Leaderboard

Just curious, can you refer to a scientific law or theorem that makes artificial consciousness impossible? Examples, analogies to illustrate my question: 1: Due to Turing's proof, it is an established fact in theoretical computer science that it's absolutely impossible to create a general algorithm that solves the halting problem for all possible program-input pairs. 2: According to the laws of thermodynamics, it's impossible to cool a system to absolute zero or below. In your opinion, is there an equivalent statement regarding the impossibility of artificial consciousness?

..in trace amounts.. https://www.google.com/search?q=iron+in+seawater https://www.google.com/search?q=iron+in+mainland+water

Yes, my scenario is unlikely. My point was that unexpected shifts can happen when constitutional guard rails are dismantled. In the West, we see many reports of Modi inflaming anti Muslim sentiment. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/feb/08/narendra-modi-anti-muslim-strongman-global-leader-india-bbc

Is the past necessarily bad? I had so many wonderful experiences in the past, I don't want to leave behind the memories of them. I happily carry my past with me into the present and into the future.

Just a thought (well 2 actually) sologuitar has posted a series of similarly worded titles and these are in the homework thread. I wonder if this has triggered some additional anti bot /anti spam software here. I have seen some other maths sites swamped by what are clearly repeat posts.

So I did a bit of research, and it turns out that the Sámi, which are the indigenous people of the Nordic countries, are basically indistinguishable from the Inuit. This map show the present homeland of the Sámi (Sámpi) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sámi#/media/File:LocationSapmi.png Here is a map showing the regions my genes come from(Which matches what I know from my family tree)The small Northern regions show some overlap with the Sámi regions, and I know my ancestors were from the Northern parts of those regions So it is not a stretch to assume that the 2% tagged as Inuit is Sámi, and with that bit of info, the results make a bit more sense.

Technically, all of the woe is generated from within you. That gives you tremendous power. It means you are also capable of stopping the woe. Life doesn’t just happen to you. It’s created by you. Choose what story you wish to tell yourself. You’re the author, not the audience. That is certainly necessary, but insufficient.

I agree with the OP. One outstanding feature of Islam, both historically and today, is the undercurrent of compulsion. There is compulsion exercised in Christianity too, but less overt. Historically, Christianity was forced down the throats of people. Today, it's more subtle, but it's still there. And most religions, nearly all, employ compulsion. But I don't know of any religion that employs as much compulsion as Islam. The the loudspeakers are the most obvious bit of compulsion. You are EXPECTED to pray, not invited. And why do it together? So that everybody can see who's praying, and who's NOT praying. Most of the compulsion happens to children, it gets a little bit more subtle as people get older, but it's still there.

! Moderator Note This argument is clearly made in bad faith as an attempt to dismiss what others have said. I suggest you reread the whole thread before claiming nobody has given you any support for their arguments.

Which "fact," and what "argument?" It takes a bit more than some half-baked quips to refute an argumentation, unless you're talking about some random internet forum. Arguing from assertion, that's what I'm seeing the most. On top of that, not even addressing the points I've made in the post and only the title (very typical of short attention spans to just look at the title and argue against that) I can see why I should only engage with professional academics- The venue filters out people who have no idea how to field an actual argument with their half-baked thoughts. I'm going to wait for your next random handwave.

I really expect at least one item from someone, anyone, after half a year, that backs up what they say in any way whatsoever. All anyone had to do, was look up Wikipedia, to find that one reference to Chalmers' Computational Foundation argument. I'd say that Wikipedia's even a bit slanted in this regard, listing Chalmer's "pro artificial consciousness point" and... nobody else's anything. However, Chalmer's position ends up being nothing else than another variety of functionalism. Those random Wikipedia editors are pretty disappointing too. In other developments: Robert Marks, Distinguished Professor of Electrical & Computer Engineering at Baylor and director of The Walter Bradley Center for Natural & Artificial Intelligence, read my article, deemed it to be very good and recommended me to submit it for reprint at the center's online publication. It has now been reprinted there in three parts: Artificial Consciousness Remains Impossible (Part 1) Artificial Consciousness Remains Impossible (Part 2) Artificial Consciousness Remains Impossible (Part 3) Coincidentally, a few months after I originally wrote the article, the UN agency UNESCO banned AI legal personhood in their AI ethics recommendations, adopted by all 193 member states at the time. I wrote to Gabriela Ramos, Assistant Director-General for Social and Human Sciences of UNESCO. She agreed to forward my argumentation to members of her organization in support and defense of the policy. In my view, not only would be AI legal personhood be unethical, it would be flat out immoral (see section "Some implications with the impossibility of artificial consciousness" of my article). There already have been legal arguments made questioning AI legal personhood, one of which is this one: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-and-comparative-law-quarterly/article/artificial-intelligence-and-the-limits-of-legal-personality/1859C6E12F75046309C60C150AB31A29 There is still a lack of multilateral public discussion and debate. A newspaper article's writer agreed to talk to his editor to see if it's possible to set up a written philosophical debate with me and some field experts named in an article. The usual responses I get from these things are that people don't have the time, but that won't stop me from trying. There are many people from AI-related fields that have expressed similar frustrations on how the current wave of hype is distorting perception of various issues. Edit: See item 68 (text bolded by me): https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000381137

The invention of gunpowder was a lot of progress. As impactful as the invention of nuclear weapons has been in our time. And there was no REGRESSION of progress in Africa, the Americas, or Oceania. Whatever technological level they were at they at least maintained that level. Furthermore, even Europe wasn't fully dark. The Byzantine Empire remained literate and civilized. It was only Western Europe that suffered a dark age. So...as I said, on a world-wide basis, technology continued to advance throughout this supposed dark period. Regardless, there is no looming dark age stretching before us today. What we see looming before us is a tidal wave of accelerating advancement of technology like never before in history. It's gonna take your breath away! And that means that what I've been postulating is plausible enough for rational people to believe in its eventual achievment.