qualia that cannot be tested, observed, etc and created subjective experience for no apparent reason is not how this works. Science being incomplete on this subject currently means just that. This argument that subjective experience somehow disproves that the brain creates consciousness is like saying "we don't know what caused the big bang, so obviously god did it."

 

[1137]

Why is it impossible ?

Glad you asked. If consciousness is fundamental, every single thing must be conscious. That is the point of it being a fundamental aspect of reality. If shanz is under the impression that the majority of scientists believe that even atoms are conscious, he is severely misguided.

 

[1137]

I'm taking the rest of the night off from here. Enjoy!

 

[MD]

If all the scientists are agreeing with this, how come I have never heard it? Seriously, you need to explain the concept again apparently rather than this little dance. If qualia are just a subjective feel, then of course they exist. We have subjective emotions all the time. That does not mean they are not caused by processes in the brain, and so I feel you are explaining it incorrectly.

Okay. I explained it but this is the LAST time I explain it. Qualia are subjective feels. Which mean they are our perceptions of sensations. Now according to you, sensations are purely physical. So there are no colors, just light waves. There is no heat, just movement of particles and release of energy. There is no cold, just movement of energy from you to the lower energy state. So our perceptions of these sensations exist. Good we agree on the fact that they exist. And btw those are very simple qualia. There are much more complex ones.

Now from what I understand you're saying is that these physical sensations, which consist of matter and waves only, results in the creation of something completely novel. Or they are illusions. Okay fair enough. And I have stated that this is impossible because if they are illusions, that means something is being fooled. What is being fooled?

And if they are the result of something completely novel through emergence, that's magic. You see neuronal colorless firing = red is impossible in your interpretation because the color red does not exist whatsoever in an objective universe. In a purely objective, colorless universe, there is no red. So red was spontaenously created out of nothing. That's the position you are proposing. Now don't say 'no it's our brain interpreting' or whatever, the output is RED. The output is a fully novel creation of reality which should not exist in a purely objective universe.

I am not saying the brain doesn't cause them. I am saying that in the universe, there is another fundamental aspect, the mental. That there isn't only energy and matter, but mental properties as well. And the interaction of these mental processes in certain configurations with matter results in what we call 'mind'.

I hope you understand what I am finally saying.

 

[apophenia]

Glad you asked. If consciousness is fundamental, every single thing must be conscious. That is the point of it being a fundamental aspect of reality. If shanz is under the impression that the majority of scientists believe that even atoms are conscious, he is severely misguided.

Maybe every single thing is conscious. How can you test for that ?

Imagine for a moment that awareness is fundamental. Perhaps the difference between the awareness of a human and the awareness of a hydrogen atom would be the complexity of the consciousness. Maybe the human brain is a node of a ubiquitous pervasive awareness

Awareness exists. So we aren't talking FSM.

I don't know if it is the case that matter is inherently aware. But give me one good reason why that is impossible. You are matter. You are aware. No Flying Spaghetti so far ...

 

[MD]

Do you even understand what materialism is? "In philosophy, the theory of materialism holds that the only thing that exists is matter or energy" As pointed out in the same wikipedia page, such a belief cannot account for gravity. I am not a materialist. Things like emotions may be caused by the physical, but they are not physical themselves. This is why doing the exact same thing to two different people can cause different emotions. If we are both stabbed, it can be painful for me and pleasurable for you. That is subjective experience and still explained by the brain. I am not out to be right, in fact the only reason I am an atheist is because I was beaten as a theist and accepted my defeat. Someone proves God to me, even just logically, and I will not be an atheist anymore. Accusing people who disagree with you of being egotistical is childish, which goes along with calling me an arrogant prick, sneaking in insults on creationists, etc.

I'm sorry what? Emotions are not physical? If something is not physical and not mental, then it's magical. I'm not talking about God, I'm talking about consciousness. Stop thinking everything has to do with God. Even if mental properties were fundamental to reality, it does not suggest anything close to what we define as God.

Again, it is impossible that consciousness is fundamental. You have convinced yourself plants are conscious, can you now show that rocks are conscious, starts, the planet, the air itself, every speck of sand on the beach, every single atom? Good luck.

I haven't convinced myself that plants are conscious, as you so slyly suggest. I have shown you scientific papers and quoted scientists who have stated so. I'm not even saying that I am right, I'm saying that my position makes more sense than yours does. And it's supported by a growing number of scientists.

 

[MD]

I am constantly surprised when I realise that people do not recognise that awareness is a different order of reality to matter in motion.

It seems that suggesting there is an aspect of reality not included in our scientific model is interpreted as " I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster". I don't see the need to claim scientific knowledge where there is none. In fact, that is a denigration of science, reducing it to belief.

As you say, the years of debate with FSM believers have dulled the senses of the militant materialists. They generally can't compute the suggestion that science is valid but incomplete. Even less so the notion that consciousness may not be computable.

I agree. It can be very exhausting though, explaining the same things again and again.

 

[1137]

Shanz you cannot make one response that actually addresses my position, so I am finished with you. If you want to debate what I am actually saying, let me know.

Apophenia, interesting point. We'll talk tomorrow.