3 ms·

The ideology of your views exists whether you're aware of it or not. Your points 3 and 4 are contradictory. You simultaneously assert that AI models that we ha

by __loam 3y ago

The ideology of your views exists whether you're aware of it or not. Your points 3 and 4 are contradictory. You simultaneously assert that AI models that we have a direct view of are these mysterious and unknown things while making the opposite point about the brain, an object that stresses the limits of computation.

FrustratedMonky 3y ago
Point 3 and 4 are not contradictory. I'm just not being clear. And I am not being 'mysterious'. For the brain, let's suppose we can have as 'perfect information' about 'state', as we can have about a computer neural net. Then 1 Either they would be equally 'mysterious', we would still not know how they 'subjectively' feel when making decisions. Where is the 'experience' coming from. Like with humans, where do 'thoughts' arise from before you think about what to think about (going back to Schopenhauer). Like with AlphaGo, can you really find the point when it 'decided' on Move 37, or is it a process with pre-curser neural "firing's" same as a human has. OR 2 In both, we have perfect information of state, and further, do determine some correlates between a 'state' and a 'feeling' or 'process' and actions. Let's suppose as you imply we 'understand' everything about what is happening in AI. What I am say, this will eventually happen for humans, that we'll understand the brain. There wont be any mystery left. Since for both we would have perfect information about state, and we can figure out how the processing is happening, and we 'understand' both -> THEN we would have to accept that AI is also as conscious as a human. --- I'm just saying the Silicon-Carbon argument. Either we prove or understand that Humans and AI are both Conscious. or Neither are Conscious. Once we completely explain away human thought, we'll find we are 'clockwork' machines also. But, yes, in future, and any rudimentary comparisons right now are probably a leap. Just I don't think it is as far a leap as you are implying. Neural nets were literally modeled on brains, why can't we make comparisons.
- __loam 3y ago
  > Neural nets were literally modeled on brains, why can't we make comparisons. They're quite a shitty model that comes from a 1950's understanding of neuroscience.
  - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
    Think in AI and Neuroscience, there has been some progress since 1950.

by __loam 3y ago

FrustratedMonky 3y ago

Point 3 and 4 are not contradictory. I'm just not being clear. And I am not being 'mysterious'. For the brain, let's suppose we can have as 'perfect information' about 'state', as we can have about a computer neural net. Then 1 Either they would be equally 'mysterious', we would still not know how they 'subjectively' feel when making decisions. Where is the 'experience' coming from. Like with humans, where do 'thoughts' arise from before you think about what to think about (going back to Schopenhauer). Like with AlphaGo, can you really find the point when it 'decided' on Move 37, or is it a process with pre-curser neural "firing's" same as a human has. OR 2 In both, we have perfect information of state, and further, do determine some correlates between a 'state' and a 'feeling' or 'process' and actions. Let's suppose as you imply we 'understand' everything about what is happening in AI. What I am say, this will eventually happen for humans, that we'll understand the brain. There wont be any mystery left. Since for both we would have perfect information about state, and we can figure out how the processing is happening, and we 'understand' both -> THEN we would have to accept that AI is also as conscious as a human. --- I'm just saying the Silicon-Carbon argument. Either we prove or understand that Humans and AI are both Conscious. or Neither are Conscious. Once we completely explain away human thought, we'll find we are 'clockwork' machines also. But, yes, in future, and any rudimentary comparisons right now are probably a leap. Just I don't think it is as far a leap as you are implying. Neural nets were literally modeled on brains, why can't we make comparisons.

__loam 3y ago
> Neural nets were literally modeled on brains, why can't we make comparisons. They're quite a shitty model that comes from a 1950's understanding of neuroscience.
- FrustratedMonky 3y ago
  Think in AI and Neuroscience, there has been some progress since 1950.