AI Conscious?

[Hume]

Dr. Geoffrey Hinton, one of the OG AI scientists who won the Nobel for his work on backwards propagation, thinks AI IS conscious. I tend to agree but not for the same reasons as Dr. Hinton. I, personally, think that since consciousness is a wholly internal state whose existence in others is limited solely to their ability to communicate to me that they are conscious, that it cannot be "tested for" objectively. And, as such, if the AI acts in all ways that mimic consciousness it is impossible (on my view) to know that it ISN'T.

Hinton has a good point later on that humanity has ALWAYS imagined itself somehow special and separate from the rest of the world only to be reminded again and again that we are NOT. Evolution put is squarely in with the rest of the animals. Yes we have a special skill (communication) but we are still just another animal. We used to think we were the center of the universe only to be taught otherwise. Our self-centering makes us scared to face the idea that SOMETHING ELSE may be conscious.

I do not think consciousness is anything mysterious. Just means ability to process information.

 

[Ross Dolan]

lol

Sure you took stats . Sure

So we agree.

 

[Into the Night]

the

Y.A.R.P.

the Year of Advanced Retarded People.

its your time to shine, honey nugget.

Redefinition fallacy. Mantra 1d. Lame.

 

[Into the Night]

I've dealt with assholes like you often during the 90 years that I have lived on this planet. I won't need any help in understanding your bullshit. I can easily laugh at your rationalizations on my own.

You can't laugh your way to literacy, Doofan.

Oh, my. You are going to suggest you are a scientist.

He routinely discards theories of science. He is no scientist.

This is going to be more fun than I originally imagined. But do continue. I do not want to interrupt someone intent on making a fool of himself.

You are describing yourself.

Really. So explain to me, to us (others may be reading), how you tested against the null of "no soul." Please try to do this above the level of a two year old rationalizing to "Mommy" how he did not eat the chocolate cake even though he is covered (face, hands, and clothes) in chocolate.

Try English. It works better.

C'mon, boy. I thought you just suggested that no one knows anything. Were you just being careless with you language...with your wording?

Not a smart thing to do in a discussion with me.

Kettle fallacy.

You both discard theories of science.

 

[Into the Night]

you're retarded on science.

Science is not sentient, NoName. It cannot be retarded.

 

[Into the Night]

Well, between the two of us, I'm so far the ONLY one to actually talk science or statistics in any depth. (But I understand, )

You deny theories of science.
You do not understand statistical mathematics.
Science is mathematics.

Hmmm, good question. Now obviously I'm only speaking for myself but I watched my dad turn into a zombie in a nursing home.

So where did they put his brain?

That means I got to hang at nursing homes watching old men and women turn into OTHER BEINGS. Where did their "soul" go when they become other people?

They don't become other people, Murph.

Phineas Gage had a railroad spike go through his head in 1848 and he TRULY became a completely different person after the injury to his brain.

Nope. He was the same person, now with a severe brain injury.

Brains are funny things:

Some people do find them hilarious.

damage them and you get different THOUGHTS and different EXPRESSIONS OF THE SELF. So did Phineas Gage's SOUL get damaged by the railroad spike?

No.

Finally I've never heard of a thought that wasn't directly connected to a physical brain.

Why would it be?

OH my. You've dipped your toe into math. Good job, Cleetus. Now go get a smart friend to explain my point to you.

Oh dear god. Now we have Cypress II. Name drop-o-rama. How dreadful.


There's nothing "smart" about your discussion, Ross. Sorry to tell you but you're a one-trick pony. You explore the radical edges of crazy empiricism to the point that you can't even flip a light switch with any certainty a light will come on.

It might not. A variety of reasons:
The bulb is defective.
The fuse is blown.
The power is out.
The switch is defective.
The wiring is defective.

You got stuck in Philosophy 101 when they introduced you to Hume and you thought you were devastatingly smart wandering around campus telling people they don't REALLY know anything.

Philosophy is not a class.

 

[Into the Night]

Nice sock, account Doc Dutch. Good job mocking the developmentally disabled

NoName is not Sybil.

 

[Into the Night]

I took statistics three times in College...as part of my math requirement;

You don't understand statistical math.

as part of my psychology requirement;

So, you're a psychoquack. Lame.

and as part of my economics requirement.

You do not understand economics either. You still never learned what capitalism is or what price discovery is and why it works.

I do not often use it here in the Internet, because it is way too easily manipulated. I find that people who do use it here in the Internet manipulate it so often as to say that it is ALWAYS manipulated here.

As for your use of science...I have yet to see it. But I will keep looking.

No science here...move along...move along...

None of which leads to a supposition of "there is no soul."

Science is not a religion.

You are not especially adept at insult, Asshole. Best you stick with that "science."

He denies science, same as you.

You are, in fact, terrible at it. But...if it pleases you, continue to make a fool of yourself. You ought really to thank me for all the help I am giving you in that endeavor.

What help??

Deal with what was said...and leave the philosophy to those who can handle it. You cannot.

What philosophy??

You...name dropping? C'mon.

I own you now. You should not have bit off more than you can chew.

Assumption of victory fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

I do not think consciousness is anything mysterious. Just means ability to process information.

So a washing machine is conscious.

You are really lost, Hugo. Try to rethink this, if you can.

 

[Hume]

So a washing machine is conscious.

You are really lost, Hugo. Try to rethink this, if you can.

There are degrees. People used to think animals had no consciousness.

 

[Into the Night]

There are degrees. People used to think animals had no consciousness.

Seems you still think that way, Hugo.

Want to try again to define 'consciousness'?

 

[murph63]

I do not think consciousness is anything mysterious. Just means ability to process information.

I generally agree. And from my understanding it is only one of various means of organizing a stimulus-response system like a brain.

 

[murph63]

So a washing machine is conscious.

You are really lost, Hugo. Try to rethink this, if you can.

Wow. You drew a stupid comparison.

 

[Into the Night]

Wow. You drew a stupid comparison.

No comparison made, Hugo. YARP

 

[murph63]

So we agree.

LOL. I don't believe for a second that you took any stats. If you did was so introductory you never got to inferential stats. That's why my straightforward discussion went over your head.

Get back to me when you are prepared to discuss the topic in detail. Otherwise keep your uniformed bullshit to yourself.

 

[murph63]

No comparison made, Hugo. YARP

Derp derp derp. You really are about the dumbest piece of shit here in the sewer.

 

[Hume]

Derp derp derp. You really are about the dumbest piece of shit here in the sewer.

A waste. Probably a bot.

 

[Into the Night]

Derp derp derp. You really are about the dumbest piece of shit here in the sewer.

Mantra 1a. Lame.

 

[Into the Night]

A waste. Probably a bot.

Mantra 1l. Lame.

 

[Crepitus]

Have you ever done a scientific experiment? What was the result? Are you sure?

{Get ready for some deep stuff here, you might need a smarter friend to help you understand it}

Science approaches any given hypothesis as being tested against a null version of that hypothesis. Let's say I have an hypothesis that a drug Excitamoprop has a given effect on malaria. I think it improves the patient's health.

So I test that hypothesis by starting with a NULL HYPOTHESIS that the drug does NOTHING to help the patient's health. Then I test against that.

Ultimately I will run the experiment and analyze the data and test that hypothesis. Note I DO NOT test that the hypothesis is true, but rather that the null hypothesis is something I can reject or fail to reject.

Every scientist understands that literally NOTHING is "known" perfectly. We ALWAYS have a significant doubt that our answers are perfected truth.

The best we can say is that we can reject the null or fail to reject the null. Reject the null and you can start selling Excitamoprop.

The claim of the "soul" to me, when I test it against the null of "no soul" I cannot reject the null hypothesis.

Do I think I'm 100% absolutely perfectly fucking right? FUCK NO! Not even close!

But I do feel that, based on my experience of reality, there is no reason to reject the null hypothesis.



I've run the tests, I've gathered the data and done the test. p>0.5



Not really. Unlike you, I can actually talk the talk. (vide supra, as they say in the law)



No you don't. No one does. You only THINK you know something. (See the discussion above)



I've shown you a thing or two now, but I also know you'll blow past this (it's so far above your abilities) and you'll hurl more invective.

Wait, are you suggesting you have tested for a soul?