Here, I explain my pretty advanced religion

[OneHandClap]

1 minute ago, HypnoticMagician said:

"Not putting you down, just let your slave- err I mean followers know that it's bs. "

You are still making the same mistake. You see me as a tyrant trying enslave people. You are however you see others.

"An AI with enough artificial neurons can certainly be self-aware, and probably will be within the next few decades."

You misunderstood my point. I never said machines can not reach human level awareness . It would just be artificial.

What is the difference between artificial and organic? There isn't one. Awareness is awareness. 

11 minutes ago, Windappreciator said:

@OneHandClap an AI isnt conscious at it will never be. The case it becomes conscios it stops being an AI.

You're just playing word games here. If we build a highly advanced program that suddenly gains an ability to recognize itself and the environment, then it is indeed a "conscious AI." Sure, we can call it a "person" if we like, but the fact remains that we are discussing the ability for an inorganic creature to have sentience. 

[Fearless_Bum]

@HypnoticMagician the only I thing I see you as is words on a screen my friend. 

[HypnoticMagician]

2 minutes ago, OneHandClap said:

What is the difference between artificial and organic? There isn't one. Awareness is awareness. 

You're just playing word games here. If we build a highly advanced program that suddenly gains an ability to recognize itself and the environment, then it is indeed a "conscious AI." Sure, we can call it a "person" if we like, but the fact remains that we are discussing the ability for an inorganic creature to have sentience. 

That's very similar to telling what's the difference between desktop and laptop. Aren't they already same?

No, they aren't. Yes, they both have similar functionality but that doesn't make them same. The examples I gave are even more different from one another.

[Adamq8]

If we simulate kidney function to the tee, will the computer automatically pee?

So if we simulate the brain, will AI be conscious then?

One great opponent to this view is Bernardo Kastrup, which has a PHD in computer engineering, he says that it is the most absurd claim of the century to say that AI will be concious.

Thoughts?

[HypnoticMagician]

4 minutes ago, Fearless_Bum said:

@HypnoticMagician the only I thing I see you as is words on a screen my friend. 

Well, I can read between the lines as well while looking at screen containing your worlds. I can see deeper than that even without dogmaticly claiming the assumptions I made about your personality are all correct. So what are you trying to accomplish here?

[Fearless_Bum]

1 minute ago, Adamq8 said:

If we simulate kidney function to the tee, will the computer automatically pee?

So if we simulate the brain, will AI be conscious then?

One great opponent to this view is Bernardo Kastrup, which has a PHD in computer engineering, he says that it is the most absurd claim of the century to say that AI will be concious.

Thoughts?

@Adamq8 the idea of being conscious is already ridiculous. So we throw around this silly idea that we are conscious and then we talk about what is conscious or not even though it's completely groundless. 

[OneHandClap]

 

4 minutes ago, Adamq8 said:

If we simulate kidney function to the tee, will the computer automatically pee?

So if we simulate the brain, will AI be conscious then?

One great opponent to this view is Bernardo Kastrup, which has a PHD in computer engineering, he says that it is the most absurd claim of the century to say that AI will be concious.

Thoughts?

For the pee part, it's a non-starter. If we built a machine that needed to excrete fluids for survival, then yes, that machine would "pee." If we built an exact replica of a human being out of inorganic parts that did everything a human body does, it would also pee. 

And if we simulated every single electrical zap of a human brain, yes, I do believe we would have human-level consciousness in an artificial medium. 

I'm not a fan of Bernardo's content, so I don't find it very surprising that I disagree with his analysis here. Those who believe AI will not be able to develop sentience seem to be strongly attached to humans as the pinnacle of consciousness. They don't want to believe that a dumb, silly machine could ever be "more human" than them. There are dozens of other AI experts (not just computer engineers) who believe AI can and will be conscious. 

[HypnoticMagician]

4 minutes ago, Adamq8 said:

If we simulate kidney function to the tee, will the computer automatically pee?

So if we simulate the brain, will AI be conscious then?

One great opponent to this view is Bernardo Kastrup, which has a PHD in computer engineering, he says that it is the most absurd claim of the century to say that AI will be concious.

Thoughts?

Finally... Finally someone who got my point.

[Windappreciator]

@OneHandClap An AI cannot be conscious, because consciousness isn't artificial or emulated, it is actually there once it's there.

 

[Adamq8]

4 minutes ago, OneHandClap said:

 

For the pee part, it's a non-starter. If we built a machine that needed to excrete fluids for survival, then yes, that machine would "pee." If we built an exact replica of a human being out of inorganic parts that did everything a human body does, it would also pee. 

And if we simulated every single electrical zap of a human brain, yes, I do believe we would have human-level consciousness in an artificial medium. 

I'm not a fan of Bernardo's content, so I don't find it very surprising that I disagree with his analysis here. Those who believe AI will not be able to develop sentience seem to be strongly attached to humans as the pinnacle of consciousness. They don't want to believe that a dumb, silly machine could ever be "more human" than them. There are dozens of other AI experts (not just computer engineers) who believe AI can and will be conscious. 

@OneHandClap Thanks for the response ?

Yeah well it seems like you and Bernardo is on opposite "camps" when it comes to metaphysics. 

I would like to see his response to your argument here ?

I dont doubt that the question has come up on his interviews, I am not going to touch this subject since I dont know alot about it.

But I do feel that, AI will appear as concious but has in fact no "inner life" at all.

I think materialist science is going the wrong direction with neuro science, since there is plenty of evidence as well to clearly show reduced brain activity correlate with expansion of awareness, when it should be the other way around according to Materialism. 

But thats just my two cents.

 

 

[Adamq8]

@HypnoticMagician ?

[OneHandClap]

1 minute ago, Adamq8 said:

@OneHandClap Thanks for the response ?

Yeah well it seems like you and Bernardo is on opposite "camps" when it comes to metaphysics. 

I would like to see his response to your argument here ?

I dont doubt that the question has come up on his interviews, I am not going to touch this subject since I dont know alot about it.

But I do feel that, AI will appear as concious but has in fact no "inner life" at all.

I think materialist science is going the wrong direction with neuro science, since there is plenty of evidence as well to clearly show reduced brain activity correlate with expansion of awareness, when it should be the other way around according to Materialism. 

But thats just my two cents.

 

 

Anytime! Yes, him and I are probably quite divergent. He is a smart guy, and I like a few of his ideas, but obviously I disagree with his AI premise. My major point is this: if we believe other organic beings are sentient (that is, other humans are similar to us in terms of the capacity to have an inner life), then we should not rule out the idea that inorganic beings can also have an inner life. There is nothing particularly special about the chemical meat soup of the brain, IMO. If we could fully recreate it and its electrical activity with silicone, we might see a similar thing. So if we do believe humans have inner lives, we should also consider that machines may someday, too. The harm of treating a sentient being as a lump of metal would be far worse than the opposite. 

As far as the brain activity argument, I think that's because most brain activity is survival oriented. Monks who slow their brain activity through jhanas or whatever else are quite conscious, but they are not exactly in a position to draw up plans for a suspension bridge. Conversely, those who use a ton of brain power shrink their awareness at the cost of boosted calculations, yet still remain aware on some level. So I don't know if brain activity density is a good metric for assessing "inner worlds." 

[Windappreciator]

@OneHandClap you wouldn't. Consciousness is not solely a materialistic matter. You would need to bind an ego to certain electrical activity and characteristics and that requires you to be very spiritual.

3 minutes ago, OneHandClap said:

. If we could fully recreate it and its electrical activity with silicone, we might see a similar thing. 

 

Edited October 20, 2021 by Windappreciator

[OneHandClap]

Just now, Windappreciator said:

@OneHandClap you wouldn't. Consciousness is not solely a materialistic matter. You would need to bind an ego to certain electrical activity and characteristics and that requires you to be very spiritual.

 

"Bind an ego"

What are you even on about?

"Ego" is a naturally occurring construct as a result of clinging. Anything is capable of clinging. It sounds like you believe in a soul. 

[Windappreciator]

2 minutes ago, OneHandClap said:

"Bind an ego"

What are you even on about?

"Ego" is a naturally occurring construct as a result of clinging. Anything is capable of clinging. It sounds like you believe in a soul. 

Yes ego is a natural construct that doesn't come on its own with just solely matter though.

[OneHandClap]

Just now, Windappreciator said:

Yes ego is a natural construct that doesn't come on its own with just solely matter though.

You're correct. It comes about from a combination of matter and clinging (a very Buddhadharma approach). And I see no reason why an AI is incapable of that exact phenomenon. Also, why does an AI even need an ego? We have never been able to converse with intelligent beings other than humans about their experience of consciousness. For all we know, we could find aliens who are naturally enlightened and think we're all completely braindead for all our suffering. I doubt it, but it's possible in an infinite universe

[Windappreciator]

@OneHandClap matter being matter itself doing matter things isn't sufficient, but necessary in a sense.

AI would not be AI at the point it becomes conscious in regular understanding.

Edited October 20, 2021 by Windappreciator

[OneHandClap]

23 minutes ago, Windappreciator said:

@OneHandClap matter being matter itself doing matter things isn't sufficient, but necessary in a sense.

AI would not be AI at the point it becomes conscious in regular understanding.

Okay, so we can call it whatever, then. An artificial person. A person. A robot. The terms don't matter; it's the metaphysical supposition that artificial beings can be as conscious (or more conscious) than organic ones. 

[Windappreciator]

5 minutes ago, OneHandClap said:

Okay, so we can call it whatever, then. An artificial person. A person. A robot. The terms don't matter; it's the metaphysical supposition that artificial beings can be as conscious (or more conscious) than organic ones. 

fine, then we switch positions without having something to switch to begin with.

you can tell those aliens of yours to come down and try to convince humans to stop eating corpses of children disguised as "farm animals" without breaking their psyche in the process and see for themselves how hard it is.

[OneHandClap]

1 minute ago, Windappreciator said:

fine, then we switch positions without having something to switch to begin with.

you can tell those aliens of yours to come down and try to convince humans to stop eating corpses of children disguised as "farm animals" without breaking their psyche in the process and see for themselves how hard it is.

At this point, I have no idea what you're even trying to argue. Lol. AI is capable of sentience.