First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next  Last
Post Reply Artificial consciousness is impossible
13577 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / Australia
Offline
Posted 6/8/16

hemicuda2 wrote:

Artificial consciousness is impossible in the same way that flying or going to the moon was impossible. People only thought it was impossible up until the moment it was done.

At this point in time it is ignorant to claim anything impossible. If you still insist on claiming it impossible fine whatever but still try anyways because eventually you'll find out its not.

If it has happened once in nature then we can make it happen again.


Making a a four sided triangle is impossible by definition. Some things really are impossible.
27257 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 6/8/16

Ryulightorb wrote:


nanikore2 wrote:


sena3927 wrote:

Just because artificial consciousness hasn't been created (or evolved) yet doesn't mean it's impossible.

I would agree it's impossible with conventional computers and programming. It has to be a massively parallel, very compact system... like the 100 billion neurons packed into your brain. Nothing with wires and transistors can even come close to something like it. Not even the brain of an ant (250,000 neurons) can be mimicked with conventional computer circuits. Not to mention the billions of years of evolution which lead up to such incredibly complex structures.

But brains are physical, electro-chemical structures acting in accordance with the laws of nature and thus building some sort of artificial consciousness is theoretically possible.


It not possible because whatever you build, requires programming. Once programming is there, you are locked into the Chinese Room.


So humans are in the Chinese room because we were programmed by nature in a sense.

We are beings that run off of pre made programming and function in reaction.

So we must be in the Chinese room itself


Incorrect. The Chinese Room is about the (absence of) apprehension of meaning. Please look at what Searle is doing in his demonstration first.
11670 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M
Offline
Posted 6/8/16

nanikore2 wrote:


Ryulightorb wrote:

Correction it's not possible right now.

It may be in the future consciousness like a human has is not special.

All of this is theoretical and there are many arguments for and against it.

It's stupid to simply believe it's impossible or it is possible you don't know the future or all the variables.

If it's impossible for artificial consciousness to exist then we should not exist as we are not special.

Many professionals will have their own views and theories and that's fine but it's nothing more then a theory


"May" is not a proper counterargument. In the future there "may" be pink elephants appearing and disappearing everywhere you look, along with the flying pigs they ride upon.

"It's theoretical" and "nothing more than a theory" is simply another form of "entitled to opinion" logical fallacy. I will not respond to red herring.

"Special" in exactly which way? Too much hand waving.


I think we're mistaking "possible" with "probable". You could say it's possible for pink elephants to appear out of nowhere due to quantum tunneling or whatever dark matter nonsense we don't understand and technically you would be correct. Proving existence/non-existence/likelihood is one thing but merely saying something is possible is such a casual/open-ended statement, does it really need to be justified? Not everything in life calls for heavy thinking that is ahead of our time.
20714 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 6/8/16 , edited 6/8/16

nanikore2 wrote:

Incorrect. The Chinese Room is about the (absence of) apprehension of meaning. Please look at what Searle is doing in his demonstration first.


And as I said before that assumes we are special and can't be recreated and programmed like nature programmes us

5276 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M
Offline
Posted 6/8/16
Firstly I'm going to deny the premise of your argument. The China's room just assumes the answer it wants. It assumes that a program can't have understanding in order to prove that same statement.
27257 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 6/8/16 , edited 6/8/16

Ryulightorb wrote:

Well I'm not claiming to know whether it's impossible or not like you are we don't have the knowledge and understanding to say if it's certain or not.



I see that people are not going to actually go through my argument. I will have preface the entire post.

I know because making a conscious AI involves a logical as well as a practical contradiction in which one is programming without programming.


Jean104 wrote:

Firstly I'm going to deny the premise of your argument. The China's room just assumes the answer it wants. It assumes that a program can't have understanding in order to prove that same statement.


It doesn't. It demonstrates the position of the occupant rather than saying anything about programming- The statement regarding programming came AFTER, and was part of my argument.
31680 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
49 / M / Planet KLK-X
Offline
Posted 6/8/16

nanikore2 wrote:


sena3927 wrote:

Just because artificial consciousness hasn't been created (or evolved) yet doesn't mean it's impossible.

I would agree it's impossible with conventional computers and programming. It has to be a massively parallel, very compact system... like the 100 billion neurons packed into your brain. Nothing with wires and transistors can even come close to something like it. Not even the brain of an ant (250,000 neurons) can be mimicked with conventional computer circuits. Not to mention the billions of years of evolution which lead up to such incredibly complex structures.

But brains are physical, electro-chemical structures acting in accordance with the laws of nature and thus building some sort of artificial consciousness is theoretically possible.


It not possible because whatever you build, requires programming. Once programming is there, you are locked into the Chinese Room.


Nope, because the consciousness arising out of the myriad interconnections in our brains doesn't require any programming. If you could build an analogous structure, and eventually that will be possible-- but not with any kind of conventional AI approach-- you would get consciousness. There are no magical or supernatural ingredients that create your own consciousness. It's an emergent property of such an incredibly complex structure.
qwueri 
16410 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M
Offline
Posted 6/8/16
To have a concious AI, the programmers would need to program the AI to act within its own best interest and learn what and how to do so on its own. What is lacking is a material desire to do so by organizations to do so, as it plays into fears of creating an artificial being capable of competing with or threatening humanity. Most people don't want to risk giving rise to the techno Frankenstein's monster without solid reason to do so.
27257 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 6/8/16 , edited 6/8/16

sena3927 wrote:


nanikore2 wrote:


sena3927 wrote:

Just because artificial consciousness hasn't been created (or evolved) yet doesn't mean it's impossible.

I would agree it's impossible with conventional computers and programming. It has to be a massively parallel, very compact system... like the 100 billion neurons packed into your brain. Nothing with wires and transistors can even come close to something like it. Not even the brain of an ant (250,000 neurons) can be mimicked with conventional computer circuits. Not to mention the billions of years of evolution which lead up to such incredibly complex structures.

But brains are physical, electro-chemical structures acting in accordance with the laws of nature and thus building some sort of artificial consciousness is theoretically possible.


It not possible because whatever you build, requires programming. Once programming is there, you are locked into the Chinese Room.


Nope, because the consciousness arising out of the myriad interconnections in our brains doesn't require any programming. If you could build an analogous structure, and eventually that will be possible-- but not with any kind of conventional AI approach-- you would get consciousness. There are no magical or supernatural ingredients that create your own consciousness. It's an emergent property of such an incredibly complex structure.


An "analogous structure"? What kind is it? If you don't define it carefully you may kick it right out of the realm of AI.


qwueri wrote:

To have a concious AI, the programmers would need to program the AI to act within its own best interest and learn what and how to do so on its own. What is lacking is a material desire to do so by organizations to do so, as it plays into fears of creating an artificial being capable of competing with or threatening humanity. Most people don't want to risk giving rise to the techno Frankenstein's monster without solid reason to do so.


The part regarding "acting within its own interest" is a misnomer. The programmer would be telling the AI what to perform (including what code to modify, in bottom-up AI) in which condition. The AI would not have any conception of the meaning of anything, much less its own programming.


RedExodus wrote:


nanikore2 wrote:


Ryulightorb wrote:

Correction it's not possible right now.

It may be in the future consciousness like a human has is not special.

All of this is theoretical and there are many arguments for and against it.

It's stupid to simply believe it's impossible or it is possible you don't know the future or all the variables.

If it's impossible for artificial consciousness to exist then we should not exist as we are not special.

Many professionals will have their own views and theories and that's fine but it's nothing more then a theory


"May" is not a proper counterargument. In the future there "may" be pink elephants appearing and disappearing everywhere you look, along with the flying pigs they ride upon.

"It's theoretical" and "nothing more than a theory" is simply another form of "entitled to opinion" logical fallacy. I will not respond to red herring.

"Special" in exactly which way? Too much hand waving.


I think we're mistaking "possible" with "probable". You could say it's possible for pink elephants to appear out of nowhere due to quantum tunneling or whatever dark matter nonsense we don't understand and technically you would be correct. Proving existence/non-existence/likelihood is one thing but merely saying something is possible is such a casual/open-ended statement, does it really need to be justified? Not everything in life calls for heavy thinking that is ahead of our time.


No matter how far into the future a contradiction goes, a contradiction is still a contradiction. Please look at the actual argument.
27451 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / USA! USA! USA!
Offline
Posted 6/8/16
But I want to sex up a Vocaloid.
27257 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 6/8/16

maxgale wrote:

But I want to sex up a Vocaloid.


You can. It would be like using any "sex toy"
qwueri 
16410 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M
Offline
Posted 6/8/16

nanikore2 wrote:

The part regarding "acting within its own interest" is a misnomer. The programmer would be telling the AI what to perform (including what code to modify, in bottom-up AI) in which condition. The AI would not have any conception of the meaning of anything, much less its own programming.


Not so much a misnoner as it is stupidly complex. Even a very basic survival function like "do what is needed to stay powered on" requires the ability to sense resouces and threats, act upon those stimuli, predict possible outcomes, and learn from experimentation and teaching.

Like the basic concept of "I am hungry" does not require a full understanding of how your digestive system works, just how to get food and know what is safe to eat (super simplified for brevity).
20714 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 6/8/16

nanikore2 wrote:


maxgale wrote:

But I want to sex up a Vocaloid.


You can. It would be like using any "sex toy"


Except if it has feelings it has to be treated as an equal not not a sex toy.

Who is right or wrong aside if "if" robots do somehow have consciousness in the future we would have to treat them as living beings and not sex dolls etc
27451 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / USA! USA! USA!
Offline
Posted 6/8/16 , edited 6/8/16

nanikore2 wrote:


maxgale wrote:

But I want to sex up a Vocaloid.


You can. It would be like using any "sex toy"





Au contraire.



A Vocaloid (according to the official lore) is a true AI in the sense that is is able to understand, and create, art. That it has established a legitimate emotional and psychological capacity for expressing humanity.



I want to sex up a Vocaloid and through that experience have them express their sheer lust by having them create and sing an entire album about how they became yandere.
27257 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 6/8/16

LaughedAtByTheGods wrote:

We don't even understand how our own consciousness works, or where and how it is formed (obviously it's origins is in the brain, but I'm talking about specificity), so how could we make artificial intelligence?
If AI comes about it would be by coincidence, rather than purposely made.



That's generally one of the arguments against conscious AI, since its construction implies a complete enumeration of every single conscious function there is. There is no guarantee to the exhaustiveness of models mainly because of:

1. Underdetermination <--- this is a big problem

and

2. The question of complete visibility of same said functions (i.e. completely hidden, not available to investigation)
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.