AI Conscious?

[Valentino]

Doubt it.

Are you just pretending to be ignorant?

 

[Into the Night]

you first, Nazi mental midget who's full of hate and lies.

I'm saving humanity right here, right now, and all you can do is watch and lament your hellbound destiny.

Nazi fallacy. Inversion fallacy.
You cannot save humanity.
What 'hellbound destiny'??

 

[Into the Night]

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

Science is not an experiment.

{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.

Science is not a hypothesis.

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.

Go learn what 'hypothesis' means. You are describing a theory. You are also not describing the null hypothesis of your theory.

Ultimately I will run the experiment and analyze the data and test that hypothesis.

Science is not an experiment.
Science is not data.
A theory is not a 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.

A theory is not a hypothesis.
All falsifiable theories have a null hypothesis. You cannot reject it.

Every scientist understands that literally NOTHING is "known" perfectly.

You don't get to speak for everyone. Omniscience fallacy.
The axioms of mathematics are perfectly known. They are perfectly followed.
The same is true for the axioms of logic.

We ALWAYS have a significant doubt that our answers are perfected truth.

Science is not a religion.

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.

You cannot reject the null hypothesis of a theory. It is always there for any falsifiable theory.

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

No such test or falsifiable theory.

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

Dead wrong, I've just explained why.

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

It is not possible to reject the null hypothesis of any falsifiable theory. It is always there. You cannot make it go away.

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

What 'tests'? What data? Random equation.

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

Cliche fallacy.

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

Your discussion is quite flawed. I have just explained why.

 

[Into the Night]

AI models and machine learning algorithms are based on math.

There is no AI. There is no 'machine learning'.

Math and silicon chips do not have self-awareness, self-identity, or subjective experiences with the world. That's what most neuroscientists say are necessary for consciousness.

That's also why almost everyone on this thread is pointing out you are way off the edge of the map and treating AI like a parlour trick.

"AI" is a parlour trick. Nothing more.

 

[Crepitus]

Are you just pretending to be ignorant?

Nope. I'm expressing my skepticism.

Thus the word "doubt".

 

[Jerry Mathers]

Nazi fallacy. Inversion fallacy.
You cannot save humanity.
What 'hellbound destiny'??

I already have.

 

[Into the Night]

I already have.

YARP

 

[Jerry Mathers]

YARP

use words, ape-fucking jizz eater.

 

[Into the Night]

use words, ape-fucking jizz eater.

Yet Another Random Post (YARP).

 

[Jerry Mathers]

Yet Another Random Post (YARP).

no.

it was targetted at your stupid ass.

 

[Into the Night]

no.

it was targetted at your stupid ass.

YARP

 

[Jerry Mathers]

YARP

the

Y.A.R.P.

the Year of Advanced Retarded People.

its your time to shine, honey nugget.

 

[Ross Dolan]

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}

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

Well we certainly agree here. You are not even close to "perfectly fucking right." (I would have used "correct" rather than "right." These days the word "right" is loaded.) In fact, you are making a blind guess...and insisting the blind guess is correct because you lack enough character and the ethical wherewithal to discuss this issue reasonably.

Okay, I get that.

We can do it this way. It actually is more fun.

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

Yeah, you have that right. But you should be more honest and call it, "...make a blind guess and insist that it is correct."

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

You've made the blind guess...and you are insisting that it makes sense to insist that the blind guess is correct.

Maybe it is. It kinda is MY blind guess also, but I have the ethical structure to acknowledge that it is a blind guess.

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

Your bullshit runs deep. Great. I love when I am dealing with someone like you.

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

I KNOW that in base 10...2 + 2 = 4. Yeah, as Richard Feynman often said, "Knowing the name of something is not knowing that thing"...but I suppose if he were alive and participating here, he would agree.

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.

You KNOW that?

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.

 

[Jerry Mathers]

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.

you're retarded on science.

 

[murph63]

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

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, )

Really. So explain to me, to us (others may be reading), how you tested against the null of "no soul."

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

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.

Brains are funny things: 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?

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

I KNOW that in base 10...2 + 2 = 4.

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

Yeah, as Richard Feynman often said, "Knowing the name of something is not knowing that thing"...but I suppose if he were alive and participating here, he would agree.

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

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

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.

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.


Yaaaaaawwwwwwnnnnnnnn

 

[murph63]

you're retarded on science.

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

 

[Jerry Mathers]

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

nah.

he's also a malignant butt-whistle.

 

[Ross Dolan]

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, )

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

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

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.

Brains are funny things: 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?

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

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

I would be interested if you would put a P1 and P2 together which lead to either:

a) ...therefore there is no such thing as a soul.

b) ...therefore it is more likely that there are no souls than that there are.

We can discuss whatever you develop.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

You...name dropping? C'mon.

Yaaaaaawwwwwwnnnnnnnn

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

 

[Jerry Mathers]

experiments prove or disprove a hypothesis.

it may or may not be null related.

 

[murph63]

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



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

I would be interested if you would put a P1 and P2 together which lead to either:

a) ...therefore there is no such thing as a soul.

b) ...therefore it is more likely that there are no souls than that there are.

We can discuss whatever you develop.


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




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.



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


You...name dropping? C'mon.

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

lol

Sure you took stats . Sure