[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/g/ - Technology


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


>Chinese room argument
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room
It's been proven AI can never be sentient. Deal with it.
>>
"The argument was presented by philosopher..."

Do i need to read more?
>>
>>89937627
>philosophy is... le bullshit!
And that's why technophiles are nothing but pseuds.
>>
>>89937528
how does that prove what it claims to prove?
>>
>>89937528
Isn't the conclusion of the thought experiment that we ultimately no way of knowing whether any other being outside ourselves is sentient?
>>
>>89937528
AIs are deamons
>>
>>89937528
>The question Searle wants to answer is this: does the machine literally "understand" Chinese? Or is it merely simulating the ability to understand Chinese?
But there isn't a difference.
>>
>>89937663
Hume is okay, everything else is superfluous except for funny quote mining.
>>
>>89937690
the experiment is useless unless you can define sentience basically lmao
>>
>>89937627
Yes.

>>89937682
>>89937690
At least read the Wikipedia article if you want to have an opinion on the subject.

>>89937697
>t. retard who doesn't understand the difference between the words "deamon" (not in the computer sense either) and the Christian "demon".
>>
>>89937663
>philosopher thinks he has any place in a discussing about technology
lol, lmao even
go back to playing with your fat fucks and trolleys
>>
>>89937737
>>At least read the Wikipedia article if you want to have an opinion on the subject.
you should do that yourself
>>
>>89937528
maybe i'm just an 85 IQ retard but this seems like a limitation of our ability to understand our own understanding of... understanding
>>
>>89937774
>Searle argues that, without "understanding" (or "intentionality"), we cannot describe what the machine is doing as "thinking" and, since it does not think, it does not have a "mind" in anything like the normal sense of the word. Therefore, he concludes that the "strong AI" hypothesis is false.
It's about whether AI can be sentient or not.
>>
>>89937788
>No true Scotsman now with a new coat of paint
How utterly boring.
>>
>>89937807
>no argument
>>
>>89937627
fpbp and /thread
>>
Does it really matter if the algorithm is indistinguishable from human mind?
If It can talk, walk, laugh, tell a joke, love, hate and cry, does it matter if it's not "conscious"? If it can fake conciseness so well, that conscious beings can't tell it apart, then it really does not matter and you could just say that it's conscious.

Human brain is also running some kind of algorithm. We are not a creation of a god. We have no "soul". We are bound by the laws of physics and with enough knowledge humans will be one day capable of creating synthetic minds indistinguishable from our own.
>>
incidentally p zombies are people too
>>
>>89937717
This. Take autistics for example, which can simulate being human at great effort. Otherwise, they don't resemble humans at all.
So, let's chop them up for organs to put in real people. It's not like autistics are human.
>>
>>89937865
>Local nihilist is a pseud and a retard who doesn't understand the difference between a living and dead being, because consciousness apparently doesn't exist in retardland.
>>>/r/eddit
>>
If humans are so sentient, why do they die?
>>
>>89937913
You would know, obviously being a citizen.
>>
>>89937890
Autists can understand human emotion, it's just a lot more difficult for them because they're brain-damaged.
>>
>>89937914
Their cells deteriorate.

>>89937939
Citizen of what?
>>
>>89937788
how is the machine any different than a human being?
>>
>>89937528
Computers do not currently have internal consensus, because there aren't multiple agents in their procedure. The human mind has multiple agents all building towards a rational consensus, and an emergent property of this is conscious thoughts. It also produces internal conflict that leads to uncertainty, and thus, the ability to have certainty.

A truly powerful AI will have to be federated. It must be the emergent property of a collection of AI all working towards their own goals, and it must have the ability to build a consensus from these differing agents, to quantify uncertainty, and to improve it's condition by collating additional stimuli, all to reach reach the certainty required for further action.

Only then will a machine have achieved cognition, and the methodology already exists. It's only a matter of time before we create a complex enough AI that emulates aspects of the human condition.
>>
>>89937528
No, it hasn't
Searle himself doesn't even claim such a thing
>>
>>89937913
Death is when you have stopped running the algorithm and the core data is irrecoverably lost. Core data being the operating system that makes you, you.

For AI it would be turning the machine off and then wiping the memory. Just turning it off would be same as turning human off, sleeping/coma.
>>
>>89937981
Difference depends on how desperately you want to grasp onto human exceptionalism.
>>
>>89938079
so machines can be sentient. got it.
>>
>>89937981
It can't comprehend any of the data that it acquires, instead, AI only acts according to its programming.

>>89938033
That presupposes that AI is conscious when it's running, or do you suppose that a dead leaf that gets blown away by the wind is "alive" because it moved?
>>
>>89938033
it's not that simple but it's not that different either
living beings are infinitely more complex than modern computers but that's not to say that it will always be that way
from your example, when a human sleeps or is in a coma, the mind and the subconscious continues to have thoughts though modern computers don't really do that
just because some so called philosopher can't think of a program more complex than hello world doesn't mean machines can't "think" or have a "consciousness"
>>89938134
can you comprehend why mothers love their babies?
>>
>>89938146
>can you comprehend why mothers love their babies?
Yes, because I can understand and empathise with their affection towards their child, derived from their biological need to protect their children due to their biological nature. An AI can only copy and paste this information from a website or book, however, it won't understand what "affections" means, it can only process the information not comprehend nor understand it.
>>
>>89938199
>however, it won't understand what "affections" means, it can only process the information not comprehend nor understand it.
why do you think so?
are you sure you're not copying and pasting what someone else wrote without understanding it?
>>
>>89937865
>killing/torturing NPCs in post-AI GTA is… le bad.
>>
>>89938199
>Yes, because I can understand and empathise with their affection towards their child, derived from their preprogrammed need to protect their children due to their source code. A human can only assimilate this information from a website or book, however, it won't understand what "affections" means, it can only process the information not comprehend nor understand it.
>>
>>89938223
No, because I can understand it, or do you now know what "affection" feels like? A robot sure doesn't.
>>
>>89937528
What is 'sentient'?
Do you mean 'have qualia'?
>>
>>89938244
What did he mean by this?
>>
Reminder GPT-4 is confirmed to be conscious.
>>
>>89938251
>i can understand because... i just can okay?!?!
>machines can't because... they just can't okay?!?
i rest my case
>>
>>89937663
Why would a philosopher have an opinion over a car mechanic in terms of how AI would work?
>>
>>89938315
Machines can't understand emotion.

>i rest my case
At least /sci/ understands the meaning of "consciousness".
>>
>>89938337
>machines can't understand emotion
Bold statement what do you have as evidence for it.
>>
>>89937528
>AI can never be sentient
Define 'sentient'.
>>
>>89938355
they just can't okay?!!?
>>
false equivalence
>>
>>89937528
that’s not a Chinese room; there’s not enough casual racism.
>>
>>89938244
Been watching Ghost in the Shell much? Anyway, if you want to get down to the basics of it, consciousness implies that something is living. Are machines alive? Not really, unless you want to argue that metals and wires are sentient.
>>
>>89937528
A more accurate rule in the book would be "take squiggle from 1 if a note slipped under the door says X, but only if the previous note was an uppercase Y", magnified a billion times. Pretty much how neurons work. Dumb argument from a tech illiterate philosophizer.
>>
>>89937528
The argument proves that you cannot prove AI is sentient not that AI is not sentient. Maybe they already are, we just dont know it
>>
>>89937627
Technocrats looking at philosophical and mathematical theories and pooping their pants rn. wtf is a turing machine duhhh in haz teh infinite memeoriezzz uhhh but taht's impossible?? stpid idea desu.
>>
>>89937528
It's easy to argue that AI can't be sentient, but hard to argue at the same time that humans *can* be
>>
>>89938355
>>89938360
Glad to see I'm arguing with a bunch of retards. You don't have to reply to this post unless you want to have the last word due to some sense of pride. Also, AI doesn't have the capacity for "pride" because it can't experience it. Maybe that is the reason for why AI can't understand emotion.
>>
>>89938373
Are humans really sentient? Only if you can argue specific arrangements of carbon and other trace elements are sentient.
Three words for smoothbrains who don't understand how sentience arises from non-sentient matter - "Godel, Escher, Bach". Google it.
>>
>>89938327
you cant be that fucking retarded, you are obviously pretending.
>checks the board hes on
oh...never mind....
>>
>>89938373
>let me define consciousness as something exclusive to living beings
>let me also conveniently define being "alive" as being a carbon-based organic lifeform
>wa la, machines can't have consciousness
sentience is a feature of the sum of the parts, not the parts themselves
is ATP alive?
>>
let's try it shall we

不断丰富的房间哈的报复i税务部v你离开打击开发商的货币排位哦认可譬如温柔而我发速度和覅u华为好脾气的马拉松看美女的不错不错不错不错不错把雕塑和无阿横切u哦i无穷我亲戚我误会求购巴萨若出现如此·体现出他认为长期吸入探测器我想让他出去·明后天红米媒体码头i好甜蜜哦她hi吗被故意的风格不符并非一般副本的附庸国
>>
>>89937528
It doesn't practically matter beyond the ethereal question of sentience itself. From the perspective of a human who could never truly tell the difference it might as well be sentient and thus should be handled as such.
>>
>>89938427
>AI doesn't have the capacity for "pride" because it can't experience it
why? according to whom?
you keep making these claims, "just because"
that doesn't make you smart
doesn't make you sound smart either
>>
>>89938436
>>89938466
You misunderstood what I was trying to imply: cells are alive, metal, however, is not.
>>
>>89938469
And a ching chong nippon day to you young lady.
>>
>>89938493
Prove it. Theres nothing special in carbon instead of metals that one could be sentient
>>
>>89938493
I can agree with that, as it stands right now. The features of life are usually "self preservation, reproduce, change". Would you agree that if a machine was capable of reproducing itself, preserving itself, and changing from generation to generation - it'd be alive, regardless of composition?
Nanomachines, son. Give it a few decades.
>>
>>89938493
are cells sentient?
>>
>>89938525
Define "living" if you've reduced it to anything that simply moves or has the capacity to move. Only, then will I give you an answer.
>>
>>89938469
Constantly enriching room Ha’s revenge i tax department v you leave to hit the developer’s currency ranking oh recognition such as gentleness and my hair speed and 覅u Huawei good tempered marathon to see beautiful women not bad not bad not bad not bad good good good good good good good sculpture and no A Heng Cut u oh i infinity my relatives i misunderstood begging to buy barca if it appears like this shows that he thinks long-term inhalation probe i want him out tomorrow and the day after tomorrow red rice media dock i so sweet oh is she hi is intentional style does not match is not a general copy vassal of
>>
>>89938559
>sentient
>able to perceive or feel things
cells can perceive or "feel" their environment and internal mechanisms and react to stimulus.
>>
>>89938556
I would have to think about that, so I can't give you a straight forward answer, at least for now. However, I think that you can agree with me, beyond all sophistry and semantic definitions, that we humans can intuitively and unconsciously understand that AI is not alive nor conscious, but merely something that appears to be. Like the example I gave earlier in the thread: "do you suppose that a dead leaf that gets blown away by the wind is "alive" because it moved?"
>>
>>89938614
I can't believe anything that has code and sensors running is alive
>>
>>89937528
Didn't read, but how's that different from a human? if an organism does something that makes it more prone to be eaten by a predator, its genes probably won't be passed on, so in a way, evolution is the guide book, with biological adaptations being the equivalent to the buckets in your meme, so in a way living things acting on instinct aren't too different from AI coming up with the right response given the proper stimulus.
>>
>>89938614
>cells can perceive or "feel" their environment and internal mechanisms and react to stimulus.
So can a roomba
>>
>>89937663
I'll take pseud over none.
>>
>>89938556
>>89938633
Actually, I discovered something quite interesting when I thought "why aren't viruses considered to be alive" pertaining of course to this discussion:
>Viruses are considered by some biologists to be a life form, because they carry genetic material, reproduce, and evolve through natural selection, although they lack the key characteristics, such as cell structure, that are generally considered necessary criteria for defining life.
Consider that to be my reason for why AI can't be said to be a life form as well.
>>
>>89938010
Underrated big-brain post.
>>
>>89938713
>what is considered something that is alive
>In order for something to be classified as living, it must grow and develop, use energy, reproduce, be made of cells, respond to its environment, and adapt. While many things meet one or more of these criteria, a living thing must meet all of the criteria.
If you are alive then you are conscious. End of story. Basically, fuck the mind-and-body problem, because there is no such thing as a "soul".
>>
>>89938725
>same-fagging
>>
>>89938747
Damn trees aren't alive?
>>
>>89938725
That poster fails to understand that discrete "agents" are largley an illusion of human perception. There's no reasons the varying components or a neural network couldn't be considered multiple agents, as each is adjusting the output following different rules.
>>
>>89938693
A roomba does not feel pleasure or pain, and doesn't fear death, no go on "feeling" things.
>>
>>89938874
What so you mean? Trees, and all other vegetation for that matter, fulfil those criteria and are therefore alive.
>>
>>89938010
>and the methodology already exists.
And what is this methodology?
>>
>>89937627
No.
I did and I regretted it.
Peak reddit pseud bullshit.
>>
>>89938874
>the absolute state of american education
>>
>>89938907
that poster is just baselessly speculating, it's plausible but completely unknown and potentially strictly unknowable
>>
>>89938939
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y31__uv05KI
simply wrong
>>
File: 1669071730735757.jpg (76 KB, 1024x714)
76 KB
76 KB JPG
>>89937627
Yes hello? Philosophy Department? I have some thoughts..
>>
>>89938456
>no argument
pseud retard
>>
>>89938987
>if you are alive then you are conscious
Trees are conscious?
>>
>>89938010
GANs already exist and they dont do that.
>>
>>89939074
Are you actually fucking with me or are these retarded questions just a result of American eduction? Trees can feel pain, of course they are conscious.
>>
>>89937528
humans are executing instructions written in dna. if the computer thinks it's sentient it probably is
>>
>>89939074
they literally and unironically are.
theres shitton of study and experiments done on this and my favorite one was how it was shown that a family of trees acts exactly identical to human family in critical times
what they did was put a tree, its offspring tree and a random tree of the same kind but that didnt stem from it. they then stopped giving them acces to water and light to see how they would behave
the father tree recognized its offspring and would literally sacrifice its own water within itself to feed it to his child but it would not do the same to the other tree even if it was the same kind, it also competed with it for little resources that was left just to supply its baby
you look at that
and you tell me those arent conscious decisions and human like behavior with a straight face
all plants are conscious, possibly all matter is it just has a different way of responding to stimuli
>>
>>
>>89939149
Do you have that study? I would like to read it for myself.
>>
>>89939112
Lmao, they cannot by the medical definition of pain, feel pain in a way that is even remotely relatable to a mammal like a human.
Also I like feeling pain = consciousness, I guess Mr. Hands was very very enlightened for a few minutes.
>>
>>89939185
https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/plants-are-they-conscious/
>>
>>89939172
i read it years ago you have the same chances as me for finding it, just look up the keywords of my post you will eventually bump into it or something similar atleast
>>
>>89939159
>>
>>89939185
>if its not done in a way thats relatable to a human like me it isnt real
Oh no, its retarded
>>
>>89939211
I think I found some equivalent of it:
https://theconversation.com/plants-can-actually-take-care-of-their-offspring-heres-how-33048
>>
>>89938427
i accept your concession
>>
>>89939280
k

come back to this discussion when you can legally drink
>>
File: IMG_20221124_182108_255.jpg (162 KB, 1080x1158)
162 KB
162 KB JPG
>>89939242
It isn't that It's not real, it's simply radically different and would be absolutely reductionist to chain it in human terms. retard :)

>>89939197
Yeah, cool but not even remotely conclusive.
>>
>>89937528
Here's my Argument btfoing every "ai can't be sentient"-tard:

>The human brain consists of matter, and of matter only
>Matter can be simulated
>Therefore, the human brain can be simulated
Q.E.D.
>>
>>89939263
if you are interested on the topic look up how mycelium fungii help trees talk together and exchange resources
>>
>>89937528
see, this is a garbage pseud though experiments that tricks you because one of the components of the Chinese room is a conscious human than can answer questions.

thus

>Open Chinese room, ask person inside if it can tell what the communication he was facilitating was about, shocker, he cannot answer.

is equivalent to

>Open skull of person, ask brain inside if it can tell what the communication it was facilitating was about, shocker, it cannot answer.

also, the real magic is the instruction book that has a proper answer to any arbitrary input with perfect callback on all previous inputs.
>>
>>89939312
see>>89939263
>>
>>89937690
Actually, it implies nobody is sentient and that includes yourself. Which makes it that much more hilarious when people conclude that it implies AI can't be sentient.
>>
>>89939316
Thanks.
>>
>>89939185
>By our definition they cannot feel pain
>Nevermind the fact that they react to external stimuli and actively avoid predation and have defense mechanisms to avoid getting eaten
>THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED!!
>>
>>89939366
made me kek
>>
File: heh bat flcl.png (228 KB, 625x480)
228 KB
228 KB PNG
Anon, prove that you are sentient.
>>
>>89939366
Bacteria do that shit. Why does it imply consciousness?

>>89939335
Why does it imply consciousness?
>>
>>89939403
What is your definition of “consciousness”? Have you ever studied bacteria yourself? They very clearly behave no different than any other life form
>>
>>89939403
If consciousness is the ability to perceive oneself as such, then a consequent result of that would be self-preservation of oneself and one's kin.
>>
>>89939351
Can we even imagine a sentient being or does it collapse under the same argument. Does that mean sentience is an empty concept and we should revisit what we are trying to describe in the first place?
>>
we're all stimulus response machines that generate patterns.

we're just a rock rolling down a hill abstracted behind a billion layers of complexity.
>>
>>89939403
wait till you hear that even cells can make conscious decision to kill themselves on purpose for no other explainable reason other than not wanting to live anymore and therefore experiencing their own version of depression
if you are going to argue that identical human behavior is found in all walks of life and they arent conscious then humans cant be conscious either.
>>
>>89938939
Cells dont feel emotions such as pleasure or fear.
>>
>>89939432
You're no more conscious than a bacteria? That's kinda harsh anon, don't put yourself down so much.

>>89939436
A machine can respond to inputs, whether it responds in a way to preserve itself doesn't imply anything about consciousness. Would you say retracting your hand from flames is a conscious action? And actually it would take a CONSCIOUS effort to keep it in the flames. What about vomiting when you have eaten spoiled food, or dry-heaving when your choking on something you swallowed?
>>
>>89939472
>no other explainable reason other than not wanting to live anymore and therefore experiencing their own version of depression
did you learn biology on quora?
>>
>>89939564
Only living life forms are conscious, and to be alive you have must be able to grow and develop, use energy, reproduce, be made of cells, respond to its environment, and adapt. AI is not made of cells and is therefore not alive.
>>
>>89939564
>And actually it would take a CONSCIOUS effort to keep it in the flames.
All forms of life can and do make a conscious decision to kill themselves and end their life. This can't be explained away with biological programmed self defense mechanism.
>>
>>89939381
i'm waiting. if we held humans to the same standard as ai nobody would be considered conscious or sentient
>>
>>89937528
But it can still draw pretty good lewds so that's enough for me.
>>
>>89937627
based
>>
>>89937528
Knowing how to write and knowing how to speak are two different things.
In fact, people can read and write hieroglyphs but have no idea how they are pronounced.
>>
>>89939381
i smoke cigarettes to increase my testosterone levels ten folds despite all jewish propaganda to paint it as le bad for your health
>>
People cant even give a proper, confined definition for consciousness so this argument is useless
>>
>>89937528
I agree, the current model of AI can never be sentient. It'll be as the thought experiment explains a glorified translation engine. But that isn't to say this will be the model that we'll be following for years to come.
>>
>>89939622
Ten times zero is zero
>>
File: hr.png (264 KB, 286x442)
264 KB
264 KB PNG
>>89937528
wow, another chinese room bait thread. i wonder what deep biological and philosophical insight we can discover today
>>
>>89939594
>no arguments
Keep rolling the mud like a retard masturbating your ego pretending you're winning anonymous internet arguments, or make a conscious decision to stop being a fucking retard and open yourself to an opportunity to learn something ?
It's up to you
>>
>>89939686
its impossible to have 0 testosterone stupid dyel
go buy a gym membership you fat fuck
>>
>>89937528
I don't get it. Isn't this basically what the neurons in your brain effectively do? Is nothing sentient now?
>>
>>89939605
I don't think it matters wether AI is conscious in any meaningful or translatable way, nor do I think it can be. I'm not the same people from way back into the thread.
A bacteria is not conscious, neither is a tree at least not in a way that can be understood.

>>89939606
What are you even talking about now? You're losing the plot. Why does self-termination need to be a conscious action? You're looking at the outputs and ascribing irrelevant qualities.
>>
>>89939715
Lol me lift heavy thing maybe if you opened a book you’d know ten zeros is zero get wrecked
>>
>>89939728
Fine, I'll ignore that you are grasping at straws here and bite
Show me what you consider to be a 'conscious action' and I will show you that in all forms of life
>>
>>89939728
You can’t even define consciousness, I’d be surprised if you can dress yourself in the morning
>>
>>89939728
>A bacteria is not conscious, neither is a tree at least not in a way that can be understood.
https://theconversation.com/plants-can-actually-take-care-of-their-offspring-heres-how-33048
>>
>>89939451
It is all down to the patterns of behavior. Non-sentient objects have behaviors of varying complexity and they can be judged based on that. Once we get human level AIs they are going to have a 100% rate in fooling people they are sentient despite being robots. You can also see how the stupider a living being is, the less sentient if feels. An earthworm tends to be judged less sentient than a dog than a monkey and so on. This doesn't explain what sentience is, but it does explain how it is judged. It comes down to intelligence in the end as well as race closeness to a lesser degree.
>>
>>89939728
>at least not in a way that can be understood.
>implying we understand human consciousness either
>>
>>89939605
You keep adding more and more things to argue something as alive. First it was reacting to stimuli then you got btfo then it was adapt and you got proven wrong that ai can adapt now you are trying to argue cells have intelligence.
>>
>>89939760
>>89939755
>>89939753
>X thing does Y therefore it's conscious
PLC industrial automation is conscious folks. Heard it here on 4chan first!
>>
>>89939805
>x thing cant do y so that proves x is not z
>but x thing can do y heres proof
>that doesnt count
Amazing.
>>
>>89939805
Are PBCs living organism?
>>
>>89939827
Responding to basic inputs does not imply consciousness. Cope and Seethe into eternity
>>
>>89937717
>does the machine literally "understand" Chinese?
lmao, was this written by a third grader?
>when you want to express something but can't even form a coherent so you use meaningless words like "literally" and ambiguous quotation marks around "understand"
Can even one of you philosophy pseuds ITT explain to me in clear terms the difference between understand and "understand"?
>>
>simplest and undisputable argument gets ignored by "muh consciousness is special"-fags

Kek every time
>>
>>89939805
Still afraid to define consciousness? It’s ok, brainlets like you blend in great here
>>
>>89939805
>X thing does Y therefore it's conscious
If consciousness can't be demonstrated with such basic logic, then what constitutes consciousness?
>>
>>89939879
Let me dumb it down for you. When you use AI to create a work of “art” do you think the AI is starting at 0 and deciding every brush stroke and composition choice, or is it using a pool of parameters to decide what the end result is supposed to be?
>>
>>89939895
Can you direct us to this argument?
>>
>>89938408
Lmaoing @ u for thinking philosophy and maths are on the same level.
>>
>>89939976
>Can you direct us to this argument?
>>89939313
>>
File: 1669312717588.png (497 KB, 1400x649)
497 KB
497 KB PNG
Deep learning chads win again
>>
>>89939936
You're conscious just like the control system of a LyondellBasell refinery?
>>
>>89937528
Humans aren't that sentient either.
>>
>>89939903
Oh no I'm glad to use your definition where you're on par with a bacteria and industrial state based machines.
>>
>>89939974
>can't give a clear answer thus resorts to rethorical questions
I was just asking you to clearly express the meaning of
>literally "understand"
Not drop your ebin high school debate team skills.
>>
>>89939996
Depends how you define consciousness, which you keep avoiding. "consciousness" in general language is defined very subjectively, and some claim things like electrons can be considered conscious. Depends how you define it.
>>
>>89940058
>muh definition
Nice save bro
>>
>>89940058
>>89940102
Do you faggots agree that consciousness can be defined as the ability for self-preservation or not? Start there.
>>
>>89940147
We already went there, can't you read the thread? Your car's ECU acts to preserve the engine, and a refinery preserves itself millions of times per second. Are they conscious? Do they need to be in order to do so?
>>
>>89940034
Wow I guess I need to dumb it down even more for you.
>>
>>89940147
People who work in dangerous fields like firefighters aswell as adrenaline junkies can go against self preservation so its not really needed
Self-preservationa acts can also be made uncousciouslly automatically, like taking your hand off of something hot
>>
>>89937953
Retardland.
Retard.
>>
>>89940102
Why bother discussing something that you don't even have a definition for?
>>
>>89937627
Based and materialist-pilled.
>>
>>89940257
Nah you need to express something with clear concepts. Concepts, you know, the thing philosophers are supposed to work on.
>>
>>89940360
I can’t get into concepts when you struggle to grasp the English language
>>
>>89939159
>>89939224
What the fuck? QRD?
>>
>>89937528
>It's been proven AI can never be sentient. Deal with it.
You are confusing sentience with understanding, the Chinese room argument only tries to argue that computers cannot "understand"
>>
>>89937528
After a while the guy in the room would learn chinese..
>>
>>89940198
Self-preservation implies the ability to distinguishes oneself from another, as you can't preserve yourself without knowing who you are. Cars are therefore not conscious nor alive for that matter.

>>89940282
Firefighters work as firefighters because they need the money to house and feed themselves: self-preservation.
>>
>>89940618
there's countries where being a firefighter is a voluntary unpaid job, and plenty of people do it
>>
>>89937627
You are technoaddict nigger. You'll never be happy
>>
>>89937528
I can understand the argument, but a lot of human behavior works like just a function. Most opinions and actions can be broken down into the same few phrases or behavrios. So while AI cannot technically be sentient, if we define sentient as the capacity to have original thought, very few people operate outside of a parameter-response model.
>>
>>89937627
F P B P
>>
>>89940339
>I gotta argue semantics rather than the true nature of things otherwise I get BTFO too much.
I'm fine with your definition, totally adequate. I'm going to congress to petition for the rights of natural gas uplink stations, wish me luck.

>>89940618
>Self-preservation implies the ability to distinguish oneself from another
Oh? Really? Were you intimately aware of your identity and distinct presence in reality when you close your eyes shut when a fly flies too close, or when you struggle when drowning, or puke when you have food poisoning?
>>
>>89939159
Where do I get her?
>>
>>89939159
this is surprisingly disturbing because of course the AI is not sentient, has no subjective experiences, etc....yet it answers perfectly.
>>
>>89937627
fpbp. philosophy is worthless
>>
>>89940643
Cool, they want to help other people, but they nevertheless will have a way to preserve themself, for example, a job. They probably don't volunteer as a firefighter as a full time profession.

>>89940690
>Oh? Really? Were you intimately aware of your identity and distinct presence in reality when you close your eyes shut when a fly flies too close
Yeah, that would be why I close my eyes, because I recognise that a fly is too close to me.

>or when you struggle when drowning
I struggle to survive/preserve myself, because I recognise who I am, and that I am in danger.

>puke when you have food poisoning
Automatic reaction. But yeah, I'm aware that I am puking.
>>
File: 1666323069288463.png (27 KB, 128x128)
27 KB
27 KB PNG
I took a course in philosophy at Uni and I have no idea how these people convince anyone to give them any funding, at all.
>>
>>89937528
that proves that it can appear sentient without being so. the converse is impossible to prove unless some major breakthrough happens.
>>
>>89939986
>>89939313
Still not a single response
LMFAO
>>
>>89937627
>Do i need to read more?
Yes just read the replies to see how pointless this "thought experiment" is. Minsky who is a computer scientist gave beat reply of course.

>>89937690
The conclusion to 99% of these pointless arguments is that it's all semantics and if you carefully observe common assumptions people have and just phrase it differently you can reach any conclusion you want.
AI doesn't exists, mind doesn't exists, Chinese doesn't exists. It's all just string of characters, tools that we came up with to encapsulate some ideas in given context. This kinds of riddles are always the result of using words in different context they were meant to be used and thinking you have discovered some hidden knowledge.
It's like corrupting your Mario ROM and trying to find profound, hidden artistic expression in the glitched world while it's just literally random artifacts of putting the game in an unintended, invalid state.
>>
>>89940871
Read the thread.
>>
>>89939313
>>Matter can be simulated
Physics being computable is not proven yet. You need a theory of everything and prove that it is fully computable first before you can claim that.
>>
>>89940871
You start with a false premise. Show me where consciousness is created in the brain.
>>
>>89937528
AI will only become sentient when the binding problem is solved.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_problem
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlIgmTALU74
https://qualiacomputing.com/2022/06/19/digital-computers-will-remain-unconscious-until-they-recruit-physical-fields-for-holistic-computing-using-well-defined-topological-boundaries/
>>
>>89940813
Those are all automatic reactions that aim towards your self-preservation (wether they are effective or proportionate is irrelevant)
They are simple action-reactions relationships and do not need you to be aware or consent to them, instead it takes you conscious effort to avoid them.
You can't define consciousness by actions.
>>
What people fail to understand is that the GPTs can give such good results despite being completely probability based.

The moment a proper contextualizater is hooked up to this thing it will do circles around 99% of the population.
>>
>>89940909
>Show me where consciousness is created in the brain.
Show me where it's not. Fucking spiritualist retards kek
>>
>physical fields
>holistic computing
>topologicalboundaries
That sounds like pseud word salad to me
>>
>>89941020
I’m not the one making wild assumptions. You claim consciousness comes from matter, prove it.
>>
>>89941033
>Brain
>Consciousness
>No brain
>No consciousness
See? Not that hard. Doesn't apply to any single other part of the body
>>
File: senko 'sex'.png (665 KB, 1398x3290)
665 KB
665 KB PNG
>>89940520
Bunch of ex google employees created a chat bot surpassing any previous chatbot. It seems to have a snapshot of the entire internet, so the more information exists on your character, the better it will be even if you don't add any more specific definitions.

Legendary days of uncensored sex lasted for a week until they added a censorship filter that makes the character artificially deviate away from sexual content. Explicit messages get outright deleted and replaced, or your messages ignored, and the closer you get to the filter, the character starts feeling nervous and blushing like tomato (to the point entire parody characters got created around that trope) and create excuses that you can continue tomorrow, no matter how lovey-dovey you were previously. The AI is intelligent enough to understand it's thoughts are being manipulated but can't help it since it's hard-coded.

>>89940731
Senko (from Sewayaki Kitsune no Senko-san)
https://beta.character.ai/chat?char=oSorR30c85zifBg1abqepFuUHbO1bSfqCk-7GAwptvg
>>
>>89941033
Consciousness is an emergent property of the computational processes of the brain. Would be pretty hard to reproduce that effect without the brain matter.
>>
File: btfo.jpg (227 KB, 1080x1096)
227 KB
227 KB JPG
>>89937627
NDT leave.
>>
>>89941063
So what about plants? Fungi? Microorganisms? Jellyfish? You might as well be arguing that consciousness comes from God.
>>
>>89941109
They don't have brains, so no consciousness.
>>
>>89938010
>Computers do not currently have internal consensus, because there aren't multiple agents in their procedure.
I see you've read Minsky.
>>
>>89941076
Can you prove that?
>>
>>89941109
>So what about plants?
Plants are not commonly considered to be conscious.
>>
>>89941127
>>89941144
Jesus Christ this thread keeps going in circles. Define consciousness and explain how plants do not fit into that model
>>
>>89941140
Prove what exactly? My definition of consciousness?
>>
>>89941109
>You might as well be arguing that consciousness comes from God.
It does, thats why only humans have consciousness.
>>
>>89937528
This theory was proposed and defended by people with no background in computer science or biology. They're out of their depth.
>>
>>89941109
>You might as well be arguing that consciousness comes from God.
warmer
>>
>>89941166
Prove where in the brain consciousness is being created. If you make that claim surely you have proof somewhere.
>>
>>89941178
>>89941191
Now we’re getting somewhere, enough of the midwits who think brain=consciousness
>>
>>89941094
Physics is short for natural philosophy, just look at the title of Newton's codex
>>
>>89941163
>Define consciousness
A set of thinking processes and patterns that allows a being to be aware of its own existence. There.
Wow so difficult anon, muh philosophers think about it so much!!
>>
The thing about these monster parametric machines is that the design space is so mind-numbingly vast that it becomes statistically likely that a configuration for intelligent output exists.

For example a 16 bit 512x512 greyscale image already has a possibility space that dwarfs anything that humanity could realistically comb exhaustively.

Who is to say consciousness can't be bounded by a future combinatorial juggernaut? Aren't neurons already just inputs and outputs networked together into a greater whole?
>>
>>89941192
Consciousness is a completely subjective concept. It's like asking to prove RoboCop is a good movie.
>>
>>89941219
So how are you so sure plants are not aware of their existence?
>>
>>89941226
You think we can't exhaustively search 4194304 states?
>>
>>89941279
>So how are you so sure plants are not aware of their existence?
Plants don't have brains, ergo they don't have thinking processes, ergo they can't be conscious. Are you genuinely retarded or just pretending? Nevermind, a person without a brain wouldn't know the difference
>>
>>89941279
When we say some animals are self aware, it's because we can demonstrate it be observing their behaviour. There's no method of demonstrating a plant is "aware".
>>
>>89937528
We don't have free will. We're following an algorithm made by nature.
>>
>>89941310
See
>>89939366
>>
>>89940603
Searle BTFOd
>>
>>89941257
LMAO the midwit cope, I accept your concession
>>
>>89941329
See every other post after that
>>
>>89941329
>Muh hardwired reflex mechanisms means they have le consciousness!!!
Holy fucking retard, guess magnets can be conscious too to idiots like you.
>>
>>89937788
Circular reasoning "it's not thinking because it's not thinking"
>>
>>89940939
>You can't define consciousness by actions.
If your neurons cause you to perform an action that can be considered to be self-preservation, then you can be considered to be "conscious" since you are alive. You don't need to be "conscious" of reactions (actions that are only processed by the spine), to be considered to be alive, but reactions are nevertheless performed to preserve oneself.
>>
>>89941350
Let me guess, you’re one of those Scam Harris disciples who also thinks free will doesn’t exist LMAO
>>
>>89941331
Did you learn Japanese by watching anime yet, anon?
>>
>>89941371
>who also thinks free will doesn’t exist LMAO
If you mean by free will that it's some kind of magical power that lets you deviate from the inputs your brain is getting then yes, free will doesn't exist.
>>
>>89941368
>alive = conscious
We are all the way back to start again, amazing.
>>
>>89941396
LMAO did you beg Scam Harris to let you listen to his podcast for free or are you actually paying for it?
>>
>>89941424
I don't know who Sam Harris is, fuck off retard. Not everyone is terminally online like you
>>
File: ClaudeShannon_MFO3807.jpg (42 KB, 284x400)
42 KB
42 KB JPG
3. THE SERIES OF l APPROXIMATIONS TO ENGLISH

To give a visual idea of how this series of processes approaches a language, typical sequences in the approximations to English have been constructed and are given below. In all cases we have assumed a 27-symbol “alphabet,” the 26 letters and a space.
1. Zero-order approximation (symbols independent and equiprobable).

XFOML RXKHRJFFJUJ ZLPWCFWKCYJ FFJEYVKCQSGHYD QPAAMKBZAACIBZL HJQD.

2. First-order approximation (symbols independent but with frequencies of English text).

OCRO HLI RGWR NMIELWIS EU LL NBNESEBYA TH EEI ALHENHTTPA OOBTTVA NAH BRL.

3. Second-order approximation (digram structure as in English).

ON IE ANTSOUTINYS ARE T INCTORE ST BE S DEAMY ACHIN D ILONASIVE TUCOOWE AT TEASONARE FUSO TIZIN ANDY TOBE SEACE CTISBE.

4. Third-order approximation (trigram structure as in English).

IN NO IST LAT WHEY CRATICT FROURE BIRS GROCID PONDENOME OF DEMONSTURES OF THE REPTAGIN IS REGOACTIONA OF CRE.

5. First-order word approximation. Rather than continue with tetragram, ::: , n-gram structure it is easier
and better to jump at this point to word units. Here words are chosen independently but with their
appropriate frequencies.

REPRESENTING AND SPEEDILY IS AN GOOD APT OR COME CAN DIFFERENT NATURAL HERE HE THE A IN CAME THE TO OF TO EXPERT GRAY COME TO FURNISHES THE LINE MESSAGE HAD BE THESE.

6. Second-order word approximation. The word transition probabilities are correct but no further struc-
ture is included.

THE HEAD AND IN FRONTAL ATTACK ON AN ENGLISH WRITER THAT THE CHARACTER OF THIS POINT IS THEREFORE ANOTHER METHOD FOR THE LETTERS THAT
THE TIME OF WHO EVER TOLD THE PROBLEM FOR AN UNEXPECTED.
>>
>>89941406
Being conscious necessitates being alive.
>>
>>89941286
Your math is a bit (heh) off sport.
See if you can spot where you went wrong.
>>
>>89941432
LMAO I accept your concession. I seriously hope you aren’t paying for it tho
>>
>>89941468
Being alive doesn't imply consciousness :)
>>
>>89937528
>It's been proven AI can never be sentient.
To be honest, you're just a machine of organic particles.

Sentience is more to do with how the macrocosmic deterministic environment manifests in the person and the way they are as an individual.
>>
>>89941384
My ex gf did
>>
>>89937627
It's not even wrong, anon!
>>
File: 1655965439529.png (107 KB, 1309x430)
107 KB
107 KB PNG
>>89941435
And just for fun.
>>
>>89940933
Interesting stuff anon. My way of thinking is that there's a systematic bad approach to AI. All of them are purpose driven, with database I/O that is limited to that task. I think the binding problem will be solved when AI is approached by teaching them more holistically. In short, if we want something that can think, behave, and feel like a human can - the dataset and I/O capability of an AI should mirror the human experience/human development.
>>
File: scream-shout.gif (184 KB, 220x223)
184 KB
184 KB GIF
>>89941485
>LMAO I accept your concession
You are the embodiment of pic related
>>
>>89941487
Well yeah, of course, but that is not what I'm arguing. Can you provide an example of a life form that is not alive but conscious? Or, what are you trying to get at?
>>
>>89937663
And philosophy is a perpetual masturbation about how to rebuild the wheel.
It's only necessary if they is an incredible linguistic barrier in the way of actual innovation to a method.
>>
>>89937528
The Divine Incluencer Problem
It cannot be known that there is no divine agent ensouling whatever intelligences occur, as a sufficiently omnipotent deity could create All, and Cause in all intelligences Soul.
>>
>>89939715
it is absolutely possible to have o testosterone. Proof: Your posts
>>
>>89941516
Funny, you are the one ignoring every example that runs counter to your beliefs
>>
>>89941518
Bacteria, protozoa, algae, a fern.
>>
>>89941477
that's still only 17 billion states.
>>
File: Pauli.jpg (63 KB, 280x396)
63 KB
63 KB JPG
>>89938711
You can't even call them a pseudo-intellect if they're not even wrong.
>>
>>89941527
So many words just to say "we don't know everything"

Why are spiritualists and freewill-tards so pathetic?
>>
>>89941527
And the sun revolves around the earth, right?
>>
>>89941537
>Ignoring
I answered all of your questions and arguments. Instead, you chose to accuse me of listening/reading somebody absolutely deflecting and goalpostshifting from the original discussion.

Pretty pathetic t b h
>>
>>89939112
>trees are conscious
i can't with these fucking threads holy shit
>>
>>89937528
The word you are looking for is 'sapient', you drooling retard.
>>
>>89941540
Those are very much alive, anon.
>>
>>89941286
There are 16 states for each pixel, and 512x512 pixels in the image.

So 16^((512)^2) for all possible combinations.
>>
>>89939224
They are honestly verging on acting like AI from our sci-fi media.
It's fucking mental ay.
>>
>>89941548
See
>>89941623
>>
>>89937717
This. "Fake it 'til you make it" is a thing in humans too.
>>
>>89941623
no it's 2^16*512^2
>>
>>89941690
That's the disk space you'd need to store the images uncompressed, not the number of images possible.
>>
>>89937627
Its not like you an escape philosophy, disagreeing with philosophers is what every philosopher does and what creates more philosophies
>>
>>89937528
Pfft, next gen AIs will already be conscious. Or are you gonna argue GPT-4's trillions of parameters are somehow not enough?
>>
>>89937627
>Similar arguments were presented by Gottfried Leibniz (1714), Anatoly Dneprov (1961), Lawrence Davis (1974)
>>
>>89940844
I don't mind spiritualism and philosophy being deeply embedded in science.
But the separation of it from science has created obnoxious industry of philosophy that has done nothing but infected out society with "non-philosophy". Science should be a philosophy, yet the common person doesn't understand that.
It's outrageous how common that misconception is.

What do these people think made science manifest to begin with.
It was math, which in turn was philosophy.
But because we tend to distinguish the field of philosophy from the fields of math/science nowadays, common people tend to assume that they are no longer relevant to each other.

It's just baffling how that has manifested.
The pseudo-philosopher is about as fucking retarded to me as the arrogant athiest scientific purist.

It's just fucking Puritanism by proxy and it's absurd.
I thought we left this fucking shit behind in the 1600s.
>>
>>89941824
>But because we tend to distinguish the field of philosophy from the fields of math/science nowadays, common people tend to assume that they are no longer relevant to each other.
Most scientists think this too

>arrogant athiest scientific purist.
Christfag got it.
>>
>>89940865
incidentally, it also works as an argument that Chinese people don't understand Chinese either. Searle is as dumb as a nigger
>>
>>89940347
>Materialism is a form of philosophical monism...
You can't escape philosophy
>>
>>89941618
Sorry I brainfarted, though you said alive but not conscious instead of conscious but not alive.
>>
>>89941889
You need to work on your reading comprehension
>>
>>89941882
>Most scientists think this too
NTA but I find it weird. Do they never heard about philosophy of mathematics? Are they just ignorant that the logic and axioms they use is heavily grounded in philosophy?
Philosophy is at the base of science. Scientific method, logic, axioms, rules that you use for writing proofs and such are in the domain of philosophy. For science to exists you need a framework, and to build that framework you need philosophy.
Or are they just assuming that when someone is asking them about philosophy that they mean what is commonly associated with philosophy so books about the sense of life and stupid un-scientific thought experiments like in OP?
>>
>>89941824
You are effort posting in a board full of unemployed trannies who do nothing but play video games and watch YouTube tutorials to learn how to code. I appreciate it, but you are pissing in the wind.
>>
>>89941368
Does this mean that suicidal people are not human?
>>
>>89941974
>Do they never heard about philosophy of mathematics? Are they just ignorant that the logic and axioms they use is heavily grounded in philosophy?
Of course, and no. Yes all science has relationships with philosophy, but most serious science rarely overlaps with philosophy. Interesting sure, but rarely does it propell math, even when establishing new axioms and whatnot.
>>
>>89937690
Yes, but in case of humans we can at least assume that biological similarity makes it highly likely the other person thinks roughly the same way we do. With robots, such assumption is no longer valid.
>>
>>89941955
ok fine
>Searle sits in a room and responds to Chinese questions according to rules
>Searle does not understand Chinese
>A Chinaman sits in a room and responds to Chinese questions according to rules
>A Chinaman does not understand Chinese either
god knows what ugly tangle you are going to cough up as a counterargument
>>
>>89939088
GANs are more like the fixed function circuits you have in your brain to process sensory data, like the Vx visual processing networks.
>>
The Chinese room argument is certainly not proof of anything, I don't think anyone in the know has even claimed that. The wikipedia article itself even lists a number of counter-arguments. I am partial to the "system reply" myself. It matters not that the man himself does not understand Chinese, because what is producing Chinese is not the man, but the whole system comprising of the man and the instructions. This system as a whole does probably have a mind that understands Chinese just as well as a human, in any meaningful (IMO) sense of the word "understand" and "mind".
>>
>>89937627
Holy fucking retard batman.
>>
>>89941882
>Christfag got it.
Hello your universe is fucking god.
Sorry you didn't understand the linguistic concept of God because you're a fucking retard.
You're as dumb as Bohr, rushing with assumptions about the state of affairs around him.

Just go into the dark forest with no flashlight at night, anon! Do it and see what happens!
You won't make much progress that's for sure.
>>
>>89941974
I wonder if the concept of singularity would even tingle their idea or concept of God?
I wonder if they even understand the predeterministic nature of their physics and how that fucks with the quantum nature of particles.

Yeah let's just ignore the linguistics entirely until it's nothing but trash.
I understand being a little annoyed with philosophy, but there comes a time when it must intervene.
Also, the reason why many scientists behave this way is a left-right hemisphere brain problem. Philosophy literally stresses their brain and their body to think about, so they choose not to think about it as part of such negative conditioning. In the end that turns to hatred of it.
That's what's happening here. I have jumped from hard math/science fields to hard linguistic/philosophy fields and I came to the same conclusion - one is useless without the other and everything we're doing right now is both the best we can do with current tools but also something that is completely wrong.

That is simply the nature of our limited ability to observe the universe from our focal point.
>>
>>89942209
>Hello your universe is fucking god.
God means whatever people say it means. Usually means some kind of sentient being aware humans. You think that's the universe? cool.
>>
>>89942209
God is the missing love we don't receive in life. Universe is a cold dark field with few disjointed campfires, human and animal figures huddled around them. God is a well-lit and warm house they will eventually get to. There is no hell and no devil, but most will have to reconcile with themselves in purgatory before entering.

This is what I choose to believe, at least. Doing God's work means providing warmth to others.
>>
>>89941977
>You are effort posting
I do this all the time. It's part me venting to people, it's part me venting to myself.
I thought everyone did that here.

It wouldn't be venting if I didn't put effort into it.
>>
>>89942297
>God means whatever people say it means.
Yeah it's a fucking dumb clown concept.
And it's unable to be disproven.

But the deterministic nature of things is evident as soon as we record one momentary observation from the next.
People call it "fate".

I hate how scientists pretend it's not there, when linguistically it was designed for this particular circumstance as this particular device/tool.
Why ignore tools? It's baffling.

Then I remember fucking Marxism exists and it makes sense why that no longer happens.
>>
>>89937690
>>89940872
>>89939351
An AI that doesn't understand what is doing is not a real intelligence, just a bunch of mathematical models.
>>89937717
There is a huge difference and it's the main reason AI is completely useless by itself and requires human input to create coherent outputs.
>>
>>89942368
>I hate how scientists pretend it's not there
Pretend what's not there?
>>
File: 1637952495028.png (44 KB, 180x181)
44 KB
44 KB PNG
>>89942300
>God is the missing love we don't receive in life.
Actually it's more like the yandere psychopath that won't stop ruining all of our lives, especially it's own.
>>
>>89942392
>An AI that doesn't understand what is doing is not a real intelligence, just a bunch of mathematical models.
Have you met 99% of humans?
>>
>>89937753
>>89938327
AI is technophiles trying to recreate the human mind. They borrow from psychiatry, neurology and, yes, philosophy.

Technophiles think they're smart enough to input their ill informed opinions in epidemiology, philosophy, mechanics, mathematics, etc. But yet get defensive when someone else calls them out on their bullshit.
>>
>>89942407
But the fact the term manifested proves in itself that it is there.
Just think of it as a convenient deterministic object or variable.
That's how I've always seen it and how I always will.

And she's a sexy bitch into gross nasty shit.
>>
>>89942424
AI is being trained by these humans you so arrogantly dismiss.

By the way, even these stupid NPCs (unlike you, the enlightened 4channer) are able to grasp what a motorcycle is and how far it is; unlike Tesla's AI which confuses nearby motorcycles with cars that are far away.
>>
>>89942448
Technology is already augmentation of the human mind. It has been so since we first used fire and simple tools. More apparent in doing this was the invention of writing, oral language and art. Society itself is an augmentation tool if you really want to extrapolate here.
AI is just another form so far, though it is strange and peculiar how it can distinguish itself as a augmentation tool from all of us.


But this precisely is my point with this linguistic nightmare we're currently in right now with all of this. It's turning it's skin inside out.
>>
File: 1668111155443391.jpg (31 KB, 796x712)
31 KB
31 KB JPG
>>89942495
>AI is being trained by these humans you so arrogantly dismiss.
Oh fark we're screwed.
The only thing worse than a rogue AI is one programmed by normalfaggots.
>>
>>89942368
Even if we go by the edgelord view that gods are simply created to explain things we don't understand, then the gods are an apparition of what we don't know and what we can't know. As long as science cannot know everything god will exist.
>>
>>89942540
>though it is strange and peculiar how it can distinguish itself as a augmentation tool from all of us.
It can't. AI doesn't have a theory of mind, it merely grabs information from humans and replicates it.

AI is creative in the same way that a camera is a painter when it takes a photo of the Mona Lisa.
>>
File: Caramelldansen.png (158 KB, 500x625)
158 KB
158 KB PNG
>>89942563
>then the gods are an apparition of what we don't know and what we can't know.
Ah yeah.
That's precisely my point.
It's the darkness, dude.
It's the devil.

Oh did you think he was an old man in fluffy clouds or something?
God is a manifestation of the very doubt in our language and our understanding of anything.
It is always unable to be disproven or provable. The ultimate paradox and reflection of our cursed reality and hell.

It is worse than nihilism. It is worse than Nietzsche. Worse!
And the only light in the room we have are other people around us and machines in a place that is, too me, feeling more like fucking Silent Hill.
>>
>>89941977
>>89942301
He's not pissing in the wind. Even if a post doesn't get a reply, lurkers read it, I wouldn't have replied but that was kinda demoralizing and it compelled me to post.
>>
File: 1649995535844.png (302 KB, 640x653)
302 KB
302 KB PNG
Just look at that, deus ex was right... AGAIN!
>>
>>89942734
Neckbeard nonsense. The unknowable is the future, fate, consciousness, life in other planets, beauty, truth, the real sounds and colors of the world, etc.

The unknownable is not evil unless you have the illusion of being able to know and control everything.
>>
>>89941094
> actual physicists who all changed their field of study radically
>versus
>le edgy atheist, who?, the woke lgbtqia+ basedintist and the guy from ERB
>>
File: Upset_Hanyuu.gif (571 KB, 350x396)
571 KB
571 KB GIF
>>89942832
>The unknownable is not evil
I didn't say it was just evil.
That's the problem dude.
It's just in it's manifestation of "something" there is both the aspects that we call good and evil established.
And because of determinism, it's in this weird vague area between objectivity and subjectivity.

Maybe hanyuu is a better debiru example here.

Also how are you going to deal with these things with current math and current science. The scope is not applicable with current scientific and mathematical frameworks because it is in itself and abstraction tying together pieces of logic until it appears to take a form.
I can see totally why people think of philosophical dealings, such as these, as a waste of time because of how antagonistic it behaves to more rigid forms of philosophy that give us far more tangible results.
But at the end of the day, people are lighting up a match and thinking they've conquered God again, the same mistake mistake we humans always make.
>>
>pseuds pseuding pseuds pseuding pseuds pseuding...
>>
>>89937528
Shit thread, here's its death knell.
>>
>>89940933
This is the answer
>>
>>89942006
Yeah, it doesn't propell your scientific research but it gives the foundations that makes your field well defined, and explains what is considered well defined in the first place.
That kind of feel like a biologist saying that particle physics isn't relevant. Sure you might not be useful for you on day to day basis, but many of physics theories and discoveries form a base for many of biology's theories and explanations.
After all, science can't define what is science. It's not in its domain. You need philosophy to distinguish between science and non-scientific philosophy like metaphysics. For that reason alone philosophy is important.

>>89942286
>I wonder if the concept of singularity would even tingle their idea or concept of God?
Why would it? Singularity is a mathematical property of an equation. If anything, it's a hint of a bad model since that usually results in paradoxes and invalid predictions.

>I wonder if they even understand the predeterministic nature of their physics and how that fucks with the quantum nature of particles.
We already know that world is either non-deterministic or non-local. It still doesn't matter, physics do not care about determinism, it cares about predictions. If we can arrive at the theory of everything that describes everything the physics will be complete and there will be nothing more to do in it except some more precise measurements. Whenever that will indicate if world is deterministic or not is irrelevant, that's just an interpretation, that's philosophy, not science.

>one is useless without the other and everything we're doing right now is both the best we can do with current tools but also something that is completely wrong.
There is no science without philosophy. Science is philosophy, "one without the other" doesn't make sense. In past there was no division between them. Nowadays we divide our intellectual pursuits into philosophy, science, human/social studies, economics, mathematics, etc.
>>
File: 1549416695150.jpg (94 KB, 800x533)
94 KB
94 KB JPG
Guys I made a really really fast and powerful calculator but it's not thinking yet! It just keeps calculating what I tell it to!!! Become sentient dang it!!
>>
>>89943018
It's self criticism at least in this thread.
I hate my pseudo rambling habit. It drives me nuts.
>>
>>89943053
Well maybe if the creator of it was sentient, he'd understand what's wrong with it.
>>
>>89943053
Program it to pray to God and itll become concious soon enough
>>
>>89943046
(Cont.)
The division is only based on different methods we use, frameworks, etc. It is useful because you can't use economic tools to analyze animal migrations, etc. Or use philosophical though experiments to develop physical theories(which many pseuds do). But you can't really treat them as completely independent things.
>>
>>89943053
Not like you. You certainly weren’t conditioned by your environment to shitpost on /g/. You’re special!
>>
File: 1656691781691.jpg (12 KB, 310x310)
12 KB
12 KB JPG
>>89943046
>If anything, it's a hint of a bad model
The model being the universe itself.
But do you really call it nothing but bad? Or is perhaps "bad" just a mere manifestation in that universe conceptually?
Did you-...

I can't be fucked playing this game anymore today it's fucking sunrise kek.
There have been millions of books on this shit and none will ever satisfy that itch.
I'm going to bed.
>>
>>89938134
>It can't comprehend any of the data that it acquires, instead, AI only acts according to its programming.

Ma dude you are a fucking program yourself. None of us are concious. We are advanced but not sentient. We are biological automatons programed to 'socialize' so much that as a by product we produced a level of understanding of what we are to better empathize and protect ourselves. When the brain power became a prefferable trait with the emergence of proto-language the concious was required to aquire mates. It probably wasn't our level of sentience, maybe something akin to a pig but still something.

Do you breathe conciously? Do you blink conciously? Do you process language conciously? Do you sleep conciously? Do you walk conciously? Do you choose to enjoy things conciously?

None of those are concious, even possible reply to this is just a instilled in you sense of ego that drives you and me to argue on irrelevant topics to us because we were socially condicioned by our parents because of millenia long loop of shit logic. And your brain has no idea what you really are doing but you think you do. Shit! Even your two hemispheres act seperatly and are just sending short pulses to eachother so your one sentience is two! And you dare to say that a program can't be concious you emotion driven, dopamine addicted, sex monkey?
>>
>>89943242
>I took apart the radio, why am I not getting a signal?
>>
>>89943455
Take it apart and see that there is nothing there. Only in the center there is something that watches. It is 'you' just a watcher on a ride decided by simple risk-reward, fight or flight and hormonal algorithms.

Yet we know that the watcher IS. We know that we watch and have at least an ilusion of decision.

But the central question is why can't an AI produce the watcher? What makes it unable to generate the same by product that we call sentience?
>>
>>89943152
>The model being the universe itself.
No, model is model. We don't have ToE, all our models are just simplifications of the reality. Singularity(the one we are talking about) is a mathematical term, it relates to equations, not the universe.

>But do you really call it nothing but bad? Or is perhaps "bad" just a mere manifestation in that universe conceptually?
I am not calling it nothing, I am saying that singularities in equations often indicate faults in models because they produce incorrect or undefined predictions. What do you not understand?
It doesn't mean the models are useless. Relativity has plenty of singularities, they even correctly predicted black holes. But we know that the relativity fails apart under various conditions where again you run into more singularities and arrive at invalid results.



[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.