On Thursday, 25 April 2019 19:56:17 UTC+3, John Clark wrote: > > And it would be perfectly correct to say I scratched my nose because I > wanted to, but it would be equally correct to say the nerves in my nose > triggered the nerves in my hand to move. > > Except that this is not what happens. You stretch your nose because you want, not because nerves are triggered randomly from "physical laws".
> > Sometimes I feel free but not always, sometimes I want to do something but > can't. And very often I don't know what I'm going to do until I do it, just > as a computer doesn't know what the answer to a calculation will be until > it's finished making the calculation. > Then you are free when you feel like and you are not free when you don't feel like. And computers don't know, because knowing is a property of consciousness and means having access to certain qualia. And computers don't get to any answers, they just activate certain pixels on the screen and you as a conscious being interpret those pixels as an answer. > > > How can you prove to me your wet squishy brain has some sort of magic that > a computer's dry hard brain does not? And I don't want to hear about qualia > unless you can prove to me you even have qualia. > There is no brain, so I don't know what you want me to prove. But I told you: consciousness is creative: it brings into existence qualia that never existed before. Besides the fact that a computer (besides the fact that it doesn't even exist, of course) it doesn't even have qualia, it cannot bring anything new into existence since it is deterministic. > > > *You don't even need to talk about the intelligence of other people. Is >> enough to look at how intelligence works in your case.* >> > > NO!! The fact is you DO have a method of judging the intelligence in other > people and you have made use of it every hour of your waking life from the > moment you were born. And that method certainly can't have anything to do > with the qualia that other people experience because you have no way of > determining that. > > I'm not judging the intelligence of other people, I'm only looking at my own intelligence. And I see that it means bringing new qualia into existence out of nothing. And I use my reason to understand that this is a non-deterministic phenomenon, therefore a deterministic system cannot manifest it. > > So are you saying a computer could never pick out pictures of dogs from > pictures of other animals better than a human could, and if it could that > would prove your ideas are wrong? Are you brave enough to come right out > and say that? > Since you need to specifically put the word "dog" in the database, a computer will never identify dogs if you don't specifically put that information in the database. > > Can you do better? If you had never seen a dog and had no information > about dogs how on earth could you identify a dog? > > The way you already did it, how else ? When you first saw a dog, did you have any prior information about it ? Of course not. You just did it. Because that's what consciousness does: creates new qualia. If you want to call it magic, then call it magic, but that's what consciousness does. How it does it: I have no idea. A computer is not a deterministic system > Yeah, sure. Probably is magic. No wonder people start to believe in living objects when they have no understanding of basic computer science. , that is to say if you want to know what it's going to do all you can do > is watch it and see. It would only take me a few minutes to write a > computer program to find the smallest even number that is not the sum of 2 > prime numbers and then stop. Will my computer ever stop? Nobody knows, > nobody can determine that. Maybe it will stop in the next second, maybe it > will stop next year, maybe it will stop in a billion years, maybe it will > never stop and you will be waiting forever. > > You have a bad understanding of determinism. > > 20 years ago Chess required creativity but no longer, 5 years ago GO > required creativity but suddenly that stopped being true too. I would > maintain if a computer can outsmart you at everything it doesn't matter if > it's "creative" (whatever that means) because regardless of how you try to > spin it the fact remains you've been outsmarted. > > Chess and everything, every moment of our lives, is a moment of creativity. The fact that you made some objects behave in certain ways doesn't change the fact that consciousness is creative. I told you: your logic is upside down. > >> if conscious AI's are a fantasy then all minds other than my own are a >>> fantasy including yours. >>> >> >> *> This is just twisted logic. I will let you figure it out where you are >> wrong * >> > > Translation from the original weaselspeak: "*You got me, I have no way > to counter that argument *" > > Nope. I will still let you understand that your logic is upside down. You basically start from the conclusion and you somehow deduce the hypothesis. Such a faulty reasoning cannot produce anything meaningful. > > > > *I will tell you how things would be different if matter did exist if >> you tell me how things would be different is Santa Claus existed.* >> > > I will be glad to. If Santa Claus existed all the toy companies would go > bankrupt because they wouldn't be able to compete with his magical workshop > at the north pole which would show up on satellite photos. None of those > things has happened therefore I conclude Santa Claus does not exist. > > Now it's your turn, tell me how things would be different if matter *DID* > exist > Since matter CANNOT exist, this would be just an exercise in futility. Is like wondering what would happen if red would be blue. Well... probably a unicorn would appear from the closet and would ride a rainbow or something. > > If we are going to have an interesting conversation you're going to have > to do better than "X does not exist". > Maybe. But since the brain does not exists, I don't know why you struggle so much into believing it exists. > > No, and I'm not claiming a computer is a human, but because they can > easily beat any human at Chess and GO I am claiming that a computer can > think. To complete the above analogy you are in effect claiming that > airplanes can't fly even though they can move through the air at high speed > at very large altitudes and are unsupported from the ground. > > Thinking is a non-deterministic phenomenon that happens in consciousness based on rational principles. Computers are irrational deterministic objects. > Bullshit. Fifty years ago people were saying the ability to play a good > game of Chess was a excellent sign of intelligence, but then 20 years ago a > computer beat the best human player and overnight Chess suddenly had > nothing to do with intelligence. So they then pinned their hopes on a > vastly more complex game, GO. > As late as 2008 > Milton N. Bradley > said: > Well... I pretty much don't care what people that had no idea what intelligence is, were saying 50 years ago. I know what intelligence is: bringing of new qualia into existence, and I can tell you that this cannot be done artificially. > > >> > >> * AI was never about intelligence to start with.* >> > > What the hell?! What do you think the "I" in "AI" stands for? > And what do you think Santa Claus stands for ? Well... it stands for a guy that brings presents for Christmas. Based on your upside down logic in which you put the conclusion before the hypothesis => Santa Claus exists. > > > If you use reason, reason will show you that intelligence means >> bringing new qualia into existence out of nothing, >> > > That is a 100% utterly useless definition! You have absolutely no way of > detecting qualia in anyone or anything except in yourself, therefore you'd > have no way of detecting intelligence in a AI or in any of your fellow > human beings and yet it is a fact that you do exactly that every minute of > your waking life so obviously that is not the method you use. > > I issue you the following challenge, give me one reason to think a > computer could not be conscious that could not, with trivial modification, > also be used to support the proposition that none of your fellow human > beings are conscious. I don't believe you have a snowball's chance in hell > of meeting my challenge. > > Because bringing new qualia into existence is a non-deterministic phenomenon, while computers are deterministic. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
