On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 4:05 AM 'Cosmin Visan' < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>> *>>> I am a consciousness with free will. * >>> >> >> >>Tell me what in hell "free will" is supposed to mean and I'll tell you >> if I agree with you or not. >> > > *> The feeling of being free.* > So you have free will if you feel free, and you feel free if you have free will. And round and round we go! The only definition I know of "free will" that is not circular gibberish is the inability to always know what you will do next even in a unchanging environment. Of course by that definition even a cuckoo clock has free will so it's not a useful definition, but at least it's not circular and it's not gibberish. > >> why is the college professor intelligent but the computer is not even >> though it has the ability to give gave the exact same answers to your >> difficult questions? >> > > *> The college professor is intelligent because he is able to bring new > qualia into existence out of nothing.* > How on earth did you determine the college professor has the ability to bring new qualia into existence but the computer did not when they behaved in exactly precisely the same way? > > *Since computers are deterministic systems* [....] > Then DETERMINE what the atoms in my computer will do after I program it to find the smallest even number that is not the sum of 2 prime numbers and then stop. Come on I'm waiting! *> Learning is a property of consciousness* > If so then the long debate has been settled at last, computers are conscious. > >> The first time It wasn't a picture it was a living person pointing to >> an animal and saying "dog"; I doubt if I got it the first time but after a >> few repetitions I eventually got the idea that a sound can represent an >> object, slightly later I learned a sound can also represent verbs and >> adjectives. A couple of years after that I learned that certain squiggles >> written on a paper can take the place of sounds. If you insist that >> consciousness is required to do this, and perhaps it is, then logically you >> would have to conclude that computers are conscious because over the last 5 >> years they have demonstrated that they can learn the same way. >> > > *And a "living person pointing" is some kind of abstract entity ?* > I don't understand the question. > > *Isn't on its own a picture in your own consciousness ?* > I don't understand that question either. > > *How did you see that picture for the first time ? * > With my eyes, computers do the same thing except they don't use my eyes, they use their own CCD cameras. > *Learning is a property of consciousness * > You already said that, and I say whatever learning is it's irrelevant to this discussion because whatever it is COMPUTERS CAN LEARN TOO; that wasn't true just a few years ago but it is now, and in some cases they can learn better and much faster than humans, and it's only a matter of time before it's true in all cases. > *Since computers are deterministic systems* [...] > You said that before too, and incorrect statement age like a fine milk, not well. > *Learning is a property of consciousness* > Dang! I think I'm debating a AI computer program written with early 1980's technology; just put in a few stock phrases and spit them out at irregular intervals. > > *Since computers are deterministic systems* [...] > Yep, you're a robot, and a very unsophisticated one. >> First of all we've known since 1927 that atoms are NOT completely >> deterministic and only obey probabilistic laws. And a "computer" may be a >> label for a macroscopic collection of atoms but it is a precise one, I can >> specify the exact number of atoms that are represented by that label. And >> even if we ignore Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and assume atoms >> behaved like billiard balls as Newton thought they did you still couldn't >> DETERMINE what that collection of atoms will do in the future, all you can >> do is watch it and see and you might be watching forever. And if >> something can not be determined then it is nondeterministic. >> > > > *> You not knowing what those atoms will do, and the fact of those atoms > not being determined what will do, are 2 different things. Are you making > these "mistakes" intentionally ?* > The above would be a interesting remark on the very cutting edge of physics ... if this was 1927 and not 2019. But a hell of a lot has happened since then and that's the trouble with amature internet philosophers, they know nothing about modern physics and show no desire to learn any. I'll bet you've never even heard of Bell's Inequality or the fact that it's been experimentally proven to be violated. > *"computer" is just a label.* >> >> >> So is "Cosmin Visan". >> > > *> Sure, but that label is a quale in consciousness, * > So you say, but why should I believe what you say is true? Prove to me you have the ability to experience a quale and then prove to me a computer lacks that ability. And just reaching into your bag of stock phrases like "computers are deterministic" won't do, before you simply state that "computers are X but humans are not X" I want you to tell me how you know this if they both behave the same way. > >> You just said Chess is a moment of creativity! >> > > > Chess when it is played by a consciousness. > According to you creativity means bringing something new into existence and you say Chess is creative. A computer can easily beat you at Chess so you brought a crappy game into existence while the computer brought an excellent game into existence. Therefore following your "logic" I would have no choice but to conclude the computer is more conscious than you. > >> I take that to be a big *YES*, you do believe in the invisible man in >> the sky theory but are too embarrassed to come right out and say so. I >> don't blame you, I'd be embarrassed too if I believed in something that >> dumb. >> > > *> You are the one to believe in invisible objects, since you believe > computers are alive, when in fact they don't even exist.* > Why are you so embarrassed to admit you believe in the God Theory? On second thought never mind, I already know the answer. > *The brain is not conscious. You are conscious.* > I agree, "brain" is a noun but I am an adjective, and consciousness is what a brain does it is not what a brain is. A racing car goes fast but a racing car is not what fast is. > > > *Reason is a property of consciousness. * > Although I'll never be able to prove it I think you're probably right about that, and therefore reason is a fairly good test for consciousness in others, it's not perfect but it's all we've got. You can't win at Chess by making random moves, reason is needed, therefore if something (human or otherwise) can beat you at Chess that is evidence (although falling short of a proof) it is at least as conscious as you. > *> A computer doesn't make a Chess move.* [...] *A computer doesn't even > exist.* > According to you there is no perceivable difference between something that exists and something that does not, and so the property of existence is a property of no importance whatsoever. And thus we return to silly-land where words mean precisely nothing. *> This is just you personifying an object.* > I don't know what a personifying object is but am I one? Are you? *> What happens when you say that a computer makes a Chess move, is that > atoms are randomly banging into each other* > Even for you that is a mind bendingly dumb thing to say. You can't even make legal moves let alone become the best Chess player on the planet by randomly banging into Chess pieces. > > *If a human were to make a Chess move, then indeed that would be a > Chess move, because it will be an act enacted by a consciousness* > Other than by observing his actions *HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT HUMAN IS CONSCIOUS*? And if observing actions works in humans for detecting consciousness why doesn't it work for computers too? I already know the answer, because the human's brain is wet and squishy but the computer's brain is dry and hard. You have nothing more profound than that. Nothing. > >> Even Og the caveman knew about cause and effect, he knew that if a >> moving rock hits a stationary rock it will *CAUSE *the stationary rock >> to move. >> > > *> That's just an appearance. It's like saying: "Even a 7 years old child > that plays World of Warcraft knows that if the elf magic hits the orc, the > orc gets damaged. Is just cause and effect."* > I don't see your point, that 7 year old child's explanation is entirely correct. It's not the only correct explanation, a programer would correctly explain it by showing you the World of Warcraft source code, and a engineer would correctly explain it by talking about the microprocessor in the 7 year old child's computer, and a physicist would correctly explains it by telling you how semiconductors behave. The usefulness of a explanation depends on the circumstances; it's true that a toy balloon expands because there are more Nitrogen and Oxygen molecules hitting the inside of the balloon than the outside, but it's usually more useful to say it expanded because the pressure inside the balloon was greater than the pressure outside. > You are just tricked into believing that robots behave intelligently. > If the robots have tricked me about something then they have outsmarted me, at least in one area. *> I will not be impressed when in the next war people will kill each other > in the name of protecting the objects called AIs.* > It's only a matter of time before a AI will become smarter than the entire human race put together, so AI's will have no need of human protection, but the reverse is not true. That's why I said it's not important if you think a AI is conscious but it is important if the AI thinks you are conscious. That is to say someday it will be very important to you personally. > *> I just have to assume that there are other consciousnesses out-there. * > Me too, I could not function if I really thought I was the only conscious entity in the universe, therefore I have a axiom I could not live without, intelligent behavior implies consciousness. My axiom is not that only wet and squishy things can be conscious or intelligent. *> And notice here that not only humans behave intelligently, but also > amoeba, because also amoeba is a living being that makes choices based on > qualia. So it too is intelligent, even though it doesn't play chess. * > Because intelligence is not a all or nothing attribute there is reason the think the same is true for consciousness. And I have some evidence for that, when I become very sleepy I become less intelligent and I also become less conscious of the things around me. >> random mutation is only half of Evolution, the least interesting part in >> my opinion, the other half is Natural Selection. >> > > *> No, the other 2-halves are consciousness driving evolution.* > However important it is for us consciousness by itself has no survival value so Evolution couldn't even see it much less select for it. But intelligence most certainly does have survival value therefore, unless I stoop to embrace the invisible man in the sky theory, I must conclude that consciousness is a inevitable byproduct of intelligence and consciousness is just the way data feels when it is being processed. > > *Humans are intelligent because they are conscious,* > I've asked you this several times before but received no answer, I ask again, HOW DO YOU KNOW HUMANS ARE CONSCIOUS AND HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT COMPUTER'S ARE NOT? As practical matter it really doesn't matter if computers are conscious, if they aren't that's their problem not ours, our problem is they're certainly intelligent and are getting smarter every day and they're going to eat our lunch. John K Clark -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
