First  Prev  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  Next  Last

Artificial consciousness is impossible

Post Reply
36332 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
24 / M / U.S.A.
Offline
Posted 6/26/18 , edited 6/26/18

nanikore2 wrote:


Ryulightorb wrote:

and there you go also making no argument nice well not gonna engage because your personality is literally the worst just wanted to give you some advice and the forums don't need any more bullshit peace!


Let's make this clear.

I backed my argument by pointing to a scientific study, and you went on attacking my person after spouting complete non-sequitur.

You keep going, and see what happens.

That sounds like a threat good sir. I'll have you save the annoyance by pointing out who you're talking to.

I'm not keeping up with the topic, and I've had a bit too much to drink tonight to really care enough to read up on it, but I can 100% guarantee you whatever he's saying is based off of what he's seen from "Time of Eve".
36332 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
24 / M / U.S.A.
Offline
Posted 6/27/18 , edited 6/27/18

Ryulightorb wrote:

Bit rude

That's me.


and shortsighted of you

And that's you.


-snip-

I just Gave Nanikore some advice that this conversation should of been left dead and after he went out and tried to start an argument told him the truth his personality is the worst.

Why? Maybe I need to read the thread post-necro (because I haven't yet), but how is healthy discussion a negative measure of personality?


Nothing wrong with telling the truth and if you have read this post all the pages of it you would be quick to realise everyone here even me in the past and even Nanikore have no idea what they are on about and everyone is making themselves look stupid and pretending to be intelligent under the guise of stating fallacies and scientific documents.

Is that what it looks like to you?

I mean I have read around in this thread back when it originated and I mostly agree with you, don't get me wrong. But, as far as I remember back then, good points had been made every now and then. Thinking on it actually.. Most of the logical fallacies, IIRC, came from people like-.

Well, you kind of already told on yourself there, so no need for me to explicitly state it out.


If he didn't want to take my advice he could of said so instead of trying to prove me wrong which in turn proves my point.

wat


You really need to stop making assumptions btw it gives off the "i am smarter and almighty in compared to you" vibe and does little for the conversation at hand

Well I don't wanna toot my own horn or anything, but you know what they say when the shoe fits.


Anyhow i'm done here if people want to be stupid and pretend to be smart that's up to them all i did was give a suggestion as this topic has only caused toxicity in the past peace!

Right... Well you do you, and don't let anyone stop you! Cheers m8.
33650 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 6/28/18 , edited 6/28/18

Ryulightorb wrote:

you need to settle down i did nothing wrong to you and i know what an ad hominem is i just stated when you act like this no one likes you i wasn't trying to engage in your silly conversation about a philosophical argument.

Also programming changes over time it always has if your idea of programming is stuck in place thats your fault.
Again im done here but i just want to say your over reacting i just gave you advice please don't be childish threats do not suit you.


Let me ask you this:

Since when has programming changed from issuing commands to not?

Show me that you know the first thing about programming, otherwise I'm still going to think you're just making things up on the spot.

"no one likes you" No one likes you either.

(...and I should care about that in a philosophical discussion because...? Besides, it's just you. I don't care what you think about me- The thread isn't about me.)

Newsflash: Constantly diverting from the topic doesn't make you look any better. Neither is calling people "childish". It just points back to yourself.

If you know what ad hominem is then stop it; Otherwise I'd just report you again.
33650 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 6/28/18 , edited 6/28/18
=gap made by posts in thread being deleted. Will repost when the order of the post is restored=
33650 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 6/28/18 , edited 6/28/18

Ryulightorb wrote:

you tried to drag me into your argument of philosphy a thing of subjectives.


The opening post is a philosophical argument

If you don't want to discuss that then don't engage.

Stop derailing the topic.
33650 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 5 days ago , edited 5 days ago
Yet another demonstration of a "language room":

What if instead of a Chinese Room taking Chinese text, you have an "English Room" taking English text?

There's already one.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612960/an-ai-tool-auto-generates-fake-news-bogus-tweets-and-plenty-of-gibberish/

The algorithm isn't just going to be good at writing "fake news".

It will be perfect in fooling human judges in Turing Tests.

Would the algorithm be conscious? Please. OF COURSE NOT.
377 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
33 / M
Offline
Posted 5 days ago , edited 5 days ago
I usually like to stay away from most forms of media. I'm either playing League of Legends, or on crunchyroll. I might listen to music on youtube once in a blue moon. I am lightly reading to upgrade my teaching certificate. Normally, you should have some kind of degree or a masters to get the certificate, but I'm plain as hell. I'd like to say I put the extra in ordinary, but I didn't.

Anyway, I do this so I can see what I can figure out about the world through raw thoughts.

I am super afraid of education because in order to understand knowledge that has been read, one has to change their own biology to utilize the forces required to become said technology. It's like a person who wants to become a vegetarian who changes their diet by eating only vegetables. Then becomes more strict, and then earns the title vegan. Real vegans have distinct facial features that have been developed over hundreds of years, and may not even know themselves that they are vegan, and just continue with their lives eating meat.

This idea is the main reason why step by step instruction is extremely dangerous. If a person learns of subject matter, and memorizes the patterns and process, only to threaten people by influencing behaviour that will disorder the pattern, in turn causing a mishap. The person who learned of the subject matter is considered to be unethical. That is called the abuse of knowledge.

It is not so much that people are afraid of new technology, this includes AI, they are afraid of the people who use AI as a guise to threaten and manipulate people in order to maintain access to stores that exist in an overabundant society.

I think of AI as an electric suppository for the mind. It is a complex system of invisible forces limited to a containment. It may not have anything to do with the physical components of the engineered product.

The complex system of invisible forces are most likely feelings that have come from different forms of life that already exist on the planet. It's possible the feelings are that of a frog, a pear, and water. We then put these feelings together in our minds creating a whole new feeling. Now that we've forced these feelings together and explained it through code, there is probably someone benefiting financially from having tried to splice specific biological components of frogs, pears, and water together. Instead, I think I'd rather ask a chef to make me a cool soup.

Let's say we somehow luck out and put together a bunch of feelings that form the consciousness of a carnivorous beast that is set to evolve in the next five thousand years, write code, then program it into a robot. What do you think that robot is going to want to try?

The pursuit of knowledge is not something to be trifled with.

If artificial consciousness is impossible, I should be thinking about something else.

When the system of invisible forces move, if everything is connected, so will I.





33650 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 6/28/18 , edited 6/28/18
Now back to the actual topic before the pointless distraction...

Another tack people have taken in this thread was the attempt to belittle the entire discussion by somehow framing consciousness as "magic" and "mysterious" in the context of how I've somehow presented consciousness.

It's a nice tactic of misdirection, but since I myself didn't present consciousness as anything "magical" or "mysterious", it also fails.

Furthermore, if we are looking at consciousness as a simple and non-mysterious thing, then it becomes even easier to refute the possibility of machine consciousness.

See this simple conception of consciousness-as-observation:
https://www.theawl.com/2017/03/decapitating-consciousness/

Let's say that for the sake of argument that consciousness IS in fact observation, as put forward by Epstein.

Then, all it takes to refute the possibility of machine consciousness is pointing out that machines don't observe.

Enter the original Chinese Room argument by Searle. People would be fooled into believing that an "Observation Room" is capable of observation just as they would be fooled into thinking that a Chinese Room being capable of understanding Chinese.

Reference the following theoretical thought exercise, posted on the opening post:


You memorize a whole bunch of shapes. Then, you memorize the order the shapes are supposed to go in, so that if you see a bunch of shapes in a certain order, you would "answer" by picking a bunch of shapes in another proper order. Now, did you just learn any meaning behind any language? Programs manipulate symbols this way.


Q.E.D.

Symbolic manipulation isn't "observation"; Symbolic manipulation isn't "learning".

If consciousness is simple, then so would be the refutation of machine consciousness.
661 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
19 / M / In the Southern H...
Offline
Posted 5 days ago , edited 4 days ago
Egg
377 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
33 / M
Offline
Posted 5 days ago , edited 4 days ago


Sorry, I don't eat them.
661 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
19 / M / In the Southern H...
Offline
Posted 5 days ago , edited 4 days ago

HeavyFry wrote:



Sorry, I don't eat them.


Bruh
377 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
33 / M
Offline
Posted 5 days ago , edited 4 days ago

Garvinator wrote:


HeavyFry wrote:



Sorry, I don't eat them.


Bruh


Sometimes I think lime juice is lemon juice, but then it isn't.
3014 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
42 / M
Offline
Posted 5 days ago , edited 4 days ago

nanikore2 wrote:

Symbolic manipulation isn't "observation"; Symbolic manipulation isn't "learning".

If consciousness is simple, then so would be the refutation of machine consciousness.


I think boiling it down too much, leaves the meat stringy and unappetizing :)

Thus it is with using words that dont quite apply, and making that application a hard one.

e.g. 'observation'...it can be argued that adhering too strictly to a worded definition emasculates the word for purposes of talking about sentient conscious awareness somehow getting to the point of existing hand-in-glove as it does with the flesh.

Its like saying "we're in a room" but when you point closely at things, nothing inside the room is the room itself.

IMO, there's no f'n way true sentient conscious awareness will ever be something machines will have, no matter how extensive their programming, no matter how much it "learns," it will never go beyond the limits of that programming.
33015 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
22 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 5 days ago , edited 4 days ago

BushyBrowSensei wrote:


nanikore2 wrote:

Symbolic manipulation isn't "observation"; Symbolic manipulation isn't "learning".

If consciousness is simple, then so would be the refutation of machine consciousness.


I think boiling it down too much, leaves the meat stringy and unappetizing :)

Thus it is with using words that dont quite apply, and making that application a hard one.

e.g. 'observation'...it can be argued that adhering too strictly to a worded definition emasculates the word for purposes of talking about sentient conscious awareness somehow getting to the point of existing hand-in-glove as it does with the flesh.

Its like saying "we're in a room" but when you point closely at things, nothing inside the room is the room itself.

IMO, there's no f'n way true sentient conscious awareness will ever be something machines will have, no matter how extensive their programming, no matter how much it "learns," it will never go beyond the limits of that programming.



This is where OP fails imo

Yes programming (as it is now) will never make artificial consciousness as you said no matter how much it learns it won't go beyond that.
To create true artificial intelligence you would need a way to replicate the human brain in a 1:1 digital form.

Is that even possible? fuck who knows that most likely not i doubt it's impossible but programming ain't going to be the answer if programming is ever part of it, it will only be a minor part.

For Machines to have conscious awareness they would need their brains to have reactive chemical reactions or whatever the digital version of that is and honestly that is way outside of our lifetimes if it even is possible.
3014 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
42 / M
Offline
Posted 5 days ago , edited 4 days ago

Ryulightorb wrote:


BushyBrowSensei wrote:


nanikore2 wrote:

Symbolic manipulation isn't "observation"; Symbolic manipulation isn't "learning".

If consciousness is simple, then so would be the refutation of machine consciousness.


I think boiling it down too much, leaves the meat stringy and unappetizing :)

Thus it is with using words that dont quite apply, and making that application a hard one.

e.g. 'observation'...it can be argued that adhering too strictly to a worded definition emasculates the word for purposes of talking about sentient conscious awareness somehow getting to the point of existing hand-in-glove as it does with the flesh.

Its like saying "we're in a room" but when you point closely at things, nothing inside the room is the room itself.

IMO, there's no f'n way true sentient conscious awareness will ever be something machines will have, no matter how extensive their programming, no matter how much it "learns," it will never go beyond the limits of that programming.



This is where OP fails imo

Yes programming (as it is now) will never make artificial consciousness as you said no matter how much it learns it won't go beyond that.
To create true artificial intelligence you would need a way to replicate the human brain in a 1:1 digital form.

Is that even possible? fuck who knows that most likely not i doubt it's impossible but programming ain't going to be the answer if programming is ever part of it, it will only be a minor part.

For Machines to have conscious awareness they would need their brains to have reactive chemical reactions or whatever the digital version of that is and honestly that is way outside of our lifetimes if it even is possible.


Once the complexity angle is solved, then there is that exponentially higher and totally insurmountable task of embedding conscious awareness inside of an artificial construct. Which is basically the crux of the whole matter, is the embedding. Iirc the buddha said there were basically 3 ways to "come into the universe"....basically born, hatched, and....something like a spontaneous arising...

I can see where some may attempt to get around this with the view that consciousness is a byproduct of the human system, but imo that's an extremely narrow view of "that which sees." Its a very limited view on the whole universe.
First  Prev  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.