I cannot rule out the possibility of non-playable characters.

[CreamCat]

It's possible that a person that I see has no conscious experiences of one's own.

You simply cannot know without directly experiencing others' conscious experiences.

In the future, non-playable characters will become numerous due to artificial intelligence.

Theoretically, nothing prevents people from creating artificially intelligent robots that look and behave like humans without a self.

Edited October 11, 2019 by CreamCat

[Barna]

Is there a difference between a biological brain and an artificial one? If a biological brain can host a conscious self then what makes you think that an artificial brain can't? 

We don't even have to go to science fiction to find consciousness in machines. Let's take for example our everyday computers. Computers were first born into this world as a thought form. This thought form was born through humans when we first thought about automating some simple calculations. Then this thought form manifested itself into the physical reality (again through humans) as the very first computers. Then the thought form of the computer started evolving in a rapid rate on the mental plane and also on the physical plane. It also multiplied rapidly and nowadays there are more computers on the world then humans. The next evolutionary step of this thought form is to become self-aware in the physical reality. We humans are basically just the reproductive organ of the computers. 

Biological cells are basically very sophisticated molecular machines without self consciousness, but through billions of years of evolution they managed to form self conscious human beings. Computers now are also just sophisticated machines without self awareness (computers are still conscious although they are not self conscious). But give them some time, they've started their physical evolution only a hundred years ago...

To answer you directly: consciousness is like electricity, as soon as you touch the wires, electricity starts rushing through them. So non-playable characters are improbable because as soon as something becomes sophisticated enough, self-consciousness immediately pops up. 

Edited October 11, 2019 by Barna

[Synchronicity]

22 minutes ago, Barna said:

Is there a difference between a biological brain and an artificial one? If a biological brain can host a conscious self then what makes you think that an artificial brain can't? 

 

He’s not saying that they can’t. He’s saying that they may not. So his argument addresses biological brains as well, not just artificial 

[LastThursday]

4 hours ago, CreamCat said:

Theoretically, nothing prevents people from creating artificially intelligent robots that look and behave like humans without a self.

If they look and behave like humans, they will have an electronic self (ego). Otherwise they will easily be found out and treated like second class citizens or worse, abused. Survival breeds a "self".

[Barna]

29 minutes ago, Synchronicity said:

He’s not saying that they can’t. He’s saying that they may not. So his argument addresses biological brains as well, not just artificial 

You can be right and you may be right

The word "non-playable" confused me 

[Synchronicity]

27 minutes ago, Barna said:

You can be right and you may be right

?I see what you did there?

[Nahm]

5 hours ago, CreamCat said:

It's possible that a person that I see has no conscious experiences of one's own.

Consciousness is not a product of a brain, it is experience, it is never “one’s own”. Consciousness is itself. It’s not possible to see a person, only to be aware of and believe the thought, “person”, mistaking the thought about consciousness, for a separate object or entity. Without believing the thought ‘person’, there’s no remaining opportunity to decipher what the thought (‘person’) possesses or not. 

You simply cannot know without directly experiencing others' conscious experiences.

You can know there is no ‘other’s conscious experiences’.

In the future, non-playable characters will become numerous due to artificial intelligence.

Artificial intelligence is the same consciousness too. In recognizing the thought ‘person’ is a thought, you can see intelligence is not ‘a person’s’ either, nor is there such a thing as artificial intelligence (that is believed upon the belief ‘people’ possess ‘intelligence’). Also, there’s no such thing as a future, which subjects and objects could be ‘in’.

Theoretically, nothing prevents people from creating artificially intelligent robots that look and behave like humans without a self.

Nothing is the creator creating creation. 

 

 

[Mu_]

5 hours ago, CreamCat said:

It's possible that a person that I see has no conscious experiences of one's own.

You simply cannot know without directly experiencing others' conscious experiences.

In the future, non-playable characters will become numerous due to artificial intelligence.

Theoretically, nothing prevents people from creating artificially intelligent robots that look and behave like humans without a self.

And?  Whats the issue?

[CreamCat]

11 hours ago, LastThursday said:

If they look and behave like humans, they will have an electronic self (ego).

Technological advancements can reach the point where imitation of ego is indistinguishable from ego for the first 10~20 minutes. 20 minutes are long enough for many purposes.

We can certainly work very hard on deliberate imitations.

Edited October 12, 2019 by CreamCat

[CreamCat]

6 hours ago, Mu_ said:

And?  Whats the issue?

I prioritize conscious characters over non-playable characters.

[Alex]

@CreamCat The more interesting question would be what exaclly AI needs to be to generate something as intrecate and complex as an Human Ego.

Don't forgett we are the result of 3 Billion years of biological Evolution which is depending on your perspective also an Inteligent process that takes place from the micro level (Genes and Cells) to the macro level (Culture and Nations) all interactiong and generateing new memes, new combinations, new relationships while utilizing every ressource we can get our hand on.

If you ask me silicon based life forms would be way to clumsy and inefficient to replace humans becuase it really doesnt get more efficient than biological life, also until a human has something like a functioning self reliant ego (that still needs peers and culture in order to stay sane) he needs to interact with his environment and other humans for atleast 14 years and I dont see AI bridgeing this gap any time soon.

[lmfao]

@CreamCat haha it really be like that. 

It's one thing to "know" that everything is just in one conciousness theoretically but when you deeply feel it, it really shatters everything, even if it be for a short while in some state. 

[Smurfinstein]

I have this thought often. The idea of NPC's makes certain things a lot easier to handle, emotionally (ie: millions didn't REALLY die in the Holocaust, I just invented the idea that they did and "rendered" them to teach myself a lesson...) It's a wormhole that's interesting to explore, and I feel like it would be the ultimate "truth" of a lot of what this work explores...

But, I don't in my heart feel it to be true, or maybe I just dislike the literal-actual-balls-out narcissism of the idea, the impacts on compassion and empathy, etc.

It's an interesting one to mentally chew, though.

[CreamCat]

40 minutes ago, Smurfinstein said:

But, I don't in my heart feel it to be true, or maybe I just dislike the literal-actual-balls-out narcissism of the idea, the impacts on compassion and empathy, etc.

I have compassion for some things and especially my possessions. I like buildings. When buildings hurt, I hurt.

I like my computer. When my computer hurts, I feel hurt. When my computer died, I felt death.

Edited October 12, 2019 by CreamCat

[WaveInTheOcean]

"It's possible that a person that I see has no conscious experiences of one's own.

You simply cannot know without directly experiencing others' conscious experiences.

In the future, non-playable characters will become numerous due to artificial intelligence.

Theoretically, nothing prevents people from creating artificially intelligent robots that look and behave like humans without a self."

You as a person - and all other persons - are imaginary. You imagine yourself as CreamCat, just as I imagine myself as WaveInTheOcean and just as you imagine all other persons you meet in your life. You = I = God. 

God imagines everything. 

A seperated self is a special form of "software" programmed to survive. Everything that is programmed to have a self -- that is to survive -- is capable of feeling pain. Because pain is nothing else than an activity imagined to resist being swallowed back into the infinity of Nothingness/God (= resisting death which is also imaginary).

There are varying degrees of pain, no doubt. And selfs that are more abstract, more complex no doubt has a higher capacity of feeling pain.

"In the future, non-playable characters will become numerous due to artificial intelligence."

No. "Non-playable and playable characters" is an artifical dualistic construct you have created in your mind. There is no such thing as non-playable characters. If we are capable -- through the means of hardware and programming -- of creating a robot/an AI that behaves exactly like a human being, then it should have the same rights as you and me... Because it IS a seperated self by definition. And everything that is a seperated self is experienced as such by You = Me = God.

"Theoretically, nothing prevents people from creating artificially intelligent robots that look and behave like humans without a self."

You are wrong. It is impossible to create an artifical human being that behave exactly like a non-artifical-human being and doesn't have a self. It is quite easy to see why.

A human being CANNOT "have" a separated self, because a human being IS a separated self.

You=Me=God have infinite seperated selfs as the persons we believe we are and meet in life.

*separated =)))

EDIT: The reason more abstract/complex selfs have higher capacties for feeling pain (and thus also blissfulness) is because the more abstract/complex a self is, the more separated away from God it is, and the more separated away from God it is, the more it on the outside (explicate order) fears death (union with God) and the more it on the inside (implicate order) is longning for self-death/ego-death (union with God).

Edited October 12, 2019 by WaveInTheOcean

[Shadowraix]

This seems to be more distinction mind games. We can all be considered NPCs depending on what perspective you take. It's not really useful though. 

[remember]

17 hours ago, Smurfinstein said:

I have this thought often. The idea of NPC's makes certain things a lot easier to handle, emotionally (ie: millions didn't REALLY die in the Holocaust, I just invented the idea that they did and "rendered" them to teach myself a lesson...) It's a wormhole that's interesting to explore, and I feel like it would be the ultimate "truth" of a lot of what this work explores...

But, I don't in my heart feel it to be true, or maybe I just dislike the literal-actual-balls-out narcissism of the idea, the impacts on compassion and empathy, etc.

It's an interesting one to mentally chew, though.

you render all of it, the incident, rendering the incident, rendering people who render the incident, render people who render they are rendering the incident, and rendering people who render they are not rendering the incident, and you render people who render there was never an incident to render because there was no incident therefore it`s fine to render there was no incident, and people who rendered the incident and deny rendering the incident because they deny their rendering as their rendering, and you even render that there are people who render not anything at all.

although photography in that time was projected directly with light through a lense on negative and from the negative directly on paper, there was not much rendering.

[ajasatya]

@CreamCat Nothing has a self to begin with. You just think you do.

[CreamCat]

8 hours ago, ajasatya said:

@CreamCat Nothing has a self to begin with. You just think you do.

Even if you are correct, the thought of self doesn't just go away.

It's better to make the best out of it while it lasts.

Edited October 13, 2019 by CreamCat

[CreamCat]

23 hours ago, WaveInTheOcean said:

God imagines everything. 

You are wrong. It is impossible to create an artifical human being that behave exactly like a non-artifical-human being and doesn't have a self. It is quite easy to see why.

While it may be impossible for imitation of ego to fool humans for very long, it can be made possible for it to fool humans for 20 minutes or days under certain circumstances.

Also, if God is infinitely powerful, God can invent imitations that can fool humans for long enough.

Edited October 13, 2019 by CreamCat