AIkonoklazt

Due to the utter inability of people to back up their own argumentation, I propose a handicap! People can look up ANYTHING on the entire internet to support whatever they say (e.g. random conjectures, junk clickbaits with dodgy support if any at all... anything is better than the zero that I'm seeing), while I am strictly limited to peer-reviewed academic research journals (i.e. not those random non-reviewed / preprint stuff from places like ArXiv) I am being extremely generous. There is simply no excuses now to finally back up what you say, with anything, AT ALL. This is from my search: First paper: Front. Psychol., 05 January 2021 Sec. Cognitive Science Volume 11 - 2020 Artificial Intelligence Is Stupid and Causal Reasoning Will Not Fix It - J. Mark Bishop https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.513474/full This is a very solid argument, starting at section 6, where he goes into Searle's CRA in a more detailed and nuanced way than I had. The comparison between the understanding of English and non-understanding of Chinese by the same person in the face of functional "as-if" (non)understanding is well-explained here. Section 7 goes into how Godelian arguments further disproves computationalism. It demonstrates how mental procedures aren't containable in formal systems. What's cognitive isn't computational, which is the position of Penrose. Section 8 basically says this: If you subscribe to the idea that machines can possess phenomenal consciousness, then you MUST also subscribe to a form of pansychism. If you do that, you abandon any and all positions on "emergent" consciousness from anything (no great loss since it's false anyway...) Second paper: Consciousness and Cognition, Volume 45, October 2016, Pages 210-225 Artificial consciousness and the consciousness-attention dissociation - H.H. Halajian, C Montemayor https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053810016301817 This paper, full of references to scientific research, demonstrating the impossibility of implementation of emotional "routines" that aren't mere simulations. This is taking a different approach than the a priori methods of the other paper, looking at biological and evolutionary mechanisms. Before anyone says "who cares about emotions" here is a quote from the intro portion of the paper (emphasis mine): Well, that's it for now. Take at it, people! p.s. you also need to state what the source(s) you're pointing to is/are talking about, and not just a random link dump.

You're asking me to simply repeat myself. It's the same functionality. There isn't any compartmentalization worthy of note in what you mentioned because it's one of form (e.g. physical shape) and not function (how it works). The compartmentalization I mentioned was regarding one that compartmentalizes into different functions, not just form. I don't see how this is so difficult to understand. Penrose himself have said that consciousness isn't computational, so I don't see the point of mentioning him at all.

The functions of a computer program is compartmentalized into subroutines. This is compartmentalization of machine program code into different functions, in contrast to compartmentalization of DNA into different states with "libraries of same functionality". The difference is abundantly clear. I think you were simply confused by the inclusion of the term "compartmentalization" in both. Combined with how omnigenetics work, you'd see that DNA works nothing like machine programs. Again, show me a large program where every line of code influences all behavior of the program. There isn't one, that's not how subroutines work, they are divided functionally, not functionally "fused" with "libraries of same functionality" the way DNA is. Is the difference clear now? As for others, I have very little to no faith in them. If they're actually interested in the "how" of anything, they would have responded to the points I've made in my article on the matter instead of just "responding" to the title and nothing else.

Don't just assert, back it up.

EmDriver, I suggest you don't just google up terms and expect to instantly get a counterargument out of it. The "compartmentalization" you linked to isn't talking about various functions DNA perform. It's talking about differentiation of packaging into TWO states. You need an actual modicum of what's being discussed before just using some term you've found. TRY AGAIN edit: I just noticed that you fielded a strawman. I never said anything regarding where consciousness could only arise- I only deny consciousness to artifacts.

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.

"Adequately dismantled" by exactly which words in this thread, your mere claim that it has been? "Disconfirmation?" Wrong. Look up what the word means first before using it. I used to be curious about what random people on the internet could come up with, but not anymore. It's better to be curious about what non-random people have to say, specifically several professors and researchers who agree with my argument, one of which (neuroscience researcher / professor) is helping me put together a peer-reviewed paper on the subject. It's been more than 20 years since I've written any papers but it'll get done. I'm also hardly the first person who takes my type of position- far from it. This other paper takes a different angle from mine to reach the same conclusion: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1053810016301817

I've already told you in the reply that you've just replied to: Fuctional scope is vastly different between the two Compartmentalization in code but not DNA (when I repeated myself in the other thread, some idiot kept insisting that I'm "using my own writing as evidence" SMH)

What are you even talking about? Do you expect me to retype anything that people just don't bother to actually read before responding to? It's not "evidence" it's "argumentation that I've made but people ignored" Stop accusing me of doing something that I didn't do. It's getting ANNOYING. Make the darn arguments if you've got one. Stop with the stupid accusatory shenanigans.

That first quoted statement of yours is circular reasoning. You assume "think" and "learn." Machines don't "learn," and you have yet to expound or demonstrate machine "thinking": ==== I textbooks readily admit that the “learning” in “machine learning” isn’t referring to learning in the usual sense of the word[8]: “For example, a database system that allows users to update data entries would fit our definition of a learning system: it improves its performance at answering database queries based on the experience gained from database updates. Rather than worry about whether this type of activity falls under the usual informal conversational meaning of the word “learning,” we will simply adopt our technical definition of the class of programs that improve through experience.” ==== What you stated regarding DNA is backed up by exactly nothing (you're arguing from assertion) AND contradicts scientific findings (bolded for emphasis): ==== DNA is not programming code. Genetic makeup only influences and does not determine behavior. DNA doesn’t function like machine code, either. DNA sequencing carries instructions for a wide range of roles such as growth and reproduction, while the functional scope of machine code is comparatively limited. Observations suggest that every gene affects every complex trait to a degree not precisely known[17]. This shows their workings to be underdetermined, while programming code is functionally determinate in contrast (There’s no way for programmers to engineer behaviors, whether adaptive or “evolutionary,” without knowing what the program code is supposed to do. See section discussing “Volition Rooms”) and heavily compartmentalized in comparison (show me a large program in which every individual line of code influences ALL behavior). The DNA-programming parallel is a bad analogy that doesn’t stand up to scientific observation. ==== You said you went through my post but it sure doesn't seem like it. Sounds plausible but false, kind of like a lot of stuff LLMs spit out as query results and the definition of a spurious argument.

Sigh. Let's start with this: No it doesn't. That goes against scientific findings. (copypasta from my article) DNA is not programming code. Genetic makeup only influences and does not determine behavior. DNA doesn’t function like machine code, either. DNA sequencing carries instructions for a wide range of roles such as growth and reproduction, while the functional scope of machine code is comparatively limited. Observations suggest that every gene affects every complex trait to a degree not precisely known[17]. This shows their workings to be underdetermined, while programming code is functionally determinate in contrast (There’s no way for programmers to engineer behaviors, whether adaptive or “evolutionary,” without knowing what the program code is supposed to do. See section discussing “Volition Rooms”) and heavily compartmentalized in comparison (show me a large program in which every individual line of code influences ALL behavior). The DNA-programming parallel is a bad analogy that doesn’t stand up to scientific observation.

There isn't a behavioral test that could demonstrate anything regarding a first-person only phenomena; The Chines Room Argument had shown that a long time ago without me having to say anything on top of it such as writing an article. The only demonstration is that of identification of origin. Is the object an artifact (see dictionary definition) or not? Sure, if all evidence of manufacture is destroyed one would have no real evidence (assuming perfect physical imitation, as in even if you put it through an X-ray machine you can't tell from the pictures). However, that doesn't mean it's not an artifact. What something fundamentally is or isn't doesn't change from the availability of such identifying information.

(I left because people were starting to make personal accusations, and the recent hoopla surrounding LLMs reminded me of this forum so now I'm back, and speak of the devil- look at the latest replies mentioning that guy from Google...) I wasn't using my article as evidence- I just don't want to reprint my own argument over and over, which is usually what happens when people don't bother reading the whole thing before responding. It happens a LOT, everywhere I go. As I've already argued in my article, emergence via complexity doesn't cut it as an argument when you can compare a non-conscious system that's allegedly much more complex than something that's not but is conscious. I'm sure it's interesting to some people, but could you sum up exactly what made him reach the conclusion he did? All LLMs (large language models) work via the same basic principle. You ready? The statistical chances of words and groups of words being next to each other. "That's... it?" One may ask. Yes. THAT'S IT. Can you imagine the amount of exasperation from experts who deal with LLMs when they see people claiming anything more than that, much less sentience? I would post a link to Emily Bender's paper but I seriously doubt anyone here has the patience to read that short paper because many apparently don't even have the patience to scroll though something much shorter, such as my article. But hey, here it is just for yucks https://dl.acm.org/doi/epdf/10.1145/3442188.3445922 p.s. Something for laughs, and perhaps to illustrate my aforementioned principle. Try spotting exactly what's wrong with ChatGPT's reply in the attached screenshot, and exactly how it relates to what I said about the operating principle of LLMs: My personal Vegas wager is that he was tired of his job and figured, hey- If he was gonna leave anyway he might as well get some mileage from the event. There is no way anyone who is familiar with LLMs would make such a claim (see my above other reply as to the simple reason why); It's a comedy show, a cheap hoax for his own amusement, or both.

Dictate? Would it make you feel better if I inserted the word "I suggest" to the 2nd sentence of my last reply? Good grief. Save the personal labels- They won't help. Okay let's start over. "Your claim is that artificial intelligence is impossible." See below "It would be sensible in a discussion like this to lay out what exactly you mean by intelligence." ...it would help if you've read what's in article section: "Intelligence versus consciousness" The real issue is with bad programming, including programs that are so-called "discriminatory." It's badly written programs and badly designed machines, not any program or machine that could be "conscious (they wouldn't be, because they're programs and machines)," that pose issues.

No problem. Just remember that common terms such as "machine learning" and "self-driving cars" are misnomers.

It's not my fault that you've lost track where I've already addressed the matter.

It boils down to: What drives a machine, "itself?"

I'm not pretending anything. If you feel that I'm not engaging in good faith then exit the conversation, but don't accuse me of bad faith. "And, given that human cognitive processes cause computers and artificial neural nets, it takes no great insight into the chain of causality to assert that, if there is no design to the human mind, then whatever arises from that mind and is implemented in a different substrate, also is not designed. IOW reductio ad absurdum." That doesn't follow. That argument amounts to asserting that the human mind is indistinguishable from a machine especially in terms of dealing with meaning versus none (section "Symbol Manipulator, a thought experiment"). The randomness of nature isn't a conscious process but the invention from a human mind is. It goes back to his comment where he said "now you're wrong twice," which then ultimately goes a few steps back to one of my own comments that had other people's quotes in it but none of his. I'd rather that people directly mention things. Can you explain the big difference that made in the argument between one offcut and several? Whatever we construct, there is a teleology whenever there is purpose involved. In other words, what the construct is "for" had been decided. That's different from natural constructs.

I don't know what you're referring to unless you reference it. You're not the only person in this thread.

Explain. The RNA/DNA molecule itself isn't a design, either. The human mind was not designed, either. Why the automatic insertion of teleology?

This was already addressed in section "Volition Rooms — Machines can only appear to possess intrinsic impetus": I ccould generalize these kinds of counterarguments under a section named "Arguments from opacity." Opacity of origin (via programming), opacity of change (via flaws), et cetera. If the argument wasn't about the offcut being an unintended machine, then please clarify. I understood it as such.

Nature doesn't design anything. The process of random mutation isn't design. This had been argued earlier. My response was this: A conscious AI would be "acting on its own," correct? But it wouldn't be doing so because of its programming. Hence "programming without programming" and "design without design." Isn't that a strawman if it's indeed an argument against my thesis? The issue isn't with the substrate as I've already indicated in the article itself, but with the algorithmic nature of machines.

I complete agree with you that trans men deserve their chance in men's sports every bit as much as trans women in women's sports. It's just that there are probably better ways of doing so than adding even more rules as they're likely to worsen stigma rather than alleviate. I couldn't for the life of me find the example I saw maybe late last year or early this year, but there was a transgender collegiate woman cross country athlete who didn't manage the make her team after the mandated transitioning wait period. After everything she had been through, it would just be too much to ask her to endure even more regulation and/or handicapping on top. All I could find right now is the example of a successful collegiate transgender woman cross country athlete: https://www.outsports.com/2019/8/30/20834159/juniper-eastwood-transgender-runner-division-i-cross-country-track-and-field-university-of-montana I'm fairly certain Ms Eastwood wouldn't want to put up with more regulations or handicapping either. There are many other transgender athletes in the sport that aren't successful enough to get a lot of press coverage, so you're right about the inevitable entrance of more and more transgender sports competitors.

I did attempt to answer your original question in good faith. If we misunderstand each other then just clarify. Let me try again, then. The concept of artificial consciousness, upon closer examination, is an oxymoronic concept because it would involve design without design, programming without programming, and so on. That was one of the points. The second major point would be the arbitrary nature of algorithms that involves no meaning. Reference the section from my article labeled "Symbol Manipulator, a thought experiment."

Because you seemed to be making the equation between nature-as-designer and man-as-designer from your original point.