JC: I just insist that it's equally logical for me to conclude an AI is conscious as it is for me to conclude that Alan Grayson is conscious. AG: That's wrong.
On Saturday, August 5, 2023 at 2:44:16 PM UTC-6 John Clark wrote: > On Sat, Aug 5, 2023 at 4:28 PM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: > > *> This is a dumb discussion.* > > > I've noticed. > > >> * > You admit, more or less, that you don't know what consciousness is, >> yet you insist that's what AI is manifesting.* > > > No, I don't insist that an AI must be conscious, I just insist that it's > equally logical for me to conclude an AI is conscious as it is for me to > conclude that Alan Grayson is conscious. > > *> This discussion can go nowhere as long as you persist in this type of >> behavior, which in principle not unlike what Trumpers [blah blah]* > > > Wow, calling a guy known for disliking Trump a Trumper, never heard that > one before, at least I never heard it before except by you about 1000 times > before. > > John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis > <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis> > cz9 > > > > > >> >> On Sat, Aug 5, 2023 at 3:25 PM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> *> It's pretty clear, in fact obvious, that you regard other human >>>> beings as conscious* >>> >>> >>> YES. >>> >>> >>>> > *for the reasons I stated.* >>> >>> >>> NO. For thousands of years, long before anyone knew anything about >>> Evolution or electronics or much of anything else people believed that >>> their fellow human beings were conscious some of the time but not all of >>> the time. They believed they were conscious when they were behaving >>> intelligently but they did not believe their fellow human beings were >>> conscious when they were sleeping or under anesthesia or dead because then >>> they were not behaving intelligently. >>> >>> >>>> *> But whatever Evolution did, it took billions of years.* >>> >>> >>> That's because Evolution is ridiculously slow and clumsy but until it >>> got around to inventing a brain it was the only way complex objects could >>> get built. These days, ironically thanks to intelligent design, things >>> happen much faster and they are about to happen even faster. >>> >>> >>>> *> Claiming human computer scientists did something similar in a few >>>> decades at most, is hugely implausible.* >>> >>> >>> Hugely implausible or not, that is exactly precisely what is happening >>> right before your eyes. I'm not a young man but I'm starting to think there >>> is a good chance I will live long enough to personally experience the >>> Singularity, and I wouldn't have said that six months ago. And I'm not sure >>> that's a good thing because it might not be much fun. >>> >>> >>>> > *What's hugely reasonable, is that something almost >>>> indistinguishable from consciousness or intelligence has been created, >>>> but >>>> nothing more.* >>> >>> >>> Do you believe the Pope when he says every Catholic Mass is able to >>> magically turn bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus Christ, not >>> symbolically but literally, even though the bread and wine at the end of >>> the silly religious ceremony is indistinguishable from what it was at the >>> beginning? If you believe in the above voodoo about consciousness it's not >>> much of a step to believe in the Pope's voodoo too. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> v0o >>> >> -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/073764fe-79ef-4d2a-8607-1c90da90d045n%40googlegroups.com.
