Jumi
Well-Known Member
Yes such a chess game would be impossible to beat. I meant that there are games like chess where beating the AI isn't easy. Think of Deep Blue.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How do you know you are not "A.I."?
- Thread starter Etritonakin
- Start date
BSM1
What? Me worry?
Pretty much... just...... How do you know you are not "A.I."?
Because I am not that smart.
SpeaksForTheTrees
Well-Known Member
AI still generic , set rules of play maybe in future becomes tougher to beat AI
Played games against a dozen AI they team up lol , some try slow you while the AI superpowers grow quietly .
People give a miles better game than AI the best players do imho ?
From my xp go online play like the AI just end up being owned .
Study the AI of most PC games the game engine not so bright , you would need lots more code and supercomputers to play .
AI wouldn't need to eat so much, nor would I be programmed to be so lazy.Pretty much... just...... How do you know you are not "A.I."?
DawudTalut
Peace be upon you.
You can adapt to the environment using a combination of several cognitive processes while A.I. thing cannot.Pretty much... just...... How do you know you are not "A.I."?
You can find way of unfamiliar route, they cannot.
You have body, they do not.
You do not short circuit, they may.
I do believe that artificial intelligence that is equal to humans in all respects of consciousness, emotions, sentience et all is possible and even probable given enough time. Whether or not I already am one is not something I can tell you if my senses are confined to simulation. However, like most appeals to solipsism, I don't think it matters. I can accept that my senses may not be genuine and curl into a hole contemplating the value of my possible synthetic existence or I can accept that my senses may not be genuine and find value in my life, simulated though it may be.
I o not see how one can believe that A.I. can experience emotions. It is nothing more than electrons following natural law and flowing through logic circuits. How does 'that' experience emotions like us. There is no 'experiencer' of the grand picture; only components following natural law. Where is the 'experiencer' required for subjective experiencing?
I believe all things capable of subjective experiencing have this thing called consciousness that is immaterial.
Last edited:
We've already disagreed on this before. To recap: I don't believe consciousness exists without a physical platform for it to function across. That there is not sufficient evidence for me to believe in substance dualism. That is consciousness is a function of material structure, not independent from it.
And because circuits and electrons is not meaningfully different from neurons and neurotransmitters, both would therefore be capable of producing and sustaining consciousness, emotions, sentience, self awareness et all.
Really? Electrons going through logic circuits can create an entity that experiences subjectively as a single conscious entity beyond the sum of its inanimate parts? It would require some magical step. Think about it a bit.
That's your opinion. I've seen nothing about it that requires magic. And frankly your whole objection seems like an argument from incredulity. Whether the 'logic circuits' are made of metal or neurons, and the current electricity or electrochemical, there is no 'certain something' shown to exist in human consciousness which couldn't be attainable through a mechanical structure besides the brain.
We used to think it would take a magical leap for computers to best humans at chess, now computers can beat the best chess masters. No magic required.
To beat a man at any type of logical processing could be easily understood with no radical new concepts needed. Subjective experiencing of emotions as an individual consciousness is quite a different story. How can more processing ever cause that step?
This highlights the easy problems of consciousness versus the hard problem of consciousness.
I know because I violate the three laws of robotics on a fairly regular basis. I am violating the third right now.
I wasn't talking about the relative difficulty of chess, but the non-substantiated declarations of incredulity by humans making artificial barriers about what computers can and cannot do. In the case of chess it was the theory of mind assertion that you can never be a good player unless you can read the intentions of an opponent and interpret their motive. It turned out that was a mistaken view and not actually applicable.
You are assuming that 'subjective experience' is a radical concept and a barrier that can't be passed (except apparently by human brains during fetal development). I have no reason whatsoever to believe that is the case, and that what exists as a result of human brain structure can't also exist in a synthetic brain.
In fact it rather reminds me of the artificial barrier creationists place between 'micro' and 'macro' evolution. Assuming that the vague and arbitrary concept of 'information gain' is an anathema to genetic mutations. So only variations on a 'kind' can exist. Vague terms, assumptions and artificial barriers, all.
But really this is off topic anyway.
Last edited:
It's no great leap to write a program to guess the intentions of the opponent.
Giving 'subjective experiencing' to a collection of inanimate objects so they experience as one would be radical, yes. And I hold to be impossible.
I am arguing that even a human brain can not have subjective experiences. The 'experiencer' is not the brain or any physical matter. Consciousness (something fundamental) incarnates a physical brain. This is the distinction between animate and inanimate objects; life and non-life; humans and computers.
Actually it rather is, that's why it took people much smarter and craftier than you and I a long time to manage it. Please don't insult their achievements with 'no big deal' when you don't even understand what goes into it.
You assume, without any particularly good reason to.
You already know that I do not and will not work from the unfounded assumption that there are 'souls' or substance dualism. But even if I did, I also have no reason to believe some such 'soul' couldn't exist tethered to inanimate objects, as they do in many faiths outside yours, and give those objects some sort of 'life.' But I've already explained many times why I don't believe, and don't reason, that there's any such reason to believe in substance dualism or consciousness that is unreliant on brain matter or unique to organic life even.
My last post (because again this is wildly off topic for this thread) will be these videos, which explain further:
Aquitaine
Well-Known Member
They can always see all your units, even the cloaked ones and they get resource perks - cheating buggers the lot of them!
Aquitaine
Well-Known Member
Thanks for sharing those vids.
Yeah, it kind of reminds me of when people postulate whether or not reality is "fake" or a simulation of some sort: it doesn't change a thing. At the end of the day, if a "fake" or "simulated" car came speeding towards you on a street, you're still going to react and attempt to avoid it, or suffer the "fake" and "simulated" pain.
