Leaderboard

Evaporative coolers only work in low-humidity areas, but where they work, and water is available, sure, people should use them.

This whole thread is of an interesting subject, but kicked off with a hugely bad OP. And then pushed by some weird and not wonderful argument. Surely, if you have such a claim as what's in the title, you start with rock solid definitions of artificial, and consciousness ? And then, you have to clearly explain why an intelligent being can never, ever, under any circumstance, bring about any form of consciousness, no matter how primitive. Well, humans have replicated what evolution has achieved in so many areas, why can't we replicate consciousness? We can replicate flight, deep sea diving, legs, kidneys, we can replicate speech at the speed of light, to people on the Moon, we can even replicate the Sun, here on Earth, all not identically but to varying degrees. So why should it be impossible to replicate consciousness, to some degree? In the OP the poster says : Consciousness[2]: “When I am in a conscious mental state, there is something it is like for me to be in that state from the subjective or first-person point of view.” That's hardly a definition, but I didn't see anything else resembling a definition. Just a following list of things the OP "asserts" consciousness must include. For someone who is so ready to accuse posters of "argument by assertion", the OP is full to the brim of unsupported assertions. The above assertion in blue seems to exclude lower forms of consciousness, and really seems to talk about self-consciousness, or self-awareness, which is a totally different thing. To me that's consciousness on a much more advanced level. Babies develop through lots of stages of awareness, and self awareness, but they are surely conscious right from the start. Earthworms have a primitive level of consciousness, surely? They are conscious of a torch shone on them, of moist or dry environments, of the presence next to them of a possible mate. So there are different levels, all the way down to zero. I can't see any reason why you can't one day construct a machine that is more conscious than a nematode worm. And if you can do that, then you can improve it, over and over to higher levels. The OP is so full of unclear vague assertions, you can't really have a meaningful debate that centres around it. Such as : Requirements of consciousness A conscious entity, i.e., a mind, must possess: 1. Intentionality[3]: “Intentionality is the power of minds to be about, to represent, or to stand for, things, properties, and states of affairs.” I'm not a genius, but I'm not thick either. But I have no idea what the poster is trying to say there. But I do recognise an assertion when I see one, even if I've got no idea what it is. 🙃 I would say, try to make arguments from fundamentals that most people would understand and agree with. Otherwise, you're just spouting verbal confetti.

Because consciousness is a process and not a thing?

A rather strange turn this thread has taken. I am hoping that toilet seats cannot ever be conscious. Anyway it seems like an argument against emergentism is being made... and its unintended consequence is that humans cannot possess agency, intentionality, or consciousness. 1. Consciousness cannot be accounted for by physical particles obeying mindless equations in accordance with natural laws. (such particle interactions are just machinery, like toilet seats or carburetors or thermostats) 2. Human beings seem to be made up of physical particles. 3. To the best of our knowledge, those particles obey mindless equations, without exception, and without a causal role for higher-order operations. (no downward causation) 4. Therefore, consciousness does not exist. We are all zombies.

I see that you don't want to answer my question. It shows that you are a troll. There is no point to continue.

Spot the non-sequitur. This has, of course, bugger all to do with climate change. London has been found to have poor air quality, especially along busy trunk roads where poorer people tend to live, sufficient to have adverse impact on health. The fact that it was worse in the 1950s is no kind of argument for saying it is acceptable now. Please provide substantiation of this allegation that does not rely on a YouTube video. YouTube is full of crap. (And that fat git with the glasses is the moron who said you can grow concrete, so we can safely discount anything he has to say.😄) By the way, it's called Imperial College, not The Imperial College.

That sort of shock does happen to people when the water is close to zero degrees, I seem to remember. I don't know if that carries over to water that is cold, but not that cold. The Romans used to design temperature shock into their bath-house experience, going straight from hot to cold. I don't recall reading about them dropping dead from it, but maybe they did. With coldish outdoor pools, some people like to dive straight in, others like to do it gradually. I'm one of those, but I have to admit that diving straight in gets it over with quicker.

Artificial consciousness is possible, and is here already. My car definitely has a mind of it's own.

One thing I liked about Arrival was that the aliens, "heptapods," were not remotely humanoid, or even terrestrial looking.

Yes, it only takes one. I read somewhere that the jury that chose to indict him had one juror who consistently voted against at every opportunity, and it only got passed because they could take a majority at that stage, whereas in a full trial, it needs to be unanimous. Luckily, the election can be won on a majority. Not of voters though, that would be too simple for the "home of democracy". Here in the UK, they try for a unanimous verdict, but if it gets bogged down like that, the judge can instruct them that he will take a majority verdict. Usually 11 to 1 or 10 to 2. Whether that's better or not, who can say? Life is a constant series of compromises in the real world.

No you will end up with salt water, sodium ions and chlorides in water

Repetition alone without adding anything new doesn’t magically render your argument valid. All you’re doing is sharing an opinion and trying to dress it up as fact.

That is fine. You can accuse Peter Fortune, the Deputy leader of the Conservative Party and London Assembly Member for Bexley and Bromley of telling lies at the London Assembly and Talk TV all you like. But why if he is lying about Imperial College's stance on ULEZ, has no other politicians accused of him of this? Do you have anything to support your conspiracy theory that the Deputy leader of the Conservative Party is telling lies?

Well, there appears to be widespread belief across the internet that Sadiq Khan misrepresented his Scientific report. This appears to have gone unchallenged. There also appears to be no notable challenge from anyone regarding Peter Fortune's allegations. This would make me suspect that disbelieving Peter Fortune's allegations could fall into the category of conspiracy theory. Also, as the accusations against Sadiq Khan are so widespread across the internet, I have absolutely no obligation whatsoever to provide any further documentation whatsoever. It is your responsibility to do your own due-diligence, and the accusation is well reported enough and notable enough that you can easily find copious amounts of results yourself by simply consulting any of many internet platforms, including Google.

...adding some random accusation doesn't make that accusation valid. "I'll just ignore your article, and when you raise points from the article I'll just say that you're using repetition"

Then how about you tell people like iNow to stop accusing me of repetition? After all, you've done some of that yourself. It's not a riddle. A machine doesn't do anything "on its own."

What the heck are you talking about? Parse the above in plain English. Are you still roleplaying as an AI like you did earlier, or what? At least that's what I'm getting from the above. Explain to me what you just said. I don't understand. There's no such thing as a machine that "does things on its own." Start with that. That's interesting. However, how would Kemmerer handle people with a condition such as aphantasia? You didn't describe the purported effects of this operation on his sensations. You can literally go anywhere, and I don't know where you're going. There are man-made sensations coming from what and where? Please describe the situation in more depth. How are the sensations artificial? Why isn't it a state? Why isn't it a state?