AIkonoklazt

Um, is that a handwave? ...that's the framing you're going by.

You're inventing a new meaning of a term. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/design design 2 of 2 noun 1 a : a particular purpose or intention held in view by an individual or group He has ambitious designs for his son. b : deliberate purposive planning more by accident than design 2 : a mental project or scheme in which means to an end are laid down was never part of my design 3 a : a deliberate undercover project or scheme : plot a declaration of a design upon his life— John Locke b designs plural : aggressive or evil intent —used with on or against he has designs on the money 4 : a preliminary sketch or outline showing the main features of something to be executed the design for the new stadium 5 a : an underlying scheme that governs functioning, developing, or unfolding : pattern, motif the general design of the epic b : a plan or protocol for carrying out or accomplishing something (such as a scientific experiment) also : the process of preparing this 6 : the arrangement of elements or details in a product or work of art … his sense of structure, both in the general design of Paradise Lost and Samson, and in his syntax …— T. S. Eliot 7 : a decorative pattern a floral design 8 : the creative art of executing aesthetic or functional designs studied design in college ------------------- Not only that, I've already made the point regarding undeterdetermination of scientific theories. There is no such thing as a "complete model" as I've indicated so many times in this thread There is no "design X" for anyone to "reverse engineer." Such thinking is utterly wrongheaded. Again: "Correlation does not imply causation" "All models are wrong, some are useful" "The map is not the territory" etc.

Before continuing with glib remarks, would you confirm that there is such a thing as time symmetry? No, I'm suggesting that your conceptual scheme can only end in epiphemnomenalism. What is this "we"? Oh, you mean bundles of chemistry, is that correct? Then there isn't any of this "we". It's simply one large physical system, there isn't any "we" at all. It then follows that this "you" isn't involved in anything at all- This "you," is ephipenomenal.

Good grief. The "missing piece" is the design without a design. There's no such thing- It's a contradiction as I've already pointed out numerous times. The process of evolution isn't that of design. There is no design in nature unless someone is fielding some sort of Intelligent Design argument (ironic given the reply I got above) I'm going to take TheVat's advice and ignore you and your replies. Not going to spend any more time with some school child whose concept of design is expressed with his ridiculous post about his parents having sex.

Like I've said earlier, infinite regress presumes a mechanistic conception of mind. Are you forwarding the presumption? Panpsychism isn't the only rabbit hole here. The other is epiphenomenalism. ...unless backward causation is involved https://www.forbes.com/sites/andreamorris/2023/10/23/testing-a-time-jumping-multiverse-killing-consciousness-spawning-theory-of-reality/?sh=592e33f0209b If we're looking at evidence, then of course that's going to "favor" physicalism because what else would physical evidence point to? Guess what... evidence also point to epiphenomenalism, so we're going to favor that too? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epiphenomenalism

"Soul"? Try a design that's not a design. "Construct" that. How many times do I have to make the same point?

...what makes the labels "creation" and "awareness" any less arbitrary? Creation/awareness of exactly what, by what, which is demonstrated by which observation? "What else," indeed. That's the problem. On "that level," there is only chemistry and no consciousness to speak of. From there, your only choice is epiphenominalism if you want to include consciousness at all.

I don't think the above poster even knows exactly what this analogous "plane" he's talking about. He's trying to equate this known entity such as an airplane with an unknown entity that as I've pointed out, could not be an artifact and thus not a machine. This "missing item" is impossible to construct. I don't want to go on explaining what bad analogies are to school kids.

Unless a blade was already upon his neck, I'd say that it still left time to consider just how horribly unpleasant the process of dying would be...

I know you're responding to TheVat, but it seems what I said to him also applies here: Infinite regression of mental events presumes a mechanistic conception of the mind Influences do not make determining factors. There can be competing influences of comparable strengths at play. I think you asked for (generic) "real world" example from another user. I suppose we can think of a prospective shoplifter. One influence would be the physical surroundings and the person's judgement of it. There may be very little monitoring, no cameras, and/OR the law is not so harsh so if you're caught you're in for a long jail sentence (e.g. what happened in San Francisco... but I digress). Such "easy target" practically serves as encouragement. On the other hand, if the person's caught, it's a pain to deal with people coming after you, someone stopping you at the door, shame (of being outted by a security guard, if shame is even a factor) and the aversion of such situations, or even deal with a police offer and a ride inside a police car (who knows, some people may not like the inside of a police car) et cetera. If the aforementioned influences takes any amount of time to consider, even just for a second, what is happening during that time? Isn't effort expended, no matter how small, point to an active will instead of a passive reaction? Are all rational thoughts simply to be categorized as passive reactions?

I did. Got nothing but arguments from assertions until I straight up called that out. /end of reply (this separate paragraph will get merged into the above reply) From Webster: artificial adjective ar·ti·fi·cial ˌär-tə-ˈfi-shᵊl Synonyms of artificial 1 : humanly contrived (see contrive sense 1b) often on a natural model : man-made an artificial limb The term "involved" doesn't refer to dependence. It points to which entity the term "artificial consciousness" refers to. As I've pointed out in the article, cybernetics and cloning (and now using living entities to construct machines) is an act of manipulation upon a conscious entity, and not a creation of consciousness. Even if you take an animal and twist it into a machine, you're not creating any consciousness- You would be manipulating a conscious entity. The consciousness would already be existent and therefore not humanly contrived (per definition above)

Then I will need to know what their positions are, and what they use to support those. I don't understand what you're saying.

You may not be referring to the terms "influence" and "determinant," but I don't think "influence doesn't equate to determinant" is a semantic trick. Those two terms refer to different things. Can we exclude the term "determinant/determined" and use "influence/influenced" instead? Re: "set in motion by the Big Bang." As I've pointed out earlier in the thread in another response, infinite regression presumes a mechanistic conception of the mind.

Living entities have already been covered in my original article.

Human agency to me is akin to putting autopilot on pause, or straining against the autopilot (braking/steering against, whatever you want to call it). An exercise of will (not going to call it "free" because of the baggage) seems to me involve both of the following: Conscious attention. When habitually doing something, we don't really have to pay attention. Or even pay attention at all. We can do things without realizing until after the fact. That would be allowing a habitual action instead of exercising choice. Conscious effort. This is the critical thing. "Effortless decision making" doesn't make sense to me. If there is effort involved, however small, what is going on? The effort of conscious thought doesn't count as an exercise of will? As an aside, I looked at the review/blog article pointed to by iNow. One thing stuck out at me that smells of hypocrisy: ...Okay, so the exception of the aforementioned "enough" is applied to this "we" (determinists such as the author) but not the law? Why shouldn't the law itself also "act like we have free will"?

Some quotes from SEP https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill Meaning of the term "free will": Pre-determination of human behavior isn't decisively supported by current science: The following goes along with my own thoughts on the matter. Influences are heavily underdetermined, and influences don't make determinants: We often assume probable causes to _be_ causes. We can correlate, but do those correlations make cause? With competing influences, do the purportedly stronger ones necessarily prevail? Doesn't infinite regression assume a mechanistic mind?

Thanks, I'll just ignore those posts. The "imprecision" comes mostly from the lack of any actual forward-looking content. Emergence isn't functional as an explanation or a theory. An article I linked to earlier starts disassembling notions of it right from the fourth paragraph as quoted below (and basically goes all the way through to the end from there): As if functionalism and behaviorism aren't hopelessly bad already, emergentism tries to apply them in reverse. See where the author writes "small differences can easily invalidate the hypothesis"? It should read "there will be inevitable differences that will invalidate the hypothesis" because of Underdetermination of scientific theory (ref. my article, which, again, is related to adages such as "the map is not the territory," "all models are wrong, some are useful," etc.)

Good grief. Someone else can point out just how big of a trainwreck the above reply was.

I'm was just pointing out the difference between an anthill, which is a mound of dirt/sand/etc, versus an ant colony which is a collection of live ants. In discussing points, I have to know exactly what people are referring to lest we all just keep talking past each other. The activity of "wetting" is different than the quality of something being wet. I was simply trying to point out that if a quality is somehow intrinsic, then that quality isn't "achieved". I admit that water probably doesn't apply, but that was what I was getting at. You're accusing me of things, and that's not going to help anyone. "Anthill" and "ant colony" clearly refer to two different things (see definitions), and all I did was seek clarification in order to see what your point was. Too much to ask, I guess. Your father and mother didn't design you. That's not how it works. You're conflating two different concepts: Your parents' intentions to engage in sexual activity, and Whether your parents' intents had anything to do with your physical composition and arrangement. They didn't design how your organs work, how long each of your limbs are, for instance, and which elements make up your body, et cetera. This is the sort of conflation of concepts I brought up with another user earlier in the thread. People are confused on the topic of AI because they conflate concepts and even terminology.

I was just saying that consciousness may not be something that is "achieved." I've discussed that earlier in my replies with others in the thread. I'm not a circuit board designer, I design microprocessors Consciousness may not be a product of anything. If it is a "product," then evolution isn't a process of design which produced said "product." Evolution isn't a process of design. You said "anthill" (which is a mound of soil, sand, or dirt) and not an ant colony. I'm not being obtuse at all- You might have used a wrong term and you needed to clarify what you were referring to. I don't know what point you're making here. Are you making an equation between an ant and a machine? ...you meant an anthill...? Not sure what ants being under stress has to do with anything

Koch started with a big disadvantage IMO... He's already locked in to some kind of rigid self-imposed scheme by using a term like "achieve." For example, how doe water "achieve" wetness? What if it isn't even a matter of extrinsic attribution (or not)? If you start with a loaded question, you've already handcuffed yourself.

It supports my thesis because it presents a contradition- A design without a design. The anthill analogy is a really bad analogy. Let me requote it here: How is an anthill "intelligent"? I think you're confusing the anthill with the ants that are in it. (I could still access the article directly, probably because I'm still under a quota. Maybe the next time I click it I'd be paywalled. I've saved the article to a bookmark app in the meantime) The recognition of being surrounded by bad analogies is a start. Well, as you've seen in the earlier article that I've shared, information processing itself is a bad analogy. With qualia, we aren't dealing with physical information. The first-person phenomena of conscious experience isn't in the form of physical information. The "color" of yellow isn't anywhere in the physical world because this "color" is a conscious experience and not a physical property and thus not a piece of physical information: https://www.extremetech.com/archive/49028-color-is-subjective. This is covered by the Knowledge Argument (reference only... it's long, way longer than my article so I don't expect anyone here to digest it): https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia-knowledge/ I am currently working on some writings to attempt to explain some of the conceptual conflations that goes on. Just some rough notes:

Design takes away volition. We're not products of design, the loom that you raised as example was. TheVat as well as other people have raised the same issue separately, which I had to answer over and over: "Evolutionary" or "genetic" algorithms don't escape design and determination. You don't "design volition into something," you automatically take volition away when designing. People have this idea in their head that this "artificial consciousness" is just a thing that's passively "there"- No, it has to be designed and made. This process is a lock-in. There's no "instruction without instruction." Animals derive behavior from an entirely different avenue from machines- Their behavior is influenced and not a result of any design. Again, I don't understand people's stubborn refusal to deal with the article. Several professors, two of them very senior (Professor Emeritus and Distinguished Professor), took the time out of their extremely busy schedules to read every last word so why aren't people here able to? This is the section: (The forum software won't let me do a separate reply and would just tack this onto the end of my last reply but I'm making a note here that I will be heading out of the country for two weeks very soon and won't be looking at this forum while on the trip. I'll address things sometime after I come back)

If you want to stress the scientific point of view, try this: "Scientific methods are only useful in confirming the theories behind supports and refutes. The actual question of consciousness isn't amenable to science and its methods because phenomenal consciousness is off-limits to scientific investigation." When I use scientific underdetermination, that's a philosophical argument, based on scientific evidence yes, but still a philosophical argument. "What it is like to see the color red" is off limits to empirical science. Dennett and his followers may keep disagreeing and keep holding up the "intuition pump" card (which I also addressed in my article) but I think the Knowledge Argument holds. The counterarguments Dennett and others have against the Monochrome Room thought experiment are silly (like the one with a different color banana... If anyone finds that entire argument again, give it to me and I'll explain why it's silly) https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia-knowledge/

Yeah "we invented the loom" because the loom is designed, while the brain isn't. I've stressed over and over again that evolution isn't a process of design. Once you design anything it's game over- The "designing a non-design" contradiction occurs, and volition is denied. The tyre isn't the one doing the diagnosing. A person would be the one reading and interpreting the marker. You're fooled by the nomenclature. Your "accidental wedge" doesn't itself contain moving parts so exactly which definition are you even using? Of course "we've been through this". https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/machine?src=search-dict-hed Impossibility is a "rejection." Refutations are "rejections." If you go through the whole thread, you'll see plenty of instances where people weren't exactly "polite" to me to begin with. Pardon me if you were mixed up in all the jeering and tomato-tossing, but I generally treat others as I'm treated. The final numbers of 2 quadrillion versus 55 million were extremely generous since I was counting unconnected transistors (and only on-processor too; ignoring the entire rest, including CPUs and only counting GPU transistors at that) while at the same time counting every connection in a fruit fly brain, averaging 182 out from _each_ to every other. Microprocessor circuit connections are also very complex. We'd have to mark down exactly what kinds of connection "complexities" we're talking about if we talk complexity; Otherwise, it will always be handwaving if the criteria isn't firm. Complexity may just be a moot concept here.