That sounds mad. What do you mean? — Daemon

The particles we're made of came into their shape in the context of the entire universe, from the very beginning. Computers dont have this feature. And its the reason you cant recreate conscious creatures. You would have to recreate the entire universe.

Ok, I guess I agree with that, but it doesn't make a difference to the discussion about computer consciousness.

Computers dont have this feature. — EugeneW

Still sounds mad I'm afraid, or just incorrect: the matter in the computer was created in the big bang, same as the matter in our grey matter.

Still sounds mad I'm afraid, or just incorrect: the matter in the computer was created in the big bang, same as the matter in our grey matter. — Daemon

Of course. But it's origin are human hands. Human brains can only be traced back to the big bang creation.

The thing I wanna make clear is that consciousness can't be programmed or created by humans. We can't create life because you need life in the first place. A human needs a human to grow in. The only environment for a baby to grow is a living womb. Which requires a human.

Human brains can only be traced back to the big bang creation. — EugeneW

Wrong.

Wrong. — L'éléphant

Considering previous exchange, I know who utters the word...

You're still wrong.

You're still wrong — L'éléphant

Considering previous exchange, I know who utters the word...

Hi, may I say something. I was taught that neurons are either on/off (action potential or no action potential). That's digital architecture, oui? Why can't computers, digital machines, be conscious?

Let me play the brain's advocate. The brain being accused of being digital. It's actually a very dìfferently operating device. The 1s and 0s in a brain are actually very different in nature than those in a computer. There run concentrated spiked potentials on the neurons. These are constituted by traveling pulses of ions rushing in through small channels. A traveling inward rush. Autonomously traveling. And already there is a big difference. The 1s in a computer are actually voltages over the whole wire. The voltages force the 1s, while the 1s in the brain travel on their own not being pushed and pulled by a program of voltages (the program). The spike-potentials dont travel according to an external program pushing and pulling them.

The last time I read a book on physiology was 2 decades ago. Times change, things do. The dynamic nature of life seeps into all that it touches, including knowledge. Phlogiston, the ether? WTFery is this?

I'm gonna have to read (a lot). Alas, time and tide wait for man. Swim or sink! Sinking...

On a more serious note, what's with spectrums? How can a digital brain comprehend continuua?

High resolution digital photos can conceal their "jaggedness"?

How can a digital brain comprehend continuua? — Agent Smith

The brain is analogue.

The brain is analogue. — EugeneW

It has to be, oui? How else did it grasp continuua? The question is did the brain actually comprehend continuua? Infinity enters the scene, all hell breaks lose!

Fuzzy logic!? Unwieldy, clunky, useless! Binary thinking is simpler, :kiss:

Unwieldy, clunky, useless! — Agent Smith

A pretty good description of my brain! Ouioui! :up:

The question is did the brain actually comprehend continuua? — Agent Smith

Good question! Lemme reflect in agony.

There seems to be a contradiction between a granular brain and continuous media. But there isn't.

People like this also overestimate the significance of the Turing Test. Passing the test doesn't confer personhood. — Daemon

It's true, if you like. No argument against it. But the challenge remains: a non-person to give the impression of a person. If the non-person succeeds, the Turing test is a success.

AI may be a simple computer program, or it may be a conscious being. That is another unanswerable proposition. Because, for all intents and purposes, I am the only person in the Universe whose identity, whose self, whose conscious I can directly sense. There is nothing in the universe to tell me that other people are also people, or other people are AI machines that pass the Turing test in all possible ways.

It's true, if you like. No argument against it. But the challenge remains: a non-person to give the impression of a person. If the non-person succeeds, the Turing test is a success — god must be atheist

The problem of other minds? :up:

The problem of other minds? — Agent Smith

Yes, combined with the notion of whether AI can be a mind or no mind or never mind.

What I am trying to say is that the problem of other minds categorically excludes the possibility of ever knowing whether an AI that passes the Turing test is a program that possesses consciousness or else a program does not possess consciousness. We will never know, because we are incapable of knowing that, and therefore we are not to be the judge of that.

Things get scary if real persons give the impression to be an AI... Like most grown ups.

Real AI is simply obelized. It can't cover a true consciousness. Real people, on the other hand, are more difficult to fathom. Are they deprived of conscious being? Is that what their programmed behavior and speech show?

Yes, combined with the notion of whether AI can be a mind or no mind or never mind. — god must be atheist

Spot on! :up:

We will never know, because we are incapable of knowing that — god must be atheist

I know a computer, no matter its fucking speed, sophisticated programs, or quantum sophistry, is no conscious being. Consciousness can't be programmed. Anyone believing that deceives themselves.

I am no human, I am a robot
I am no ruman, I am a hobot
I am no roman, I am a hubot
I am no roban, I am a humot
I am no robon, I am a humat
I am no robot, I am a human

fucking speed — EugeneW

:rofl:

:lol:

Those damned robots! Even fuck faster! Killem all!

Well, you can believe that, but you can't KNOW that. You are deceiving yourself by claiming knowledge where knowledge does not exist.

Aren't you a bit religious? I am only asking because it's the religious type that vehemently denies consciousness in beings when it's not god-given. It's a religious philosophy, all right, and there is nothing wrong with it, at all. It's just you can't claim knowledge where you can claim faith and belief. If you don't know that, well, then you are not broad-minded enough.

And it's mostly the religious who accuse atheists of not being broad-minded.

Well, you can believe that, but you can't KNOW that. You are deceiving yourself by claiming knowledge where knowledge does not exist. — god must be atheist

Believe me. I know.

Aren't you a bit religious? — god must be atheist

A bit? Totally! Do you deny the gods?

Believe me. I know. — EugeneW

I am sorry... with all due respect I don't believe you. I can't believe falsehoods.

Your knowledge that you claimed there is based on faith. And everything based on faith is believable, but only if one wants to. If a person chooses not to believe something based on faith, he or she has the perfect philosophical right to that.

In other words, if you can't prove a point of faith in other means (empirical or a priori) then it remains a point of faith, which is either accepted or not, but those who accept it can't force the acceptance on others, and those who don't accept it, can't force the non-acceptance on others either.

I think it would be less hair-raising for you to be active on a religious site than here on a philosophy site.