Explain consciousness to the layman.

[keyfeatures]

Ontologies are inherently unprovable, but the contention was that human understanding of reality is filtered and limited by our biology.

Tautologies, however, we can be certain about.

There is no scope in our biology for hypothesizing and testing quantum mechanics, none whatsoever, except that the brain is a general-purpose computer. And a general-purpose computer can model any consistent reality, and the scientific method can test any such model.

Rubbish. Our brains are our biology. Which means we can hypothosize and test quantum mechanics. This is well within our biology to do. The brain is not a general purpose computer. The code and processor are all part of the same system. Our 'code' is not an abstraction, but physical.

Four-valued logic is an abstraction, not something real. So, just as with humans, the computer knows only what the values represent.

Oscillators are not abstract.

 

[PixyMisa]

Rubbish. Our brains are our biology. Which means we can hypothosize and test quantum mechanics. This is well within our biology to do. The brain is not a general purpose computer.

Sorry, but you are simply wrong. The brain is a general purpose computer - or more precisely, it can act as one - and that is how we are able to hypothesize and test QM.

I think you may be misunderstanding what a general purpose computer is. It means anything that can perform the function defined by a Universal Turing Machine^WP - regardless of what other functions it may peform. And the human brain can most certainly do that.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Explain precisely why no rock could ever respire?

A machine could respire. You are implying that respiration is all that's needed to make machines emotional? Come on, put some effort into it.

When you look at emotional things at microscopic levels, you see machines, not unlike machines that we make. Why do biological machines have emotions, and the machines we make can't ever?

 

[keyfeatures]

Sorry, but you are simply wrong. The brain is a general purpose computer - or more precisely, it can act as one - and that is how we are able to hypothesize and test QM.

I think you may be misunderstanding what a general purpose computer is. It means anything that can perform the function defined by a Universal Turing Machine^WP - regardless of what other functions it may peform. And the human brain can most certainly do that.

And I think you're misunderstanding what Turing proposed for the Universal Machine.

You are implying that the architecture of the processor and the architecture of the input signals are irrelevant. I've shown why they are relevant. To make 2 value logic into 4 value logic you either have to change the way the processor reads the boolean input values (in order to have negative values), or you have to change the input values so that they are 4 value (some sort of oscillatory input). The human brain is stuck with the way it processes its code and the way the code is constructed that it reads. This already makes it less general purpose and different to machines.

 

[keyfeatures]

That doesn't follow at all. Given a general-purpose computer (like the brain), the scientific method, and sufficient time, money, and coffee, you will end up with an accurate model of reality, whatever reality might be.

No. You will end up with an accurate model of its own representation of its reality. There is a significant difference to 'reality'. But you are having trouble grasping it.

 

[keyfeatures]

String theory not even wrong.

So there's a string theory to cover any observation.
Well, every string theory that's been written down says the speed of light is universal. But other ideas about quantum gravity predict the speed of light has actually increased. And an experiment on the Gamma Ray Large Area Space Telescope, launching next year, will check this. So I've said, look, if the speed of light isn't universal, that disconfirms string theory. But the string theorists say they could probably invent versions of the theory that work either way. We'd have to change our notion of what science is to accommodate this proposition. You just can't do science on that basis.

 

[westprog]

Dead people don't fall off ledges much. Nor do yeast cells. Lack of agency can be as much of a good survival mechanism as agency. Agency tends to be required for things incapable of surviving without it.

Rocks are able to avoid falling off ledges for millions of years at a time. Inanimate objects are extremely good at preserving their status unchanged. It's living things that tend to be ephemeral.

 

[westprog]

And which is not what I said. Read my posts again.

You quite specifically claimed "That should be a strong indicator that we're not."

"That" being the inability to define particular qualities of being human. Using the inability to define as evidence of unimportance is exactly what you were sayng. What did you think you were saying?

 

[rocketdodger]

Here is your problem.

Avoid "falling off ledges" by what predictability?
If not by 100% in the case of falling off a ledge and becoming paralyzed or dying, then it is a useless prediction because the consequences are such that what you learn is hardly worth knowing.

The option of avoiding ledges altogether in a world with ledges is also not 100% possible. So this option becomes redundant.

The question is how does an organism survive in a world of ledges or any other potentially lethal situation which is not 100% predictable.
Not by avoiding them and not by any one means, but by a combination of means summarized as its biological fitness^WP. We don't know all the factors which contribute to biological fitness, but we do know reproductive success is a key measure of fitness for a biological organism in the real unpredictable world.



No you don't get to change probability just because you made a precious little robot.
If your robot is going to survive the real world like an organism survives the real world you need to start studying and applying biological fitness which deals with unpredictability and not mathematics which deals with predictability.

I literally have no idea what you are talking about.

Mathematics deals exclusively with predictability? Wtf?

Now we are in the realm of philosophical woo.

 

[rocketdodger]

I do think lifeforms are significantly different to rocks (although some lifeforms less so). I also happen to think computers are significantly different to humans (but not necessarily all lifeforms).

What does this have to do with whether or not I can define what makes me special?

Change the subject mid-conversation much?

 

[rocketdodger]

Dead people don't fall off ledges much. Nor do yeast cells. Lack of agency can be as much of a good survival mechanism as agency. Agency tends to be required for things incapable of surviving without it.

Yeah, like organisms that have gotten too big to be able to extract the required nutrients for survival from their immediate environment.

What are you getting at here? Why am I being lectured on the completely obvious?

Are you just arguing for the sake of argument? Because I don't see a point here.

 

[rocketdodger]

Rocks are able to avoid falling off ledges for millions of years at a time. Inanimate objects are extremely good at preserving their status unchanged. It's living things that tend to be ephemeral.

Ah, the nonsensical "rocks are the same as humans unless a soul is present" argument rears its ugly head again. Every time a new participant in the discussion comes around, someone has to throw it out there.

Lol, if rocks are so good at preserving their status, how come I can break them so easily? They find it difficult to run away, I guess. And how come it is so hard for them to fall on me? They try so hard, but they end up just ... doing nothing. It must be frustrating for them!

This thread has become such a joke -- can we get a someone in here who actually has original and logical arguments against the computational model?

I am rapidly not learning anything due to how weak the opposition's arguments are as of late.

 

[dlorde]

... Do we have a vote (…like dlorde suggested…trust the general population…or was that what he suggested since there seems to be no small amount of ambiguity in dlordes opinions of ‘the general population’… on the one hand, they can be trusted, on the other, their understanding of AI seems to be massively out of whack from that of the research community).

No, that wasn't what I suggested. I suggested that you were underestimating them, and the danger of hubris was a popular theme. I also said: "Most people involved would agree there are potential risks with powerful technologies, and there have already been numerous discussions, meetings, seminars, books, and articles about the rewards and risks of AI, and how we can maximize the one while minimizing the other". By 'most people involved', I meant those involved in the field; perhaps I should have spelled it out.

My view is that insiders are well aware of the potential dangers, and the public has a certain unease about these technologies on a large scale (because they don't understand them), and will demand safeguards.

 

[rocketdodger]

Rocks are able to avoid falling off ledges for millions of years at a time. Inanimate objects are extremely good at preserving their status unchanged. It's living things that tend to be ephemeral.

Well, every cell in my body has been around for literally billions of years ( in case you aren't well versed in biology, it just so happens that cells divide rather than magically spawning into the world like a ... magic bean ).

Billions >> millions.

Try again?

The cells in my body have existed in the same fairly stable configuration for longer than any other system on the planet. Including rocks. Especially rocks. Rocks look like melting ice cream compared to my cells.

The funny thing is, same with your cells. So here you are, made of ancient cells that are literally billions of years old, arguing that rocks are better at surviving than life, by saying that rocks can last millions of years. Laughing dog gif, anyone?

 

[dlorde]

I was under the impression that the "special" quality possessed by humans was to be considered in contrast to computers, rocks, planets, oceans etc. The degree to which this quality was possessed by animals of various kinds was a grey area. The status of man among the animals is less of a topic here than the status of the animate among the inanimate.

Odd, I didn't see it that way at all. If that was the case, why use 'special' in place of 'alive' or 'animate'? Then again, vast majority of living things show no signs of consciousness or intelligence, so being animate as opposed to inanimate hardly makes humans 'special' in that context.

 

[keyfeatures]

Well, every cell in my body has been around for literally billions of years ( in case you aren't well versed in biology, it just so happens that cells divide rather than magically spawning into the world like a ... magic bean ).

Billions >> millions.

Try again?

The cells in my body have existed in the same fairly stable configuration for longer than any other system on the planet. Including rocks. Especially rocks. Rocks look like melting ice cream compared to my cells.

The funny thing is, same with your cells. So here you are, made of ancient cells that are literally billions of years old, arguing that rocks are better at surviving than life, by saying that rocks can last millions of years. Laughing dog gif, anyone?

Mutation? Evolution? A cell is not the code (rna/dna). Every cell in your body has not existed for billions of years. If it was that easy to replace human cells / tissue then medicine would have an easy job. And a genotype is not a gene. You have not existed for billions of years. If you take it down to the rock level, then the chemicals that make up the rocks have existed for longer than cells, and atoms and subatomic parts even longer.

 

[Belz...]

No, it's not even wrong.

I'd be interested to know which bits of quantum mechanics we can't hypothesise about or observe. Of course we're programmed to 'find' quantum mechanics. Otherwise we wouldn't have found it.

This is the worst non sequitur of the day.

 

[Belz...]

You quite specifically claimed "That should be a strong indicator that we're not."

"That" being the inability to define particular qualities of being human. Using the inability to define as evidence of unimportance is exactly what you were sayng. What did you think you were saying?

No. Read my posts again. You've lost track once more.

 

[westprog]

A machine could respire. You are implying that respiration is all that's needed to make machines emotional? Come on, put some effort into it.

When you look at emotional things at microscopic levels, you see machines, not unlike machines that we make. Why do biological machines have emotions, and the machines we make can't ever?

What is your claim then? If the claim is that a machine which reproduced the unknown processes that give rise to emotion would itself be capable of emotion, that's a fairly weak claim. If you're claiming that a machine that ran a programmed simulation of the processes that produce emotion would itself feel emotion, that's a different claim - a much stronger and more specific claim - in fact, the particular claim which has always been at the heart of this dispute.

 

[westprog]

No. Read my posts again. You've lost track once more.

That one post was quite clear in what it said.