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 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.
