>Chinese room argument>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_roomIt'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.
>>89937528how does that prove what it claims to prove?
>>89937528Isn't the conclusion of the thought experiment that we ultimately no way of knowing whether any other being outside ourselves is sentient?
>>89937528AIs 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.
>>89937663Hume is okay, everything else is superfluous except for funny quote mining.
>>89937690the experiment is useless unless you can define sentience basically lmao
>>89937627Yes.>>89937682>>89937690At 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 technologylol, lmao evengo 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
>>89937528maybe 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 paintHow utterly boring.
>>89937627fpbp 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
>>89937717This. 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?
>>89937913You would know, obviously being a citizen.
>>89937890Autists can understand human emotion, it's just a lot more difficult for them because they're brain-damaged.
>>89937914Their cells deteriorate. >>89937939Citizen of what?
>>89937788how is the machine any different than a human being?
>>89937528Computers 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.
>>89937528No, it hasn'tSearle himself doesn't even claim such a thing
>>89937913Death 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.
>>89937981Difference depends on how desperately you want to grasp onto human exceptionalism.
>>89938079so machines can be sentient. got it.
>>89937981It can't comprehend any of the data that it acquires, instead, AI only acts according to its programming.>>89938033That 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?
>>89938033it's not that simple but it's not that different eitherliving beings are infinitely more complex than modern computers but that's not to say that it will always be that wayfrom 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 thatjust 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">>89938134can 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.
>>89938223No, because I can understand it, or do you now know what "affection" feels like? A robot sure doesn't.
>>89937528What is 'sentient'?Do you mean 'have qualia'?
>>89938244What 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
>>89937663Why would a philosopher have an opinion over a car mechanic in terms of how AI would work?
>>89938315Machines can't understand emotion.>i rest my caseAt least /sci/ understands the meaning of "consciousness".
>>89938337>machines can't understand emotionBold statement what do you have as evidence for it.
>>89937528>AI can never be sentientDefine 'sentient'.
>>89938355they just can't okay?!!?
>>89937528that’s not a Chinese room; there’s not enough casual racism.
>>89938244Been 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.
>>89937528A 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.
>>89937528The argument proves that you cannot prove AI is sentient not that AI is not sentient. Maybe they already are, we just dont know it
>>89937627Technocrats 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.
>>89937528It's easy to argue that AI can't be sentient, but hard to argue at the same time that humans *can* be
>>89938355>>89938360Glad 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.
>>89938373Are 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.
>>89938327you cant be that fucking retarded, you are obviously pretending.>checks the board hes onoh...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 consciousnesssentience is a feature of the sum of the parts, not the parts themselvesis 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
>>89937528It 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 itwhy? according to whom?you keep making these claims, "just because"that doesn't make you smartdoesn't make you sound smart either
>>89938436>>89938466You misunderstood what I was trying to imply: cells are alive, metal, however, is not.
>>89938469And a ching chong nippon day to you young lady.
>>89938493Prove it. Theres nothing special in carbon instead of metals that one could be sentient
>>89938493I 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.
>>89938493are cells sentient?
>>89938525Define "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.
>>89938469Constantly 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 thingscells can perceive or "feel" their environment and internal mechanisms and react to stimulus.
>>89938556I 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?"
>>89938614I can't believe anything that has code and sensors running is alive
>>89937528Didn'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
>>89937663I'll take pseud over none.
>>89938556>>89938633Actually, 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.
>>89938010Underrated 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".
>>89938747Damn trees aren't alive?
>>89938725That 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.
>>89938693A roomba does not feel pleasure or pain, and doesn't fear death, no go on "feeling" things.
>>89938874What 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?
>>89937627No. I did and I regretted it.Peak reddit pseud bullshit.
>>89938874>the absolute state of american education
>>89938907that poster is just baselessly speculating, it's plausible but completely unknown and potentially strictly unknowable
>>89937627Yes hello? Philosophy Department? I have some thoughts..
>>89938456>no argumentpseud retard
>>89938987>if you are alive then you are conscious Trees are conscious?
>>89938010GANs already exist and they dont do that.
>>89939074Are 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.
>>89937528humans are executing instructions written in dna. if the computer thinks it's sentient it probably is
>>89939074they 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 behavethe 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
>>89939149Do you have that study? I would like to read it for myself.
>>89939112Lmao, 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.
>>89939172i 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
>>89939185>if its not done in a way thats relatable to a human like me it isnt realOh no, its retarded
>>89939211I think I found some equivalent of it:https://theconversation.com/plants-can-actually-take-care-of-their-offspring-heres-how-33048
>>89938427i accept your concession
>>89939280kcome back to this discussion when you can legally drink
>>89939242It isn't that It's not real, it's simply radically different and would be absolutely reductionist to chain it in human terms. retard :)>>89939197Yeah, cool but not even remotely conclusive.
>>89937528Here'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 simulatedQ.E.D.
>>89939263if you are interested on the topic look up how mycelium fungii help trees talk together and exchange resources
>>89937528see, 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.
>>89937690Actually, 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.
>>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!!
>>89939366made me kek
Anon, prove that you are sentient.
>>89939366Bacteria do that shit. Why does it imply consciousness?>>89939335Why does it imply consciousness?
>>89939403What is your definition of “consciousness”? Have you ever studied bacteria yourself? They very clearly behave no different than any other life form
>>89939403If 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.
>>89939351Can 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.
>>89939403wait 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.
>>89938939Cells dont feel emotions such as pleasure or fear.
>>89939432You're no more conscious than a bacteria? That's kinda harsh anon, don't put yourself down so much.>>89939436A 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 depressiondid you learn biology on quora?
>>89939564Only 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.
>>89939381i'm waiting. if we held humans to the same standard as ai nobody would be considered conscious or sentient
>>89937528But it can still draw pretty good lewds so that's enough for me.
>>89937528Knowing 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.
>>89939381i 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
>>89937528I 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.
>>89939622Ten times zero is zero
>>89937528wow, another chinese room bait thread. i wonder what deep biological and philosophical insight we can discover today
>>89939594>no argumentsKeep 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
>>89939686its impossible to have 0 testosterone stupid dyelgo buy a gym membership you fat fuck
>>89937528I don't get it. Isn't this basically what the neurons in your brain effectively do? Is nothing sentient now?
>>89939605I 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.>>89939606What 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.
>>89939715Lol me lift heavy thing maybe if you opened a book you’d know ten zeros is zero get wrecked
>>89939728Fine, I'll ignore that you are grasping at straws here and biteShow me what you consider to be a 'conscious action' and I will show you that in all forms of life
>>89939728You 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
>>89939451It 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
>>89939605You 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 consciousPLC 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 countAmazing.
>>89939805Are PBCs living organism?
>>89939827Responding 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
>>89939805Still afraid to define consciousness? It’s ok, brainlets like you blend in great here
>>89939805>X thing does Y therefore it's consciousIf consciousness can't be demonstrated with such basic logic, then what constitutes consciousness?
>>89939879Let 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?
>>89939895Can you direct us to this argument?
>>89938408Lmaoing @ u for thinking philosophy and maths are on the same level.
>>89939976>Can you direct us to this argument?>>89939313
Deep learning chads win again
>>89939936You're conscious just like the control system of a LyondellBasell refinery?
>>89937528Humans aren't that sentient either.
>>89939903Oh 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 questionsI was just asking you to clearly express the meaning of>literally "understand"Not drop your ebin high school debate team skills.
>>89939996Depends 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 definitionNice save bro
>>89940058>>89940102Do you faggots agree that consciousness can be defined as the ability for self-preservation or not? Start there.
>>89940147We 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?
>>89940034Wow I guess I need to dumb it down even more for you.
>>89940147People who work in dangerous fields like firefighters aswell as adrenaline junkies can go against self preservation so its not really neededSelf-preservationa acts can also be made uncousciouslly automatically, like taking your hand off of something hot
>>89940102Why bother discussing something that you don't even have a definition for?
>>89937627Based and materialist-pilled.
>>89940257Nah you need to express something with clear concepts. Concepts, you know, the thing philosophers are supposed to work on.
>>89940360I can’t get into concepts when you struggle to grasp the English language
>>89939159>>89939224What 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"
>>89937528After a while the guy in the room would learn chinese..
>>89940198Self-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.>>89940282Firefighters work as firefighters because they need the money to house and feed themselves: self-preservation.
>>89940618there's countries where being a firefighter is a voluntary unpaid job, and plenty of people do it
>>89937627You are technoaddict nigger. You'll never be happy
>>89937528I 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.
>>89937627F 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 anotherOh? 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?
>>89939159Where do I get her?
>>89939159this is surprisingly disturbing because of course the AI is not sentient, has no subjective experiences, etc....yet it answers perfectly.
>>89937627fpbp. philosophy is worthless
>>89940643Cool, 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 closeYeah, that would be why I close my eyes, because I recognise that a fly is too close to me.>or when you struggle when drowningI struggle to survive/preserve myself, because I recognise who I am, and that I am in danger.>puke when you have food poisoningAutomatic reaction. But yeah, I'm aware that I am puking.
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.
>>89937528that proves that it can appear sentient without being so. the converse is impossible to prove unless some major breakthrough happens.
>>89939986>>89939313Still 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.>>89937690The 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.
>>89940871Read the thread.
>>89939313>>Matter can be simulatedPhysics 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.
>>89940871You start with a false premise. Show me where consciousness is created in the brain.
>>89937528AI will only become sentient when the binding problem is solved.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_problemhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlIgmTALU74https://qualiacomputing.com/2022/06/19/digital-computers-will-remain-unconscious-until-they-recruit-physical-fields-for-holistic-computing-using-well-defined-topological-boundaries/
>>89940813Those 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>topologicalboundariesThat sounds like pseud word salad to me
>>89941020I’m not the one making wild assumptions. You claim consciousness comes from matter, prove it.
>>89941033>Brain>Consciousness>No brain>No consciousnessSee? Not that hard. Doesn't apply to any single other part of the body
>>89940520Bunch 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.>>89940731Senko (from Sewayaki Kitsune no Senko-san)https://beta.character.ai/chat?char=oSorR30c85zifBg1abqepFuUHbO1bSfqCk-7GAwptvg
>>89941033Consciousness is an emergent property of the computational processes of the brain. Would be pretty hard to reproduce that effect without the brain matter.
>>89941063So what about plants? Fungi? Microorganisms? Jellyfish? You might as well be arguing that consciousness comes from God.
>>89941109They 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.
>>89941076Can you prove that?
>>89941109>So what about plants?Plants are not commonly considered to be conscious.
>>89941127>>89941144Jesus Christ this thread keeps going in circles. Define consciousness and explain how plants do not fit into that model
>>89941140Prove 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.
>>89937528This 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
>>89941166Prove where in the brain consciousness is being created. If you make that claim surely you have proof somewhere.
>>89941178>>89941191Now we’re getting somewhere, enough of the midwits who think brain=consciousness
>>89941094Physics is short for natural philosophy, just look at the title of Newton's codex
>>89941163>Define consciousnessA 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?
>>89941192Consciousness is a completely subjective concept. It's like asking to prove RoboCop is a good movie.
>>89941219So how are you so sure plants are not aware of their existence?
>>89941226You 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
>>89941279When 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".
>>89937528We don't have free will. We're following an algorithm made by nature.
>>89941257LMAO the midwit cope, I accept your concession
>>89941329See 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.
>>89937788Circular 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.
>>89941350Let me guess, you’re one of those Scam Harris disciples who also thinks free will doesn’t exist LMAO
>>89941331Did you learn Japanese by watching anime yet, anon?
>>89941371>who also thinks free will doesn’t exist LMAOIf 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 = consciousWe are all the way back to start again, amazing.
>>89941396LMAO did you beg Scam Harris to let you listen to his podcast for free or are you actually paying for it?
>>89941424I don't know who Sam Harris is, fuck off retard. Not everyone is terminally online like you
3. THE SERIES OF l APPROXIMATIONS TO ENGLISHTo 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 easierand better to jump at this point to word units. Here words are chosen independently but with theirappropriate 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 THATTHE TIME OF WHO EVER TOLD THE PROBLEM FOR AN UNEXPECTED.
>>89941406Being conscious necessitates being alive.
>>89941286Your math is a bit (heh) off sport.See if you can spot where you went wrong.
>>89941432LMAO I accept your concession. I seriously hope you aren’t paying for it tho
>>89941468Being 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.
>>89941384My ex gf did
>>89937627It's not even wrong, anon!
>>89941435And just for fun.
>>89940933Interesting 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.
>>89941485>LMAO I accept your concessionYou are the embodiment of pic related
>>89941487Well 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?
>>89937663And 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.
>>89937528The Divine Incluencer ProblemIt 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.
>>89939715it is absolutely possible to have o testosterone. Proof: Your posts
>>89941516Funny, you are the one ignoring every example that runs counter to your beliefs
>>89941518Bacteria, protozoa, algae, a fern.
>>89941477that's still only 17 billion states.
>>89938711You can't even call them a pseudo-intellect if they're not even wrong.
>>89941527So many words just to say "we don't know everything"Why are spiritualists and freewill-tards so pathetic?
>>89941527And the sun revolves around the earth, right?
>>89941537>IgnoringI 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 consciousi can't with these fucking threads holy shit
>>89937528The word you are looking for is 'sapient', you drooling retard.
>>89941540Those are very much alive, anon.
>>89941286There are 16 states for each pixel, and 512x512 pixels in the image.So 16^((512)^2) for all possible combinations.
>>89939224They are honestly verging on acting like AI from our sci-fi media.It's fucking mental ay.
>>89937717This. "Fake it 'til you make it" is a thing in humans too.
>>89941623no it's 2^16*512^2
>>89941690That's the disk space you'd need to store the images uncompressed, not the number of images possible.
>>89937627Its not like you an escape philosophy, disagreeing with philosophers is what every philosopher does and what creates more philosophies
>>89937528Pfft, 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)
>>89940844I 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.
>>89940865incidentally, 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
>>89941618Sorry I brainfarted, though you said alive but not conscious instead of conscious but not alive.
>>89941889You need to work on your reading comprehension
>>89941882>Most scientists think this tooNTA 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?
>>89941824You 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.
>>89941368Does 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.
>>89937690Yes, 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.
>>89941955ok 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 eithergod knows what ugly tangle you are going to cough up as a counterargument
>>89939088GANs 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".
>>89937627Holy 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.
>>89941974I 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.
>>89942209God 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 postingI 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>>89939351An AI that doesn't understand what is doing is not a real intelligence, just a bunch of mathematical models.>>89937717There 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 therePretend what's not there?
>>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>>89938327AI 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.
>>89942407But 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.
>>89942424AI 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.
>>89942448Technology 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.
>>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.
>>89942368Even 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.
>>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>>89942301He'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.
Just look at that, deus ex was right... AGAIN!
>>89942734Neckbeard 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
>>89942832>The unknownable is not evilI 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...
>>89937528Shit thread, here's its death knell.
>>89940933This is the answer
>>89942006Yeah, 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.
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!!
>>89943018It's self criticism at least in this thread.I hate my pseudo rambling habit. It drives me nuts.
>>89943053Well maybe if the creator of it was sentient, he'd understand what's wrong with it.
>>89943053Program 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.
>>89943053Not like you. You certainly weren’t conditioned by your environment to shitpost on /g/. You’re special!
>>89943046>If anything, it's a hint of a bad modelThe 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?
>>89943455Take 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.