AIkonoklazt

Which part of the process is design? "Guide" and "discard" implies active participant.

1&2. This was the example he linked to: https://cdn.images.fecom-media.com/FE00015525/documents/Simple+Machine+wedge.pdf 3. Read what he said earlier in the thread. He was using offcut. That's single piece. 4. That understanding doesn't apply to anything more complex than a one-piece tool. Can you explain the relevance to the topic at hand? Because that itself couldn't have been the counterargument. Natural selection isn't "guiding" or "designing." Random variations are just that- random. There isn't any teleology behind such a process. It isn't "making." you're employing misnomers. This isn't intelligent design. https://www.britannica.com/topic/teleology

Players choose their rackets in tennis. This isn't auto racing. Are you sure you're doing trans men a favor by what you're proposing? What race are they winning and which records are they challenging then? Now the name-calling begins yet again, I see. Who or what do you think I'm trying to include or exclude via my argumentation? See my response regarding women's tennis.

I didn't make personal comments about you, but you chose to do otherwise about me.

Did you see the bad example he used? The example involved was a lever, with the wedge as one of the elements of the lever. The lever was the machine while the wedge was an element. Not only that, can this entire discussion around machine consciousness revolve around a single-piece tool? If so, how? Obviously it can't, which is why this argumental route wasn't subsequently followed (as far as I could tell.) All the anti-personnel rhetoric just to get to the above last sentence. I've had threads running 50+ pages and/or 500+ responses, so people have no trouble discussing the topic with me. Where did you think my "Responses to counterarguments," which took up half of the article, came from? How does one "use a natural process" and how is the result not natural innate consciousness (and thus artificial consciousness, as you're readying to remove the term yourself?). Let's say I clone a sheep. I'm using certain "natural processes" and the resultant sheep, as my article already addressed, wouldn't be artificial consciousness.

Too bad tennis isn't remotely the same sport. How'd you like it when women are completely shut out of all major tournaments (even minor ones)? They can't get in by rank or even by wild card if you get rid of WTA. Also, you still ignore what happened to the Williams Sisters. They didn't win like the club team you referred to- They lost badly- To someone outside the top 200. You're drawing on invalid parallels. How about this- Ask any woman tennis player out there about getting rid of WTA tour. I have a feeling people in here never even follow the sport. ...and you think the situation in school tournaments are completely different because.......? Can you offer one single thing to back up what you're saying? Again, people in this forum doesn't seem to follow tennis nor have played it. Girls back in my high school, as well as others, would have been shut out of tournaments the same way. One of my friends back then was the #1 ranked tennis player in my school, and while his sister was also on the team her shots were nowhere even close to his- Same with other players on the girl's team when compared with guys. You'd be practically telling most if not all girls to not go to school tournaments because they can't qualify. Do people even realize that in some sports such as tennis, inclusion MEANS having separate men's and women's games? Outside of competition people can play all they want however they want, while tournaments are a whole other animal. You would be taking girls and women out of the competitive game with your completely misapplied version of "inclusion." People don't have to play tennis to understand what I'm about to say. How is a handicapped game appealing in any sport? Would you like Olympics and Paraolympics combied for "fairness and inclusion"? Have you watched men's and women's tennis on TV or in person? Now imagine what happens to it once you put all those stuff about different rackets in. It's fine to adjust things such as which line count as side line (as it has happened in exibition matches) but rackets? Seriously?

Good grief... is artificial consciousness going to be a single piece tool with no separate elements at all? If it is, then color me "unprepared." Otherwise it's simply non-sequitur. Now that's out of the way, where is the actual answer to my last response? Are you arguing from opacity of change?

My point was that there'd be no women ranked in the top 200 should the sport of tennis not be segregated. How is that in any way conducive to anything? Why don't you get it? How is having no women ranked in the top 200 be conducive to the sport of tennis at all? Did the point regarding the Williams Sister completely flew over your head?

I don't see a wedge satisfying any of the sub-definitions of a machine: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/machine That aside, let's look at what unintended variations mean. Two major categories of the same "accidental modification" theme, and how possible they are in altering the fundamental algorithmic nature of an automation: Bug / design flaw (inherent flaws): This doesn't change the nature of the resultant function. A flawed algorithmic operation is still algorithmic Deviation / mal-adaptation (incidental flaws): Ditto. Unintended algorithmic operation is still algorithmic. Both are akin to claiming how opacity introduces fundamental changes in nature, e.g. a bot suddenly doing something unexpected doesn't mean it has "gained a mind of its own" but is due to bad design and/or compromise. Flaws aren't designs, but they don't make programs into non-programs.

Except tennis always is. If it's not, then there's no term such as "mixed doubles" because there would just be "doubles." Think about it. Mixed pairs never play with male pairs or female pairs, and are excluded from pro tours. There aren't any official man versus woman singles matches. Completely segregated by sex. Segregation in tennis is not arbitrary. Per my opening response, The #1 Williams Sisters were beaten by a man outside the top 200 men's ranking in an exhibition match. If WTP was disbanded and every player go ATP, then women would be relegated to the side courts in every pro tournament and majors.

It's segregated by sex.

Just because there's a mixed category doesn't mean the sport is not clearly segregated. Mixed doubles pairs don't compete with men's pairs or women's pairs Mixed doubles limited to Grand Slam / Olympics and not ATP nor WTA tours (obviously) There aren't "mixed singles" outside of rare exhibitions ATP tour - men's pro tour WTA tour - women's pro tour If that's not segregated by sex then what is? Not disagreeing with what you've wrote but I'd like to note that sometimes the issue isn't transgender or even identity but medical. Take cases like Caster Semenya's. Caster has undescended testes, and was raised as a girl growing up even though she possess male gonads. She clearly outclasses her women peers but is she to be told to compete with men when she had lived as a female all of her life?

Don't get what you meant by the picture, since the sport is segregated into men's, women's, and mixed. One doesn't impinge on the others, so segregation still apply. Go back to the footages. Scoring system here: https://www.snowboarder.com/transworld-snowboarding-archive/snowboarding-photos/olympic-judging-explained/

re: "I see you have given up trying to defend your misapplication of the first order logic law of the excluded middle." How is that quip not a specious argument when you can't cough up one single concrete way of applying the objection to my argument? re: "Instead you are using the old trick of replying to several questions with the same answer." See above. re: "But not all constructs are machines and I am referring to those that are not machines." Like what? Perhaps now we're getting to the actual counterargumentation at last. re: "Since you so rudely demand that I look up what a machine is here is the definition I was taught in school and still holds sway today." Then you'd agree I didn't "bring 'programs' into this" since machinery automatically involves programming. re: "First-subject phenomenon" I can't say "first-person phenomenon" because animals are also involved. For the sake of argument just call it "first-person phenomenon." If I saw a blue squirrel at 2pm in the afternoon in my backyard, there's no way for me to prove to you that first, I saw a squirrel (unless I took a picture) and second, that squirrel is "blue" or "brown" since color is subjective. re: immediately accessible meaning As I have already said, the reference you offered didn't deviate in its fundamental meaning as the one I offered. If you already accepted the definition that you yourself offered, then I don't see how it's something non-obvious. It's akin to saying "these definitions in the dictionary are nonsense even though I just gave you one I accepted."

re: "no clue" Strange, you yourself seemed to have had enough of a clue to give your own description in your first reply. re: "Oh really (did I do a circular definition)" Yes, really. Look at Wikipedia. It used "sentience" and "awareness" while you used two more instance of "conscious." In defining a word, one is supposed to use other words instead of more of the same. re: "no I didn't offer definition" A description is a start. Now that we've got the quibbles out of the way, we can get to the meat of your objection. The Wikipedia's "awareness" definition you offered is referring to the same first-subject phenomenon of "something it is like for me" in IEP's definition. Please verify for yourself by going to both sources if you're in doubt. I don't see how either of them veer from common understanding of the term.

re: "Said nothing about programming" You have to program a machine automation. It's part of its nature. See examples included in the article, including that of a catapult. re: "I regard a random occurrence as an unprogrammed/programmable or not programmed/programmable occurrence." Such as what? re: "By introducing a program" Look up what a machine is. re: "As to your attempt to avoid the issue of your own actual words" I'm not the one dodging. See below. re: "I said, first quite subtly, and then not so subtly that you should go away and look up the conditions of applicability of your 'law'." Then simply explain how "a program which isn't a program" isn't a contradiction in terms, as I've asked. re: "I even offered a suggstion as to the part of General Philosophy to look in, since this is where you have started this thread." Why don't you just just do the above, simply explain how "a program which isn't a program" isn't a contradiction in terms, as I've asked? re: Definitions The handy references section is at the bottom of the article. If you disagree with Werriam-Webster and Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy then you'd need to cite another source other than yourself which remotely supports your own usage. I don't see how it isn't self evident that consciousness is a first-subject phenomenon, when all common accepted usages of the term points to the concept. If you're asking me to relearn a word, you'd need some backing. Your own definition of consciousness is a circular one that involves defining the word with more instances of the same word ("the contrast between being conscious and unconscious. Describe the difference, and that's what consciousness is"). You can't do that.

Exactly which proof I provided are you referring to? ("The onus...") It remains that programming without programming is an impossibility. In other words, to refute the above you'd have to explain how there can be a program that's not a program. This is a straightforward contradiction in terms so why would we need set theory for that? Please elaborate.

Going to anyway. Since tennis is also settled as "must be segregated as a sport," let's move on to half-pipe snowboarding. Chloe Kim was already in a league of her own in her Olympic runs but does anyone think that she could even make it through the prelims if she competed with men?

I illustrated principles. No theories or hypothesis involved. I did. See the entire rest of the article. That's rhetoric until you show me exactly what's wrong with my argumentation.

Okay, tennis then. I saw beecee's remarks regarding the Williams sisters and was really surprised (I used to play tennis when I was younger but don't really follow the sport that closely at all) and found it difficult to believe until I looked up the match he mentioned. There's no way I'd want WTA to disappear in favor of every player going to the ATP if that means the first 200+ places is going to be all men, and all women players are relegated to the side courts of a tournament. I have a feeling it's going to be similar with things like half-pipe snowboarding but let's talk about tennis first.

Needs a human to program it for war or crime. To err is human; to really screw things up requires the help of a machine tool.

What I have placed forward is a thesis and not a hypothesis (see respective definitions) I am not willing to deal with theoretics, as I have mentioned in another reply. The reason I stick strictly to principles is because attempting to disprove theories with yet another theory would be akin to attempting to topple a sandcastle with a ball of sand. Theories are not as close to being as solid as principles. I anticipate the principles I had illustrated, if they are to be successfully countered, would be done with other principles in turn. Look at the whole sentence. I said "...and not an infusion of conscious will." It was a statement against a metaphysical assumption and not a statement supporting one. "I said that a blind evolutionary process can in effect design a molecular machine" That process isn't design. See what the word means. There's no plan in random. "You're entering a special pleading for biological neural nets, that only they can modify their own software and hardware." See section: "Volition Rooms — Machines can only appear to possess intrinsic impetus" This was already addressed. "You can't keep moving the goalposts, saying, sorry, consciousness is whatever I do, and not what you do." I don't know what you're saying here. Please clarify. Nothing can violate the law of noncontradiction, agreed? This is one of the principles used. "Programming without programming" and "design without design" are self-contradictory concepts. The idea of artificial consciousness, upon deeper examination, is a self-contradictory concept. The law of noncontradiction is absolute. That's a theoretical counterargument (e.g. the nature of consciousness), to which I would simply say "That's a theory, but what about my straightforward demonstrations regarding principles of symbolic operation?" The demonstration superseding the Chinese Room Argument (which my article admits being inadequate and therefore needed reframing) is the Symbol Manipulator thought experiment in which the key question of "Now, did you just learn any meaning behind any language?" was asked of the reader. This was followed by another demonstration featuring pseudocode demonstrating the arbitrary nature of algorithms. This pits your theory against my principle. I don't have to engage in theoretics when I already have a principle I can demonstrate. Re: Searle. His Chinese Room Argument deals with syntax versus semantic, with the "biology" part only being a possible implication. Sure, Searle himself may believe in "only biological" but that's not what the Chinese Room argues (and not what my main argument does either- It attempts to illustrate the nature of computation and algorithm)

What is this "it" that you're speaking of? What rules, and what exactly is changing it? You're being too vague, please clarify.. It doesn't matter what form programs take. I've already listed some examples, including catapults and water computers. I'm not patronizing you. I wasn't talking about probability in the article and I don't know what made you think so. You skipped the section titled “We have DNA and DNA is programming code” This was already addressed. The passage explained why DNA is a bad analogy. I had already mentioned how substrate isn't an issue. See section titled “Eventually, everything gets invented in the future” and “Why couldn’t a mind be formed with another substrate?” I hope this isn't going to be another instance of me just pointing back to whatever was already addressed in the article. Also, I should point out that DNA isn't participating in "directed design" because the process of evolution isn't a process brought about by design (unless you're arguing for intelligent design) Not sure what you're talking about when you refer to dualism. The difference between subjective feelings and non-subjective data isn't a difference between material and "immaterial." I'm not the one inserting a particular metaphysic here. There's no "self-modification" in machine hardware or software. This was covered in section "Volition Rooms — Machines can only appear to possess intrinsic impetus" See sections "Behaviorist objections" and "The Chinese Room, reframed." The person outside has no way of knowing what's in the Chinese Room, so it must be someone who understands Chinese in the room. However, that's not the case.

The issue is the same. Reference section: “Your argument only applies to Von Neumann machines” A fundamental concept here is intrinsic impetus being denied through the process of design. Any and all automation involves algorithm.

If that's what Searle did to his Chinese Room then I'd rather just ignore his recantation and go with his original argument, because his new version doesn't really make sense to me. It seems to complicate the argument without improving his position. I don't know. If he allowed something like "self-plasticity" to mess with his opinion then he messed up. Reference my article, section "Volition Rooms — Machines can only appear to possess intrinsic impetus." There's no more "self-plasticity" in any theoretical machine than a car "self-drive." Anyhow, I think my "it's intrinsic impetus" might sound more reasonable to people than Searle's "it's biology." I wouldn't go for Penrose's stance, because I prefer to steer completely clear of theoretics in my argumentation. I'll put it this way: Trying to disprove a theory by using yet another theory would be like trying to hit a sand castle with a ball of sand. It's much easier to defend myself if I stick with offering fundamental principles and self-evident observations. The less I speculate, the more solid my footing. It's not. It denies consciousness for all algorithmic entities equally. Randomness only provides another input to the algorithm. Again, the result is more symbol manipulation. It's not doing anything different, as the article indicated in section "Randomness and random number generators"