AIkonoklazt Posted November 1, 2023 Author Share Posted November 1, 2023 (edited) On 10/31/2023 at 7:16 AM, zapatos said: You should try asking them in a pleasant way. This is a discussion forum after all. 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) Edited November 1, 2023 by AIkonoklazt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted November 2, 2023 Share Posted November 2, 2023 20 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said: 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) So what's the point of the topic? That's like saying "Human flight is impossible, if we discount plane's"; what's there to discuss? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AIkonoklazt Posted November 4, 2023 Author Share Posted November 4, 2023 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted November 4, 2023 Share Posted November 4, 2023 7 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said: 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. Nevertheless my point stands and the analogy is consistent with this thread; all one can say with any confidence is, as things stand artificial consciousness is "probably" impossible today... Perhaps you should ask a school kid what the difference between a discussion and gainsay, is? 🙄 Unless this missing item is a soul (the magic one), then it already has been constructed and we're just missing the blueprints. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AIkonoklazt Posted November 5, 2023 Author Share Posted November 5, 2023 "Soul"? Try a design that's not a design. "Construct" that. How many times do I have to make the same point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted November 5, 2023 Share Posted November 5, 2023 3 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said: "Soul"? What you haven't done is explain "the missing piece" which sounds suspiciously like God magic to me... 3 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said: Try a design that's not a design. "Construct" that. Every living thing has a design, mammals for instance, from whale's to bat's and human's to rat's, they all have the same basic design, many robot's too... 3 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said: How many times do I have to make the same point? The difference between a discussion and gainsay is, the number is finite, if you can explain it properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AIkonoklazt Posted November 6, 2023 Author Share Posted November 6, 2023 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. -2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted November 6, 2023 Share Posted November 6, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, AIkonoklazt said: 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. T The behaviour of matter in biological systems has a large element of determinism. If a potassium ion collides with a water molecule, the end product is deterministic.. The incidence of collisions may be random, but after that the outcome is deterministic. The concept of 'design' is applicable because the outcomes of these are pre-determined by their predictable behaviour and we can see where it's going. In a purely stochastic process we can only guess. This is where the idea of evolution being a blind watchmaker came from. The problem is dichotomizing the subject to force a choice. Edited November 6, 2023 by StringJunky 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zapatos Posted November 6, 2023 Share Posted November 6, 2023 Quote Design refers to something that is or has been intentionally created by a thinking agent, though it is sometimes used to refer to the nature of something. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AIkonoklazt Posted November 6, 2023 Author Share Posted November 6, 2023 1 hour ago, StringJunky said: The behaviour of matter in biological systems has a large element of determinism. If a potassium ion collides with a water molecule, the end product is deterministic.. The incidence of collisions may be random, but after that the outcome is deterministic. The concept of 'design' is applicable because the outcomes of these are pre-determined by their predictable behaviour and we can see where it's going. In a purely stochastic process we can only guess. This is where the idea of evolution being a blind watchmaker came from. The problem is dichotomizing the subject to force a choice. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zapatos Posted November 6, 2023 Share Posted November 6, 2023 9 minutes ago, AIkonoklazt said: You're inventing a new meaning of a term. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/design design 2 of 2 noun ... 5 a : an underlying scheme that governs functioning, developing, or unfolding : pattern, motif the general design of the epic ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AIkonoklazt Posted November 6, 2023 Author Share Posted November 6, 2023 (edited) 20 minutes ago, zapatos said: you quote, I quote, everyone can quote because it's one big rehash Quote 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" p.s. If you look at the example given to sense 5a of the definition, it's still referring to the patterning of a creative element Edited November 7, 2023 by AIkonoklazt nope what you've quoted doesn't support what you're driving at Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted November 7, 2023 Share Posted November 7, 2023 (edited) 15 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said: you quote, I quote, everyone can quote because it's one big rehash "It's not about who quotes who" he said in his best python; it's about who supports their potionposition the best; it's not always about citations, it's about a reasoned arguement with a splash of logical, not the fallacious type that you're using. 🙄 It's a shame, because I'd quite like to discuss the feasibility of artificial consciousness and the potential ethical problem's, if it did emerge, just without your artificial restriction's and guesswork. 15 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said: 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. Way to miss the point, again (where's that slaphead emoji 🧐), it's not about who designed what, it's about the fact that a mammal has a design that work's, four limbs a head etc... And in the context of this topic, many robotisist's use that design in many way's, towards a human level assistant/slave. Edited November 7, 2023 by dimreepr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AIkonoklazt Posted November 22, 2023 Author Share Posted November 22, 2023 Really amused by Manzotti's 2018 "GOFAC" paper today. I've seen the paper before but now that I've considered the proposed solution he's fielding, I can say that he did me a big favor. Here's how. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frobt.2018.00039/full The example given by the paper (apparently it's his own experimentation since he's also an author) is still measuring the result of programming: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921889004001861?via=ihub That is, if something is programmed "well enough" to produce certain measurements then it would be deemed conscious. That's just another variety of behaviorism that was already debunked by Searle. The paper is basically debunking functionalism while at the same time proposing yet another variety of behaviorism. It's arguably swatting away a stronger argument and replacing it with a weaker one. It's another classic "consciousness room." Also, it doesn't explain why those same measurements must be the result of consciousness. It is committing the same "gap" mistake it's pointing out in GOFACs.... Isn't "measurement" itself an "intermediate level," thus rendering the proposed alternative itself an intermediate level fallacy? The irony here would be extreme. My oh my. I'm going to check with some of my collaborators. I can't believe this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted November 22, 2023 Share Posted November 22, 2023 1 hour ago, AIkonoklazt said: Really amused by Manzotti's 2018 "GOFAC" paper today. I've seen the paper before but now that I've considered the proposed solution he's fielding, I can say that he did me a big favor. Here's how. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frobt.2018.00039/full From your link: Quote “we know of no fundamental law or principle operating in this universe that forbids the existence of subjective feelings in artifacts designed or evolved by humans.1” To the best of our knowledge, this claim is valid still today. How does this favour your OP? 1 hour ago, AIkonoklazt said: That is, if something is programmed "well enough" to produce certain measurements then it would be deemed conscious. That's just another variety of behaviorism that was already debunked by Searle. How is it possible to debunk something you don't understand? It's the old Dr Doolittle fantasy, just because a lion can speak English doesn't mean you could understand what it says Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheVat Posted November 22, 2023 Share Posted November 22, 2023 3 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said: Also, it doesn't explain why those same measurements must be the result of consciousness. It is committing the same "gap" mistake it's pointing out in GOFACs.... My impression, too. Will read beyond the abstracts and conclusions today if time permits. I have some appreciation that he approaches consciousness as something that extends beyond neurons and must involve a body interacting with a world. 3 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said: The paper is basically debunking functionalism while at the same time proposing yet another variety of behaviorism. It's arguably swatting away a stronger argument and replacing it with a weaker one. Yup. My thermostat behaves. Same old same old. For a behaviorist, there is no knowable difference between two states of mind unless there is a demonstrable difference in the behavior associated with each state. Easy to see why such theoretic approaches are superseded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AIkonoklazt Posted November 23, 2023 Author Share Posted November 23, 2023 19 hours ago, TheVat said: My impression, too. Will read beyond the abstracts and conclusions today if time permits. I have some appreciation that he approaches consciousness as something that extends beyond neurons and must involve a body interacting with a world. Yup. My thermostat behaves. Same old same old. For a behaviorist, there is no knowable difference between two states of mind unless there is a demonstrable difference in the behavior associated with each state. Easy to see why such theoretic approaches are superseded. I got an answer from the neuroscience research professor I've been keeping in touch with. He said that, yes, the position taken by the authors of the paper can indeed be seen as behaviorism. However, he also said that the author may be trying to make a point that was made by French philosopher Henri Bergson: Quote In Bergson's philosophy, there is the concept of "image", and this "image" is something that resides in the outside world, only in relation to an agent. Being that I've never even heard of, much less read Bergson, it's going to take me a while to go through and get a basic idea of it. I was also referred to this lecture: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted November 24, 2023 Share Posted November 24, 2023 (edited) On 11/23/2023 at 11:17 AM, AIkonoklazt said: I got an answer from the neuroscience research professor I've been keeping in touch with. He said that, yes, the position taken by the authors of the paper can indeed be seen as behaviorism. However, he also said that the author may be trying to make a point that was made by French philosopher Henri Bergson: Being that I've never even heard of, much less read Bergson, it's going to take me a while to go through and get a basic idea of it. I was also referred to this lecture: All of your citations and argument's are providing evidence that what is impossible, is that we could ever know if a machine is conscious, not that it's impossible to achieve. Maybe you should read some Asimov. Edited November 24, 2023 by dimreepr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AIkonoklazt Posted November 25, 2023 Author Share Posted November 25, 2023 Maybe someone should stop reading sci-fi and read textbooks instead. Start with the AI textbook quoted in my original article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted November 27, 2023 Share Posted November 27, 2023 On 11/25/2023 at 7:45 PM, AIkonoklazt said: Maybe someone should stop reading sci-fi and read textbooks instead. Start with the AI textbook quoted in my original article. Why do make it so personal? Assimov explored the question in some depth, but he had to make it sci-fi because they didn't exist when he was writing; he doesn't have all the answer's, but he did ask some profound question's. It's almost like you've got a vendetta against the very idea of a sentient machine... Like in the freewill thread, where you seemed frightened by the idea of an AI with right's; is it a sort of god complex type thing? Like in the bible where it says that we have dominion over everything that's not us... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AIkonoklazt Posted November 28, 2023 Author Share Posted November 28, 2023 (edited) Think you missed the bit where I talked about people having their rights pitted against those of inanimate objects in a court of law What if you end up being one of those people one day... You'd appreciate at least someone looking out for your human rights The issue isn't as simple-minded as you make it sound; This isn't an issue of "fear" but justice. Edited November 28, 2023 by AIkonoklazt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted November 28, 2023 Share Posted November 28, 2023 5 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said: Think you missed the bit where I talked about people having their rights pitted against those of inanimate objects in a court of law What if you end up being one of those people one day... You'd appreciate at least someone looking out for your human rights Nope got that, the bit that's missing is the rights conferred on them that could possibly impinge on your rights, let's not forget who makes the law... 5 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said: The issue isn't as simple-minded as you make it sound; This isn't an issue of "fear" but justice. In this case it very much is as simple as it sounds, because the only way for it to end up in legal conflict, is if you took an axe to it's mainframe and there's only one motive that makes sense, since they're imaginary ATM, and it's not justice... 🙄 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted November 28, 2023 Share Posted November 28, 2023 (edited) 7 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said: The issue isn't as simple-minded as you make it sound; This isn't an issue of "fear" but justice. I think that sounds like a case of "Share it fairly, but don't take a slice of my pie". Fear of the loss of the controlling position. There are some aspects of human activity where AI will make less mistakes. We can't mentally juggle as many balls in the air as they can. Edited November 28, 2023 by StringJunky Altered beginning Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AIkonoklazt Posted November 29, 2023 Author Share Posted November 29, 2023 14 hours ago, dimreepr said: Nope got that, the bit that's missing is the rights conferred on them that could possibly impinge on your rights, let's not forget who makes the law... In this case it very much is as simple as it sounds, because the only way for it to end up in legal conflict, is if you took an axe to it's mainframe and there's only one motive that makes sense, since they're imaginary ATM, and it's not justice... 🙄 Physical damage isn't the only type of legal claim. Financial and even claimed "emotional damages" can end up in civil proceedings. It's absurd to process claims from an inanimate object, since a claim involves a linguistic referent. The only claims involved should be property rights, by the human owners of the tools, and not any purported moral rights of the tools "themselves." 14 hours ago, StringJunky said: I think that sounds like a case of "Share it fairly, but don't take a slice of my pie". Fear of the loss of the controlling position. There are some aspects of human activity where AI will make less mistakes. We can't mentally juggle as many balls in the air as they can. I don't see what that has to do with conferring moral rights to AI. Tools can be used without conferring any rights to them, except non-moral rights such as right-of-operation in a transport lane e.g. robot vehicles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endy0816 Posted November 29, 2023 Share Posted November 29, 2023 (edited) 2 hours ago, AIkonoklazt said: Physical damage isn't the only type of legal claim. Financial and even claimed "emotional damages" can end up in civil proceedings. It's absurd to process claims from an inanimate object, since a claim involves a linguistic referent. The only claims involved should be property rights, by the human owners of the tools, and not any purported moral rights of the tools "themselves." I don't see what that has to do with conferring moral rights to AI. Tools can be used without conferring any rights to them, except non-moral rights such as right-of-operation in a transport lane e.g. robot vehicles. Could be set up where it manages a Corporation. Would then, by way of the Corporation, have certain rights. What would convince you AI consciousness was possible? Edited November 29, 2023 by Endy0816 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now