4 ms·

I'll happily engage in specifics if you provide an argument for your position. Here's mine (which is ironically self-defeating but has a grain of truth): single

I'll happily engage in specifics if you provide an argument for your position. Here's mine (which is ironically self-defeating but has a grain of truth): single-sentence theories about reality are probably wrong.

oska 2y ago
I just went back and added a parenthetical statement after my first sentence before seeing this reply (on refresh). > The creation of consciousness is impossible. That's where I'd start my argument. Machines can 'learn', given iterative training and some form of memory but they can not think nor understand. That requires consciousness, and the idea that consciousness can be emergent (which it is my understanding that the 'AI' argument rests upon), has never been shown. It is an unproven fantasy.
- ilaksh 2y ago
  You can start to refine your incorrect thinking on this by decomposing these associated characteristics and terms rather than conflating all of them. Thinking, understanding, self-aware, awake, integrated sensory stream, alive, emotional, visual, sensory, autonomy, adaptiveness, etc.
- bubblyworld 2y ago
  And I guess I'd start my retort by saying that it can't be impossible, because here we are talking about it =P
  - oska 2y ago
    No, you don't have any proof for the creation of consciousness, including human consciousness (which is what I understand you are referring to). In my view, and in the view of major religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, etc) plus various philosophers, consciousness is eternal and the only real thing in the universe. All else is illusion. You don't have to accept that view but you do have to prove that consciousness can be created. An 'existence proof' is not sufficient because existence does not necessarily imply creation.
    - bubblyworld 2y ago
      Look, I don't want to get into the weeds of this because personally I don't think it's relevant to the issue of intelligence, but here's a list of things I think are evident about consciousness: 1. People have different kinds of conscious experience (just talk to other humans to get the picture). 2. Consciousness varies, and can be present or not-present at any given moment (sleep, death, hallucinogenic drugs, anaesthesia). 3. Many things don't have the properties of consciousness that I attribute to my subjective experience (rocks, maybe lifeforms that don't have nerve cells, lots of unknowns here). Given this, it's obvious that consciousness can be created from non-consciousness, you need merely to have sex and wait 9 months. Add to that the fact that humans weren't a thing a million years ago, for instance, and you have to conclude that it's possible for an optimisation system to produce consciousness eventually (natural selection).
      - grantcas 2y ago
        [dead]
      - oska 2y ago
        Your responses indicate (at least to me) that you are, philosophically, a Materialist or a Physicalist. That's fine; I accept that's a philosophy of existence that one can hold (even though I personally find it sterile and nihilistic). However many, like me, do not subscribe to such a philosophy. We can avoid any argument between ppl who hold different philosophies but still want to discuss machine learning productively by using that term, one that we can all agree on. But if materialists insist on using 'artificial intelligence' then they are pushing their unproven theories and I would say fantasies on the rest of us and they then expose a divergent agenda, where one does not exist when we all just talk about what we all agree we already have, which is machine learning.
        lucubratory 2y ago
        Every scientist has to be a materialist, it comes from interacting with the world as it is. Most of them then keep their materialism in their personal life, but unfortunately some come home from work and stop thinking critically, embracing dualism or some other unprovable fantasies. If you want people engaging with the world and having correct ideas, you need to tolerate materialism because that's how that happens. It offending your religious worldview is unrelated.
- MattPalmer1086 2y ago
  I don't see why consciousness is necessary for thinking. I would define thinking as the ability to evaluate propositions and evidence and arrive at some potentially useful plan or hypothesis. I see no reason why a machine could not do this, but without any awareness ("consciousness") of itself doing it. I also see no fundamental obstacle to true machine awareness either, but given your other responses, we can just disagree on that.

oska 2y ago

I just went back and added a parenthetical statement after my first sentence before seeing this reply (on refresh). > The creation of consciousness is impossible. That's where I'd start my argument. Machines can 'learn', given iterative training and some form of memory but they can not think nor understand. That requires consciousness, and the idea that consciousness can be emergent (which it is my understanding that the 'AI' argument rests upon), has never been shown. It is an unproven fantasy.

ilaksh 2y ago
You can start to refine your incorrect thinking on this by decomposing these associated characteristics and terms rather than conflating all of them. Thinking, understanding, self-aware, awake, integrated sensory stream, alive, emotional, visual, sensory, autonomy, adaptiveness, etc.
bubblyworld 2y ago
And I guess I'd start my retort by saying that it can't be impossible, because here we are talking about it =P
- oska 2y ago
  No, you don't have any proof for the creation of consciousness, including human consciousness (which is what I understand you are referring to). In my view, and in the view of major religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, etc) plus various philosophers, consciousness is eternal and the only real thing in the universe. All else is illusion. You don't have to accept that view but you do have to prove that consciousness can be created. An 'existence proof' is not sufficient because existence does not necessarily imply creation.
  - bubblyworld 2y ago
    Look, I don't want to get into the weeds of this because personally I don't think it's relevant to the issue of intelligence, but here's a list of things I think are evident about consciousness: 1. People have different kinds of conscious experience (just talk to other humans to get the picture). 2. Consciousness varies, and can be present or not-present at any given moment (sleep, death, hallucinogenic drugs, anaesthesia). 3. Many things don't have the properties of consciousness that I attribute to my subjective experience (rocks, maybe lifeforms that don't have nerve cells, lots of unknowns here). Given this, it's obvious that consciousness can be created from non-consciousness, you need merely to have sex and wait 9 months. Add to that the fact that humans weren't a thing a million years ago, for instance, and you have to conclude that it's possible for an optimisation system to produce consciousness eventually (natural selection).
    - grantcas 2y ago
      [dead]
    - oska 2y ago
      Your responses indicate (at least to me) that you are, philosophically, a Materialist or a Physicalist. That's fine; I accept that's a philosophy of existence that one can hold (even though I personally find it sterile and nihilistic). However many, like me, do not subscribe to such a philosophy. We can avoid any argument between ppl who hold different philosophies but still want to discuss machine learning productively by using that term, one that we can all agree on. But if materialists insist on using 'artificial intelligence' then they are pushing their unproven theories and I would say fantasies on the rest of us and they then expose a divergent agenda, where one does not exist when we all just talk about what we all agree we already have, which is machine learning.
      - lucubratory 2y ago
        Every scientist has to be a materialist, it comes from interacting with the world as it is. Most of them then keep their materialism in their personal life, but unfortunately some come home from work and stop thinking critically, embracing dualism or some other unprovable fantasies. If you want people engaging with the world and having correct ideas, you need to tolerate materialism because that's how that happens. It offending your religious worldview is unrelated.
MattPalmer1086 2y ago
I don't see why consciousness is necessary for thinking. I would define thinking as the ability to evaluate propositions and evidence and arrive at some potentially useful plan or hypothesis. I see no reason why a machine could not do this, but without any awareness ("consciousness") of itself doing it. I also see no fundamental obstacle to true machine awareness either, but given your other responses, we can just disagree on that.