5 ms·
> Aren't we more than that? Personally, the more I learn about the intelligence of myself and others, the less I believe that we are more than a bunch of patte
by consumer451 4y ago
> Aren't we more than that?
Personally, the more I learn about the intelligence of myself and others, the less I believe that we are more than a bunch of pattern recognition layers.
It used to haunt me. I have come to acceptance. Of course I could be wrong, but that’s my intuition at this point.
- dougmwne 4y agoDo you experience subjective existence or are you a non-conscious entity? If you are a set of pattern recognition layers responding to stimuli, then I would not be so shocked you are unconcerned about the hard problem of consciousness.
- consumer451 4y agoI have basically fallen to the side of the Copernican principle on this. Consciousness feels like it may at least partially be our fancy word for “soul” in the 21st century. Measures of basic intelligence appear to us in crazy places in the animal kingdom. We will find it is not special at all. I believe we are nothing but of a bunch of chemical states, the patterns and flow of which could be replicated in another system, natural or artificial. On this planet, we just have the fastest, most complex and efficient processor going at this time. Edit: I should add there may be more to human intelligence than “just” patter recognition, but that seems to do the bulk of the work.
- 2000UltraDeluxe 4y ago> On this planet, we just have the fastest, most complex and efficient processor going at this time. Not neccesarily. We haven't really figured out how to benchmark other species' brains properly and I wouldn't be surprised if something like individual bottle-nosed dolphins or elephants couldn't rival at least some individual humans.
- MaxBarraclough 4y ago> On this planet, we just have the fastest, most complex and efficient processor going at this time. Depending on application. For arithmetic operations we're hopelessly outclassed even by pocket calculators.
- naasking 4y ago> If you are a set of pattern recognition layers responding to stimuli, then I would not be so shocked you are unconcerned about the hard problem of consciousness. I am as unconcerned about the hard problem as I am about elan vital, because there is just as much "compelling" evidence for either.
- dougmwne 4y agoI mean, the evidence is there all the time, experienced continuously. That is unless you do not have qualia?
- naasking 4y agoPerceptions taken at face value are not evidence. Evidence is an observation interpreted within a consistent body of knowledge. Our consistent body of knowledge is inconsistent with the naive perceptions of qualia. You can take the position that qualia are direct evidence and so our body of knowledge is mistaken, or you can take the position that qualia are likely deceptive and so cannot be taken as direct evidence, just like all of our other perceptions. I'm constantly amazed how many people think the former position is more plausible.
- dougmwne 4y agoI walk around on legs. I can’t be sure if I am moving because of the legs or through some other action. Some people who dislike the idea of legs are telling me I don’t really have legs.
- daviross 4y agoIsn't that the sort of question a non-conscious entity would ask?
- dougmwne 4y agoWell they don’t call it the hard problem for nothing, my fellow entity.
- spideymans 4y agoWe’re not just pattern matchers. We’re active participants in this world.
- visarga 4y ago> We’re active participants in this world What AI doesn't have is access to this world. Instead it has a fixed training set. The world is a much richer, dynamic training set. So AI would need an android body and to become part of human society to experience the real world as we do.
- consumer451 4y agoYes on the android body. My recent tangent on this… If the corpus of human creativity is the training set, then the prevalence of the AI overlords is recursive, isn’t it?