/sci/ - Science & Math

>>5610489
sorry, I went back like 10 quotes to see what you mean, could you elaborate?

>>5610475
Just because a robot has a separate subroutine that it can't control doesn't mean its main subroutines are because or result on a consciousness :^(

>>5610469
You just defined thinking as the physical action of thinking and defined consciousness as being aware of things and the ability to think. I'm not trying to be mean, but that isn't really linked to electrical impulse over neural networks.

Unfortunately, while, from my perspective, I can be conscious of my own thoughts if consciousness exists, I cannot be conscious of anyone else's

>>5610422
acceleration applied over a distance

>>5610438
But the thing is, reality wouldn't change from how I experience it if the number of human that weren't conscious was greater than zero. I have no reason to believe that there are or aren't conscious beings other than me.

>>5610436
That is a proof of consciousness that only applies to you, and is only proveable to you, unfortunately.

>>5610418
Can you explain why electrical impulses over a neural network directly implies consciousness?

>>5610413
Why do I have to read this? What does this text have to do with your arbitrary decision that the only two possible realities are ones where I am conscious or where everyone is? I'm just saying that you can't prove or disprove it. How can I believe something that I have no evidence for?

>>5610410
If you define thinking as consciousness, then you cannot define electrical impulses over a neural network as thinking, sorry :^{

>>5610389
sorry :^}

polite sage offtopic

>>5610368
A while ago. I can't prove it though, but you can ask him if he posts in your thread.

>>5610394
see
>>5610391

>>5610387
I don't know what comic you are speaking of. Can you explain why I am a solipist without using that word please?

>>5610380
But neural networks are just complex transistors though, which would make it just as likely as a robot being conscious. (Which is not impossible, as humans are bio-mechanical robots)

>>5610369
I'm speaking of qualia. If consciousness is the "program" running on the "neureal network" (This is an analogy), then I'm not sure why you're arguing with me.

>>5610374
I think humans would have the same problem, because for the robot to not know it was itself, the other robot in the mirror wold have to be making the same movements at itself, and If that happened to me when i looked in a mirror, I wouldn't be able to tell

>>5610365
Well, once you see yourself, you know. If you were put in another body, and saw a picture of it( not in a mirror), then you wouldn't know it was you, unless you could pick up cues (my hand are green, the guy in the picture is green), but a robot could do that too.

I'm not saying that robots can't be conscious by the way.

>>5610362
Um, if I saw a picture of someone who looked exactly like me, I would assume that it was me. If you mean that the robot saw a copy of itself that was not it, and it had evidence that there was no mirror there (the stuff behind it wasn't being mirrored), then yes, it could tell them apart, technically

please note that I am not trying to prove/disprove consciousness

>>5610353
But thoughts are just electrical impulses on neural networks. We can't prove (or disprove) consciousness with them, sadly.

Honestly, I wish there was a way to prove consciousness, honestly, just like I wish there was life after death. But I can't just believe in things because of that :(

>>5610344
I mean like a memory picture. Please stop being so hostile, you KNOW what I mean.

>>5610339
I will not confine myself to the coices you lay out. You are saying that you have a box, and there are only two possible things in it, and I HAVE to believe in one of them, instead of just saying that they could both be possible. What you are saying is that I have to choose whether a coin will be on heads or tails. Can you please stop being so hostile? I'm honestly not trying to argue with you, and honestly I'm being rather nice. Can't I get the same in return?

>>5610330
That's just the processed input from the eyes though. That doesn't prove (or DISPROVE) consciousness

>>5610331
Um, what?
Are you trying to win the argument or something? Because I'm not trying to argue with you. Please think about what you just said

moot's said multiple times that /econ/, /fin/, or /money/ aren't happening, sorry :^{

>>5610310
I don't see why robots can't take in visual information from their surroundings, and see that the image in the mirror is identical to the image that is stored in memory as its body. That's what we both do.