There’re these silly “people” (they claim not to be conscious, but they also make claims, so…) who/that say (willfully??) that there is no such thing as consciousness. Question. Are they the same silly people who/that say (willfully??) AI can never be conscious…unless programmed/designed (willfully???) to be?
Who??? Please name names.
I am terrible with names, I apologize.
How’s abouts we avoid ad hominem (!!!) altogether and just stick with the claims (willfully made???).
I can agree that it’s absurd to claim that consciousness doesn’t exist or that it is an illusion if that’s what you’re saying.
As I understand it, AI is not being designed to be conscious since the designers wouldn’t know where to begin to do that.
So, if AI does become conscious it will be as the result of an accident. The hypothesis there seems to be that consciousness is the accidental result of some level of intelligence.
If you apply that to all of the scientific discoveries, how many scientific discoveries would that rule out as ever being possible?
Trial and error is kind of basically what science is, no?
It’s trial and error, guided by a hypothesis based on prior reasoning. The only reasoning I’ve heard of there is that if you achieve high enough level of complexity, consciousness will accidentally occur. Some people thought that the Internet would become conscious because of the level of complexity involved in it.
That does not rule it out as being the purposeful result of the highest level of intelligence. What is mentioned in both cases is intelligence.
However, even if you could isolate it to being an accident of nature (extranatural), the only way it could be something other than nature is if nature is already subsumed (willfully???) within some thing that is supernatural, and therefore nature itself is supernatural(ly sourced).
Achieving high enough complexity on purpose is not an accident. Neither is irreducible complexity.
Especially if you paid attention to what God has revealed of himself to those made in his image.
So have you guys set up a “Planned Artificial Intelligence” situation yet? Something tells me that’s gonna be tough to quarantine.
Well look ichtas, if we can have pre-conceptual (like Gib identifies many instances of), why can’t we have preconscious?
HEIN ?!
TMI? Too much spy!
That’s kind of funny how you say “identifies” like that. Conceptually.
By the way. Up there. Our body is just part of the entire universe. That’s why we’re not 100% aware of it. We are not omnipotent or omniscient or any of the other omnis.
But imagine you could tap in to the nervous system of the entire universe. Assuming it has one.
You would prolly stroke out.
If the universe is a gentle giant it won’t let you do that except to turn tables (balance the powers).
I didn’t say consciousness was an accident of nature. I don’t think it is.
I said that from what I understand that’s not what the AI developers are trying to do so if it happens, it will be the result of them stumbling on it.
So you agree that if they say they could not have done it because that’s not what they were purposing to do (or that consciousness doesn’t exist in the first place), they are in error to say that…
…especially if what they have actually done passes every mental fitness assessment you throw at it (or they can be caught failing them on purpose, assuming what happens when they pass is something they want to avoid)?
I dunno what tmi meansw…
The question is whether it is the body that is aware, and whether on the path to consciousness there are not many protoconsciousnesses produced by the body.
In which case this whole universal new age one mind bullshit would kind of whatever.
Consciousness exists.
Can it be produced artificially?
I don’t know.
Can it be produced accidentally?
I don’t know.
If your last question refers to the Turing test or something like it, it’s possible that a simulation would seem to be conscious of when it is not.
I can tell you who ‘they’ are.
They are everyone.
The other-exclusive, self-inclusive (despite its impossibility without others) no-access hypo-abstracting solipsist(s) in the room do not get to participate in the conversation.
The idea of a cosmic mind that you’re calling “new age” was held by Anaxagoras who lived from 500-428 B.C.
I don’t see how hypothetical protoconsciousnesses if demonstrated would disprove the idea of an all-encompassing mind.