|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Choosing a faith | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
I'm not so sure. We are a very brilliant though very stupid species. We'll figure it out and then do something stupidly dangerous with it.
Where do see the stop that would keep us from such glory?Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
Sorry. That was a throw-away post. I wasn't expecting a response given how dumb it was.
Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
A conscious AI would seem to require an objective account of the subjective. Why? Does your consciousness require such? Are you proposing an AC minus emotions? Can there be a consciousness without the accompanying capacity for emotion? Could an AC remain only "aware" of its surroundings without developing emotion? I'm skeptical such a thing could be.
Our objective accounts emerge from our own subjective accounts. Not by my definition. Our objective experiences and knowledge are those independent of us, verifiable with comparisons of fact, unburdened by the emotional baggage that often accompanies subjective evaluations.
If subjective can come from objective, and objective comes from subjective, then that would seem to leave the objective disconnected from reality. This cannot be right. The logic is right but one of the parameters seems way wrong. I can see where an objective experience would elicit an emotional subjective chain of thought but that latter claim seems odd. Objective facts do not flow from our subjective meanderings. Do they?Edited by AZPaul3, : words Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Presumably an AC would need to be designed and built. Yes. And that design would be based on our new found knowledge of consciousness and how to simulate it. Not good to get into the technology since we have no idea what building that consciousness would involve, but the end product, in my view, would be a consciousness mind, like yours. That is the goal of this project. Are you seeing ghosts behind consciousness that we will be unable to find and simulate?
But would it then be artificial? Well, since this new tech didn't grow out of a cabbage patch but was assembled in a lab by humans I can't see it labled anything but artificial. I think you have other connotations attached to "artificial" that go beyond the physical?
I'm not sure what you mean by "subjective" and "objective". Much too simply but objective: physical ... subjective: mental/emotional How do you define them?
Experience cannot be independent of the experiencer. So true. However, imho, the objective experience is the physical stimulation of our senses and the remembrance of that event. Over time, depending on the experience, more or less emotion gets attached to that experience. You may end up with a subjective memory of this objective event. But, I see the experience as objective, even into the physical mind. I see nothing inherently subjective about the physics of vision, sound, touch and the memory apparatus that records them. So, I'm thinking if we make an artificial mind faithful to our research emotions will follow as an emergent property or an unintended, unplanned, unwired in the diagrams, consequence. Maybe.Edited by AZPaul3, : word Edited by AZPaul3, : another word Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
But consciousness is not the kind of thing that can be simulated. Not at present, no. But that may change.
Are you seeing ghosts behind emotions? No. No ghosts. I see chemistry. I see dissolved rocks.
I don't define them. But I understand "subjective" to refer to that which is based on the experience and judgement of an individual subject, and "objective" to refer to what is the collective assessment of the community. Yes, you did define them and I like your definitions. You say it nicer than I do. You will find no disagreement from me on your banana. We have the subjective memories of our objective experiences. Just like an AC would. So why can’t a consciousness be simulated? Why couldn’t a subjective experience be simulated? By simulated I mean experienced by our new AC friend. I do not see other than technological impediments to an artificial conscious mind which we humans are kinda good at resolving, eventually.Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
If it has simulated consciousness, then is it really conscious? Consciousness is a physical process. It is only a physical process. Is it not? If so then you say there is a difference between an organically grown and an artificially grown mind that precludes their functioning similarly? What does "really conscious" mean?Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Others are saying that everything (including rocks) are conscious. Chrystal merchants and universalists aside there is a recognised neurological discipline in our most advanced schools. And, again ... humans. We're tenacious. The discipline, as science does, should recognize the physical/neurochemical structure of what consciousness is by consensus. A body of work will, eventually (1000 years +-?), reveal that structure. That's the plan, anyway. And I think it will bear fruit. When you say AI are you seeing artificial intelligence as artificial consciousness? Are the two equivalent? Is there a difference between intelligence and consciousness? My understandings make room for the two to be equivalent. The sliding scale of smarts (defined how?) is the sliding scale of consciousness (awareness/reasoning). Who knows what the smart guys will find, but I am (semi)confident they will find something. Whatever it turns out to be, will be the guiding principles for the technologists to build into their blueprints. Then the real existential dilemmas begin. Do we build it?Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Perhaps it doesn't have a physical/neurochemical structure. Perhaps it has more of a behavioral structure.structure. Perhaps it has more of a behavioral structure. Everything in this universe, which includes biology, is physical/neurochemical structure. Is there something else? What is "behavioral structure"?
And maybe we are all too different for consciousness to be systematized. What is systematize?
Or, said differently, I'm skeptical of the claims of AI. There are extreme claims from the coocoo nest which no one except a fellow coocoo could accept. Excepting the coocoo, what claims from less nutty sources raise your skepticism?Edited by AZPaul3, : word Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
Isn't that the god of the synaptic gaps?
Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
You have the gall to suggest that I am subverting the secular humanist "camp" with a Christian message?
At 20,000 posts that is a hell of a lot of subverting. Congratulation, ringo!Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Correct me if I'm wrong but in your view, and in the view of others, it appears to me that the only evidence that is allowed is scientific evidence. Observational conclusions are not based on evidence. Correct me if I'm wrong but in your view, and in the view of others, it appears to me that the only evidence that is allowed is scientific evidence.
There is only one type of evidence. Observational; what you try to insultingly call 'scientific' to distinguish between actual evidence and your emotional desires. Observational (scientific) evidence is the stuff that conveys its reality consistently to all observers and informs all conclusions. Observational evidence is the only evidence this universe provides for anything. Any conclusions can only be based on the observational evidence. Conclusions cannot be drawn in the absence of observational evidence and logical analysis. You can't do that with your religious fantasies. You can never portray the thoughts in your head in any more than arbitrary terms. Your personal thoughts are not evidence of reality. Nor are 100 million similar thoughts. Each adherent has different conceptions of the same deity. There is no consistency and must be rejected as evidence.
There is no scientific evidence. We can all marvel at new life, the fact that we can see beauty if a flower, that we can experience joy or so, that we can experience empathy etc. We then can simply form our own conclusions, non-scientifically. No one ever said you can't experience emotional joy or awe at the beauty of life. You can conclude any emotional thing you so desire. That is great observational scientific evidence that you are a human and you are alive. But when you insist that feeling emanates from some universal sky daddy you have reached conclusions that are not evident and cannot be supported. This is fantasy.
The Bible, the Qur'an, the Book of Buddah, the Book of Mormon etc physically exist. Why aren't they considered evidence. Those books are evidence. They are evidence of the disjointed fantastical emotional musings of the human species. They are evidence that deities and their powers are home grown human fantasies. And as has been said already, just because the book is real does not mean the stories in it are real. As far as evidence is concerned the provenance of your bible is suspect at best. It's history is fraught with inconsistent copies of the same text and known copyist insertions and changes. It is evidence of human meddling with the text in later copies. None with any efficacy. Might as well be a sloppy copy of Jumanji for all the reality it contains. Evidence is a much stronger term than you care to accept. Emotion is too weak, variable, inconsistent and cannot not count as evidence. {ABE} You should know by now that your bible is too inconsistent to be evidence of anything. And your strong emotional reaction to the beauty of life is your emotional response and is not consistent observer to observer. Not everyone appreciates kittens. Thus your personal emotions are not evidence of reality. So, in place of these, what evidence do you propose gives any credence to your thoughts on this cosmic entity? You cannot believe without reason. What reason?Edited by AZPaul3, : edit Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
He is now well beyond troll territory. You think my post is intended to dissuade him? That sword cuts both ways. Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
However the fact that we can experience beauty, love etc raises the question of why we have those expereinces. There is no testable answer but only are own individual conclusions. Bull. We know exactly how and why those experiences happen. It's called being human. Emotion has known physicochemical pathways. The fact that you can feel emotions, like love, hate, indifference, is a known result of the evolution of our social species. There is no reason to suppose some invisible, unknowable, force outside your cranium is any impetus responsible for what you feel. Emotions are not portals to other dimensions or pathways to knowledge. Emotions are not majik.Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
You do realize the media is not a monolithic whole. It is as fragmented as the societies it inhabits. You can find a media outlet that will tell you anything you care to believe.
Your bot is not being trained to be more human, whatever the fuck that means. It is a toy to entertain the masses. The bots responses show nothing but rote regurgitation of inane responses to inane inquiries. There is no humanity to it. Your bot shows nothing. It means nothing. But if your jollies come from conversing with a world-wide tape recorder, have at it. This is the wrong thread for this.Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Is it the brain and the pathways in the brain causing the emotions, or is it the emotions causing the response from the brain. I have had an interest in this for decades. I have seen the scans. As I recall once the identified locus is stimulated there is a cascade, a storm of neuron firings, to other areas. The blood pressure, endocrine levels (Oxytocin, dopamine, and serotonin in the case of a love stimulus) change. I have seen scans where the initiator elicited responses from multiple loci simultaneously each producing a storm of firings into the surrounding matrix. You and I both know the initiator, the stimulus that sets the emotion into action, can be either totally external or internal; being slapped in the face or cringing at a bad major faux pas I made this morning. When I analyse my own feelings I find in most cases the initiators are multiple and a combination of internal and external. Nowhere is there any evidence that the initiating signals were generated from beyond the physical workings of the initiator, even the internal ones. The initiators may be physically externally or internal but the spatial extent of the energy of the elicited emotion appears confined to your head.Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024