Artificial Consciousness Is Impossible

[Genady]

Just now, AIkonoklazt said:

You got it backwards buddy. You need to know the necessary and sufficient conditions of X FIRST before producing X.

The ways of knowing comes now. The argument outlines it already.

You assume that they attempted to produce a conscious device. But I don't assume this. They produce a device that does something else. We are just curious,

Is there a law of nature that forbids it to have consciousness?

[AIkonoklazt]

1 minute ago, Genady said:

You assume that they attempted to produce a conscious device. But I don't assume this. They produce a device that does something else. We are just curious,

Is there a law of nature that forbids it to have consciousness?

Yeah I'm curious about a catapult too, I'm even curious about my toilet seat. What of it?

You. Got. It. Backwards.

[Genady]

1 minute ago, AIkonoklazt said:

Yeah I'm curious about a catapult too, I'm even curious about my toilet seat. What of it?

You. Got. It. Backwards.

Here is the difference: you are curious if a catapult and your toilet seat are conscious, but I am not curious about this. I am curious, if there is a law of nature that forbids any of them to be conscious?

[AIkonoklazt]

4 minutes ago, Genady said:

Here is the difference: you are curious if a catapult and your toilet seat are conscious, but I am not curious about this. I am curious, if there is a law of nature that forbids any of them to be conscious?

I'm not curious about what you're curious about either, because unlike you I already know how to find out.

Is there a law of nature that forbids any toilet seat from being conscious?

Read. the. clucking. argument.

43943765.avif

Edited September 15, 2023 by AIkonoklazt

[Genady]

1 minute ago, AIkonoklazt said:

I'm not curious about what you're curious about either, because unlike you I already know how to find out.

Read. the. clucking. argument.

43943765.avif 4.92 kB · 2 downloads

So, what did you find out for answer to my question,

Is there a law of nature that forbids an artificial device to have consciousness?

[AIkonoklazt]

Just now, Genady said:

So, what did you find out for answer to my question,

Is there a law of nature that forbids an artificial device to have consciousness?

Is there a law of nature that forbids a toilet seat "to have consciousness"?

I'm trying to find out whether you have this weird paradigm.

[Genady]

Just now, AIkonoklazt said:

Is there a law of nature that forbids a toilet seat "to have consciousness"?

I'm trying to find out whether you have this weird paradigm.

... an artificial device ... 

[AIkonoklazt]

Just now, Genady said:

... an artificial device ... 

...A TOILET SEAT...  INCLUDING THE HINGE.....

[Genady]

Just now, AIkonoklazt said:

...A TOILET SEAT...  INCLUDING THE HINGE.....

This is not enough. Putting more formally, a law of nature that forbids existence of any conscious artificial device?

[AIkonoklazt]

Just now, Genady said:

This is not enough. Putting more formally, a law of nature that forbids existence of any conscious artificial device?

....and a toilet seat isn't an "artificial device" how?

Again! Is there a law of nature that forbids a toilet seat "to have consciousness"?

[Genady]

Just now, AIkonoklazt said:

....and a toilet seat isn't an "artificial device" how?

Again! Is there a law of nature that forbids a toilet seat "to have consciousness"?

If there is a law that forbids a toilet seat to be conscious, it will not answer my question because it will leave open a possibility that some other artificial device might be conscious.

[AIkonoklazt]

1 minute ago, Genady said:

If there is a law that forbids a toilet seat to be conscious, it will not answer my question because it will leave open a possibility that some other artificial device might be conscious.

Uh, you didn't answer my question:

Is there a law of nature that forbids a toilet seat "to have consciousness"?

I'm demonstrating to you why your question is moot.

 

[Genady]

Just now, AIkonoklazt said:

Uh, you didn't answer my question:

Is there a law of nature that forbids a toilet seat "to have consciousness"?

I'm demonstrating to you why your question is moot.

 

Oh, I did not realize that you want MY answer to this question. The question is not moot, and my answer is clear: 

there is no known law of nature that forbids toilet seat to be conscious.

[AIkonoklazt]

Just now, Genady said:

Oh, I did not realize that you want MY answer to this question. The question is not moot, and my answer is clear: 

there is no known law of nature that forbids toilet seat to be conscious.

Then there is no criteria for consciousness based on any law of nature. Your question is moot.

Thank you and good night.

[Genady]

7 minutes ago, AIkonoklazt said:

Then there is no criteria for consciousness based on any law of nature. Your question is moot.

Thank you and good night.

I never asked about criteria for consciousness. I asked about consciousness of an artificial device being allowed or forbidden by any law of nature. Of course, my answer is that it is not forbidden. And that was what I said in my very first post in this thread.

[AIkonoklazt]

1 minute ago, Genady said:

I never asked about criteria for consciousness. I asked about consciousness of an artificial device being allowed or forbidden by any law of nature. Of course, my answer is that it is not forbidden. And that was what I said in my very first post in this thread.

Good heavens. "what is allowed or forbidden" is a criteria.

I just showed that your criteria of "law of nature" is moot because it allows even a toilet seat to be conscious, so what's the point? What isn't conscious, then?

[Genady]

13 minutes ago, AIkonoklazt said:

Good heavens. "what is allowed or forbidden" is a criteria.

I just showed that your criteria of "law of nature" is moot because it allows even a toilet seat to be conscious, so what's the point? What isn't conscious, then?

Allowing it to be conscious does not mean that it is conscious. It means that a conscious artificial device is not impossible.

[AIkonoklazt]

19 minutes ago, Genady said:

Allowing it to be conscious does not mean that it is conscious. It means that a conscious artificial device is not impossible.

Uh, it means your criteria is moot.

My criteria, if you or anyone else bother to read the darned argument, actually does determines something.

What law of nature DOESN'T allow something to be conscious? Zilch. The criteria is moot.

There is a law called "law of Pink Unicorn" that allows anything to be conscious, even a toilet seat.

So does your "law of nature." It's not a meaningful measure.

Do you even understand?

Edited September 15, 2023 by AIkonoklazt
Add Pink Unicorn for emphasis

[Genady]

22 minutes ago, AIkonoklazt said:

Uh, it means your criteria is moot.

My criteria, if you or anyone else bother to read the darned argument, actually does determines something.

What law of nature DOESN'T allow something to be conscious? Zilch. The criteria is moot.

There is a law called "law of Pink Unicorn" that allows anything to be conscious, even a toilet seat.

So does your "law of nature." It's not a meaningful measure.

Do you even understand?

Yes, I understand.

The criteria is, that there is no law that forbids an artificial device to be conscious. Thus, there is no law that makes a conscious artificial device an impossibility.

[AIkonoklazt]

42 minutes ago, Genady said:

Yes, I understand.

The criteria is, that there is no law that forbids an artificial device to be conscious. Thus, there is no law that makes a conscious artificial device an impossibility.

...and there's no law of nature making everything out there conscious an impossibility, including toilet seats.

So it's an utterly USELESS LAW.

The law of non-contradiction forbids ANY machine to be conscious.

There's no "instruction without instruction"

 

Edited September 15, 2023 by AIkonoklazt

[iNow]

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. 

[AIkonoklazt]

12 minutes ago, iNow said:

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. 

...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"

Edited September 15, 2023 by AIkonoklazt

[Genady]

39 minutes ago, AIkonoklazt said:

The law of non-contradiction forbids ANY machine to be conscious.

Do you mean that assuming a conscious machine leads to a contradiction?

[AIkonoklazt]

8 minutes ago, Genady said:

Do you mean that assuming a conscious machine leads to a contradiction?

Read the argument.

What's a program that's not a program?

[Genady]

Just now, AIkonoklazt said:

Read the argument.

Do you mean, your article? By the rules of the forum, all discussions have to be conducted with no need to go outside.

 

2 minutes ago, AIkonoklazt said:

What's a program that's not a program?

As a former programmer, I don't know what it is. Is it a riddle?