On Saturday, 27 April 2019 20:22:36 UTC+3, John Clark wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 4:05 AM 'Cosmin Visan' < > everyth...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>> 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. >
My definition is not circular. Your is by adding additional things in order to attack a strawman. All that I said is that free will is the feeling of being free. I didn't add the second part. And a cucko clock is not free since it has no feelings. But at least you progressed. Till now you only believed that computers are alive. Now, in the goodness of your heart, in order to free yourself from any accusations of discrimination, you also offered cuckoo clocks life. Congratulations! > > >> >> 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? > > Really ? The behave in precisely the same way ? Wow, you are really living in a fantasy! > *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! > > They will continue to bang into each others, what else ? *> Learning is a property of consciousness* >> > > If so then the long debate has been settled at last, computers are > conscious. > You are again using your upside down logic in which you deduce the hypothesis from the conclusion. Computers are precisily NOT conscious, because learning is a property of consciousness, not the other way around. Man, you really need to put some order in your logic! You are starting me to feel that I'm losing my time. You cannot have a dialogue with someone that doesn't even have a grasp on elementary logic. > > >> >> 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. > > This is actually because your main problem in all this is that you have a naive realism view on things. Basically what you believe is that there is a physical world out-there, and what we do when we open our eyes, we just... ****SEE IT****. This is a huge problem in your misunderstanding of reality. It's an unspeakable HUGE problem. Let me help you. What happens when we open our eyes is not to just... ****SEE IT****. Instead, we reconstruct an image. To make you understand this, have a look at the duck-rabbit image: <https://www.illusionsindex.org/images/illusions/duck-rabbit/duckrabbitmain.jpg> Based on your naive view on reality in which you just open your eyes and ****SEE IT****, you should just see... wait... see what ? A duck or rabbit ? Now, pay careful attention on this: watch carefully the phenomenology: when you attribute the meaning of "rabbit" to that shape, you have in your consciousness the quale of "rabbit". When you attribute the meaning of "duck" to that shape, you have in your consciousness the quale of "duck". And pay very careful attention to these experiences! It's crucial if you are to have any chance of understanding reality! The experience of seeing a rabbit is TOTALLY DIFFERENT than the experience of seeing the duck. So you don't just open your your eyes and... ****SEE IT****. Therefore, when you first saw a dog, you didn't just open your eyes and ****SAW IT*****. You really had to bring a new quale in existence out of nothing! And this bringing of a new quale in existence didn't happen because "people pointed at the ***DOG***", because in order to see the people themselves you needed to bring into existence the quale of "people". You don't just open your eyes and... ***SEE THE PEOPLE***. You need for the quale of "people" to be brought into existence. And how do you do that ? You take other people to point to the first people and then other people to point to the people that point to the people that point to the dog ? And so on to infinity. As you can see, the conclusion of bringing qualia into existence for the first time is unavoidable. And you do that with your own powers, not because "people point to it". And since a computer cannot bring anything into existence on its own if you don't specifically put that information in the database, a computer will never be conscious. If not even now you don't understand this explanation that I gave to you, my conversation with you is ending here. It's up to you to bring by yourself into your own consciousness the proper quale of understanding in order to understand what I just said. There is nothing more that I can do. My part is over. It's up to you now if you want to evolve or not. > > > >> *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. > No. See above! You don't just open your eyes and... ****SEE IT****. But you are constructing a reality. Computers don't construct anything. > > > *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. > > As long as red is red and you continue to say "red is blue", I will also continue to say red is red. But from now on I will stop. > >> 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. > > Now you just say random things, because you are left without arguments, as if computers are quantum systems. And as a matter of fact, I heard about Bell, since I'm a physicist by training: http://alicematters.web.cern.ch/?q=CosminVisan > *"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. > Except that they don't behave the same. You are heavily living in a fantasy. > > >> >> 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. > > You are just using one more time your upside down logic. >> 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. > > You are just inventing things because of lack of anything meaningful to say. > *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. > A "brain" is just an image in consciousness. > > >> > >> *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. > > You are using again your upside down logic. *> 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. > > Existence is what qualia do. *> This is just you personifying an object.* >> > > I don't know what a personifying object is but am I one? Are you? > > Conscious beings are beings. *> 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. > >> Only because you attribute meaning to random movements of atoms, it doesn't mean that the meaning is on the movements of the atoms. It only means that it is YOU who attribute meaning where there is none. > > *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. > > Because computers don't exist. I don't know why you keep bringing the brain. The "brain" does not exists. >> 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 making confusion between ontology and epistemology. The causal powers are in only 1 place: at the ontological level. Therefore, the magic of the elf DOESN'T kill any orc. What happens is that mindless atoms just bang into each others. > > 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. > > That's not even logic what you do here. Is just randomly connecting words. As if: I thought that rope was a snake, therefore, the rope was so intelligent! You extrapolate your own lack of intelligence to objects having intelligence. It... just... doesn't... make... any... sense... > *> 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. > > Happy living in your fantasy! *> 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. > > 1) Intelligent behavior doen't imply consciousness. That's just a kindergarten type of deduction that you make. 2) Computers don't even have intelligent behavior. They just trick you that they do. So the problem is in you, that you are easily tricked. But as always in history, smart people used less smart people as slaves, because the less smart people allowed them. So enjoy you being just a tool for the smart guys to use you! *> 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. * >> > > > 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. > You are using again your upside down logic. Is not consciousness the one that is selected by evolution. But consciousness is there from the start, and the evolution acts upon the qualia that consciousnesses get to experience. > > >> > *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? > > Because consciousnesses have the property of intelligence, while computers don't exist. Is just an idea invented by consciousnesses, no different that the idea of "unicorns". You really have a big problem if you believe in unicorns. > 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. > > Intelligence is the property of consciousness of bringing new qualia into existence out of nothing. Therefore, computers are not intelligent. Conclusion: Have a look again at my explanation with the duck-rabbit image. This is your (and of 99.99% of people) biggest misunderstanding of how vision and all the other senses work. If you understand that explanation, then we can continue talking. Otherwise is useless. You cannot have a dialogue with someone that has such a mistaken understanding of how our senses work. -- 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.
