> On 22 Apr 2019, at 10:28, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Only if you never did some serious thinking you can consider AI can be > conscious. Is not at all the same thing like other similar statements across > history like "objects heavier than air can never fly". In that case you were > only dealing with arrangements of atoms. But in the case of consciousness you > are dealing with the nature of reality. And the nature of reality just is.
What could that mean? In science, we have to make assumption and reason from there, hoping to get some testable consequences. I appreciate that you seem to doubt the primacy of the physical, and that you make sense of a term like “consciousness”, but you seem to confuse machine and the first person borrowing that machine. “Machine” is ambiguous, as when people says that a machine can think, it usually means that the person having that machine as body can think. Then indeed, with mechanism, the bodies are explained by the statistics of experience related to the computations, which are realised in arithmetic (as we know since 1931). > You don't conjure it up just by arranging atoms, atoms which don't even > exist, being themselves ideas in consciousness. Is like you are given a > picture of a dead person and you try to revive that person by painting the > picture pixel by pixel. You will not revive anything. You will just make a > picture. Not if you add the impulsion. Or physics is wrong. Or you are loosing the relation between mind and brain. Mechanism forbid the brain-mind identity thesis, but keep intact the reason to attribute mind to some some bodies. It is only the first person which cannot associate itself to anything third person describable. > That's all. If you are to make an "artificial brain" atom by atom, all that > you will ever get will be a dead object that will not do anything. ? Computers already do a lot of things. You might say that we get a zombie, but then you seem to make consciousness inexplicable, which is not the case at all with mechanism. (If you agree with the quasi-axiomatic definition that I gave). Bruno > > On Monday, 22 April 2019 04:02:32 UTC+3, Brent wrote: > > AI can't be conscious like me = the hubris of the 21st century. > > Brent > > -- > 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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list > <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. -- 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.
