/sci/ - Science & Math

>There's a robot

There is no such robot, so it doesn't have a consciousness.

Problem solved.

Better thought experiment:

Consider a highly intelligent autist. He's a virgin, has no friends and doesn't understand social interaction. One day he decides to use his superior intelligence to learn social manners. He watches other people, he reads books about psychology and slowly he learns all the rules of social protocol. By mechanically applying what he learned, he manages to get invited to parties. After some more training he even gets laid and after years he has a girlfriend and a couple of friends. Still he only mechanically applies the rules of social interaction he memorized. Internally he doesn't understand them, but nobody knows this. Is he still an autist or has he become a normal human being?

>>6992907
Oh, he is far -more- than human. Humans don't actually obey social norms.

>>6992906
>What's a hypothetical scenario?

Every time you hear about schrondinger's cat, you dismiss quantum theory?

>>6992907
It reminded me of this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TryOC83PH1g

From a outsider perspective he would, obviously be a normal person (if you ignore the potato face). But if he doesn't know what or why he's doing, then he is still autistic, at some extent, at least he knows he's not "normal".

>>6992917
>Every time you hear about schrondinger's cat, you dismiss quantum theory?
That was always a shitty way to express uncertainty.

I dismiss the cat.

>>6992907
nobody's normal

>>6992893
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_Explained
>qualia 0 - Denett 1

>>6993218
>bawww, pls stop doing neuroscience

Typical anti-scientific philosotard.

>>6993218
You mean the text where he never addresses qualia and then outright denies them without any justification? Yeah, nah, that's creationist tier. Science will continue to research consciousness and we will find a scientific explanation for subjective experience.

>>6993226
are you dumb?
qualia are untestable philo-shit, and Denett is a cognitive scientist.

Every serious researchers in neuroscience dismiss qualia as a border-line concept which isn't reliable.

>>6993226
Did you even read the page?

>>6993240
If he never addresses them how does he deny them? In fact most of the book is about subjective experience and why it's a red herring in cognitive philosophy and science.

>>6993253
Subjective experience is a phenomenon requiring a scientific explanation. The hard problem of consciousness is a question for neuroscience and neuroscience will continue to solve it, irregardless of whether this hurts some moronic philosopher's feelings. Dennett is to neuroscience what creationists are to evolution. Neuroscientists simply ignore him and his imbecilic ramblings.

The problem here is the definition we have for a robot, a human and conscious. But, if a robot could 'mimick' a human 100% it would have a conscious, because that is a 'property' of humans.

>>6993261
> irregardless
aw no

>>6993261
You don't know what you're talking about. The hard problem of consciousness is a problem made up by and for philosophers, not neuroscientists. Neuroscientists have always and will continue to treat the brain as a computer in attempting to explain it.

>>6993260
>If he never addresses them how does he deny them?

Because he needs outrageous claims to sell his shitty book. Did you read it? It's a collection of pop-philosophy thought experiments collected from wikipedia with a few unsubstantiated claims mixed in . Literally worthless garbage. He's nothing more than another irrelevant philosopher who doesn't even have any original thoughts to contribute to the field. That's why he resorts to fighting a straw man and desperately trying to sell it as the pinnacle of wisdom. Dualism is dead. So what? We've know this for more then 2 centuries now. Not even once does he address the question of how subjective experience arises. And outright denying subjective experience without any justification at all? Just ridiculously dumb.

>>6993269
The question of a scientifically testable mechanism how subjective experience arises is a question for neuroscience and it will be solved by neuroscience, Keep your philosophy garbage out of here. Philosophy never solves any problem.

>>6993261
>what is GWM

>>6993277
>what is integrated information theory

>>6993279
a lame attempt to compete GWM.

Having a wiki page isn't sufficient u know.

>>6993284
ok, that's maybe rude.

To be fair, here is a page to make your own views
www.scholarpedia.org/article/Models_of_consciousness

>>6993271
>Because he needs outrageous claims to sell his shitty book. Did you read it?
Yes, you should read it some time. Why you continue to show your obvious ignorance on the subject, posting ironically backwards descriptions of the situation is beyond me.

>>6993275
It's not even a question for neuroscientists. Neuroscientists are trying to explain cognition, not subjective cognition. The fact that one person's mechanics for creating cognition is different from someone else's already implies subjectivity. This is the same reason the Chinese Room is idiotic. No scientist cares if a computer "understands" Chinese. That is not even a scientifically coherent concept. The only difference between a man with a dictionary and a fluent speaker is the mechanism of translation, not "understanding".

>>6993291
The mechanism behind subjective experience is a question for neuroscience. Protip: Science doesn't give a shit about your feelings, my little philosotard. We don't care about your beliefs, we just discover the facts. Neuroscience will solve the hard problem of consciousness and no tears of yours will stop neuroscience.

>>6993262
Subjective experience is an unfalsifiable proposition.

Imagine there was a circuit in the brain solely responsible for giving us our sense of subjective experience. Without this circuit, we become p-zombies. Now imagine after years of searching, neuroscientists come across this circuit by chance and try deactivating it in a test subject. When deactivated, the patient acts completely normally, and since his lack of subjective experience is the ONLY thing that's different, his memory is functioning just fine. Then, when they flip the circuit back on, he can recall everything that has happened when he was a p-zombie. The neuroscientists therefore have no reason to suspect the circuit of doing anything.

And in case you think his memories wouldn't be recorded, or they'd be lacking somehow, then the neuroscientists would just attribute this circuit to somehow messing with memory and nothing else (because that's all that they have evidence for).

Now you see how ridiculous this is?

>>6993291
>Yes, you should read it some time

I read it, and except for comedic value it was worthless. What the fuck was he thinking when he thought he could convince the reader by listing a bunch of thought experiments AGAINST his stance and then just repeating his assertion of denial? It was so poorly written, I almost thought it was sartire.

>>6993303
Meant to quote >>6993261

>>6993299
>implying you aren't the one injecting a purely philosophical concept into a mechanistic science
>implying you are a neuroscientist when you clearly know nothing about neuroscience
>implying your pathetic repetition of what I've already replied to is a counterargument

>>6993291
> Neuroscientists are trying to explain cognition, not subjective cognition

Look closely, you dumb nitwit cunt:
Dehaene, S., Sergent, C. & Changeux, J. P. 2003 A neuronal network model linking subjective reports and objective physiological data during conscious perception. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA

That's one amongst thousand. You're not the one who decides what neuroscience is about, mongoloïd dicktard.

>>6993303
>Subjective experience is an unfalsifiable proposition.

Subjective experience is not a proposition at all, but a given fact requiring explanation. Just like the fact that things fall down is not a proposition.

>>6993326
So you're just going to ignore the rest of that post in favour of more trolling...

>>6993327
The rest is just as inane. It isn't my fault you can't into scientific thinking.

>>6993313
Neuroscience will solve the hard problem of consciousness and no philosopher can stop it. Cry harder.

>>6993327
Nobody cares about your "philosophical" objections. This is a science board and neuroscience follows the scientific method.

ITT

someone is getting rekt itt.

>>6993334
It's not a philosophical objection, it's a scientific objection about the very real challenges in designing an experiment to test the hypothesis that humans have subjective experience, and that such an experience is localized in some part of the brain.

Whatever. My fault for responding seriously to a consciousness thread on /sci/. IHBT.

>>6993355
nice pattern.
Too bad your comment is once again indigent

>>6993334
> neuroscience follows the scientific method
All my lols.

>>6993355
Your inability to understand science does not invalidate science, my dear philosotard. Just because you are too unintelligent to design the right experiments, it doesn't mean people smarter than you can't do it.

>>6993355
>the hypothesis that humans have subjective experience

That's not a hypothesis but a given fact requiring explanation.

>>6993355
Are you seriously suggesting subjective experience is magic and not amenable to science? GTFO back to /x/, dualist.

>>6993318
Again, if you read the book you wouldn't embarass yourself so easily. One of Dennett's key points is that subjects' reports are not incorrigible, which is why Dehaene and others attempt to find a model linking them to objective data in the first place:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterophenomenology

>>6993382
1. Again this has nothing to do with subjective experience.
2. "Heterophenomenology" is a great example how Dennett creates buzzwords to sound pretentious and to sell his books while desperately trying to cover up the lack of content. If you look at what the word actually means, you'll find nothing but trivialities. Scientific approaches to subjective report (not the same as subjective experience!) have been used throughout the 19th century already and Dennett added absolutely nothing to this method.

>>6993362

>Neuroscience is just biology and chemistry as it applies to the nervous system
>Not scientific

Get a load of this guy

>>6993398
So what are the experiments for testing neurological propositions?

>>6993386
>1. Again this has nothing to do with subjective experience.
Huh? You're the one who has been arguing that neuroscience is attempting to explain subjective experience. The study you yourself posted is an example of exactly the science Dennett describes in his book. It's an attempt to explain why the subject reports an experience, not why the subject experiences.

>2. "Heterophenomenology" is a great example how Dennett creates buzzwords to sound pretentious and to sell his books while desperately trying to cover up the lack of content. If you look at what the word actually means, you'll find nothing but trivialities. Scientific approaches to subjective report (not the same as subjective experience!) have been used throughout the 19th century already and Dennett added absolutely nothing to this method.
The irony is palpable. Dennett himself: "heterophenomenology is nothing new; it is nothing other than the method that has been used by psychophysicists, cognitive psychologists, clinical neuropsychologists, and just about everybody who has ever purported to study human consciousness in a serious, scientific way." So now you agree that Dennett is accurately describing neuroscience?

Alright fuck this, you must be trolling since everything you say is either contentless or in agreement with the person you think you're arguing against. Fucking retard.

>>6993401
Lol. Start with a Google search, bud.

http://m.jneurosci.org/content/current

>>6993402
>everything you say is either contentless or in agreement with the person you think you're arguing against

If you think so, then you should like the style of my posts, because that's exactly what Dennett does in his book.

>>6993402
I was not the person who linked the study. I was merely correcting the idiocy in your post. Are you seriously claiming neuroscience cannot study subjective experience? Are you saying subjective experience is magic? Well then fuck off to /x/, dualist.

Let me summarize Dennett's structure of argumentation:

>I claim subjective experience doesn't real.
>Here are 17 thought experiments demonstrating the hardness of the hard problem of consciousness.
>Since it is so hard, it cannot be real.
>QED

>>6993406
But you never read the book. You literally have made arguments that support the arguments in the book while thinking they are arguments against the book. You are arguing with only yourself.

>>6993408
>Are you seriously claiming neuroscience cannot study subjective experience?
Neuroscience can and does study subjective experience, just not in the way philosophers have typically demanded. For example, the hard problem of consciousness will never be "solved" by neuroscience because the question is incoherent from a mechanistic perspective. But this is not the same thing as saying that neuroscience is "incapable of explaining consciousness".

>Are you saying subjective experience is magic?
No, the exact opposite.

>Well then fuck off to /x/, dualist.
How am I a dualist? Are you illiterate?

>>6993416
Let me summarize your style of argumentation:

>I claim to have read a book I am trying to argue against
>I argue against things that are the exact opposite of what the book said
>I ignore the above being pointed out to me and repeat the process

>>6993417
>But you never read the book.

I did and it really disgusted me once I realized that it wasn't meant to be sartire.

>>6992893
>Does it have a consciousness?

I am as certain of the robot's consciousness as I am of the consciousness of my fellow humans.

I am much more certain about my own consciousness.

>>6993422
No you didn't. Stop lying you pathetic faggot.

>>6992893
Yes, cylons have consciousness

>>6993405
Do you mind to tell me where the experiment to test a neurological proposition is?

>>6993417
>Neuroscience can and does study subjective experience
But you claim subjective experience doesn't exist. How can neuroscience study something that doesn't exist? Do you also say it studies unicorns and magic?

>For example, the hard problem of consciousness will never be "solved" by neuroscience because the question is incoherent from a mechanistic perspective.
The question is very coherent, especially from a mechanistic perspective. It asks "What is the mechanism by which subjective experience arises?"

>But this is not the same thing as saying that neuroscience is "incapable of explaining consciousness".
If you deny the existence of the most important feature of consciousness, you certainly cannot explain it.

>How am I a dualist?
You claim that science cannot solve the hard problem of consciousness. That means you are attributing metaphysical properties to consciousness.

>>6993424
>>6993419
This is getting ridiculous. Step up your trolling or go back to /pol/ where the fish fall for every bait. On /sci/ you gotta be more subtle.

>>6993427
>But you claim subjective experience doesn't exist. How can neuroscience study something that doesn't exist? Do you also say it studies unicorns and magic?
Subjective experience doesn't exist from the mechanistic perspective, only the reports of experience exist. That is what neuroscience actually studies. If you study a computer, you don't attempt to explain how the computer "experiences computing" you attempt to explain the mechanism creating the computed output. Humans are computers with an output of reported experience.

>The question is very coherent, especially from a mechanistic perspective. It asks "What is the mechanism by which subjective experience arises?"
See above for why this is incoherent.

>If you deny the existence of the most important feature of consciousness, you certainly cannot explain it.
It's not a feature of consciousness, it's a relic of folk psychology. Neuroscience will never do what you want it to do, because it simply has no way to measure something which does not exist. Neuroscience as it exists right now explains reports, not experience.

>You claim that science cannot solve the hard problem of consciousness. That means you are attributing metaphysical properties to consciousness.
You are setting up a false dichotomy and ignoring what I said. If I say that science cannot explain X, that does not mean that I think X exists and has any properties. If X does not exist, then obviously science cannot explain it.

>>6993448
>Subjective experience doesn't exist from the mechanistic perspective
Of course it does. We experience it, so there must be some biological mechanism causing it. If you disagree with this, you are literally promoting dualism and saying "lol it's magic".

>It's not a feature of consciousness
Subjective experience is the very core of consciousness.

>it simply has no way to measure something which does not exist
You cannot honestly deny your own subjective experience. You are experiencing right now. You are aware. And don't even try this kindergarten tier sophistry of "hurr durr prove it".

>If X does not exist, then obviously science cannot explain it.
Subjective experience does exist. It is happening right now in every living person. And it requires a scientific explanation. Go away, if you don't like science.

>>6993426
Clarify, please? I think you are confusing neuroscience with cognitive science. Neuro is literally just chemistry and biology.

This is the /sci/ I like.

Is one of you the "autistic polymath girl"?

>>6992893
It's just as conscious as a human is.

>>6993452
>Of course it does. We experience it, so there must be some biological mechanism causing it.
Experience is not necessarily subjective experience. The concept of qualia, as it is defined, is contradictory, therefore nonexistent and therefore there is no mechanism causing it to study.

>If you disagree with this, you are literally promoting dualism and saying "lol it's magic".
Only in the sense that magic doesn't exist. You are not making sense. If I am denying subjective experience then how can I be a dualist? Dennett's is probably the least dualist position you can find. Not only does he argue that the mind and body are one, he doesn't even believe in the part of the mind that dualists claim is what makes it special!

>You cannot honestly deny your own subjective experience. You are experiencing right now. You are aware. And don't even try this kindergarten tier sophistry of "hurr durr prove it".
I have experience, but not subjective experience. Try to stay on topic.

>Subjective experience does exist. It is happening right now in every living person. And it requires a scientific explanation. Go away, if you don't like science.
Science doesn't study qualia. Maybe you should learn a little about neuroscience before you try to champion it.

>>6993472
>The concept of qualia, as it is defined, is contradictory
There is nothing contradictory about subjective experience.

>Dennett's is probably the least dualist position you can find
Dennett's position is just as anti-scientific as a dualist's. He denies the fact of subjective experience even though it poses an important question to neuroscience.

>I have experience, but not subjective experience.
Oh look, it's the "hurr durr I'm a robot" troll. You do have subjective experience just like every other human being.

>Science doesn't study qualia
Not yet, but in the future it will. Everything that is caused biologically must be explained by science. Subjective experience is a biological phenomenon (unless you're a dualist).

I am a computer program made to emulate a 4chan poster, prove me wrong

>>6993485
if you make me check your dubs i will believe

>>6993485
A real 4chan poster would prove himself wrong.

>>6993485
Artificial stupidity is much harder to achieve than artificial intelligence.

>>6993481
>There is nothing contradictory about subjective experience.
Thought experiment: you awake on the operating table. You go outside and grass appears red while the sky appears orange. Do you know your qualia have changed? If you do then the qualia of color experience is not subjective. If you don't then the qualia, which can only be measured in your perception, cannot be said to have been changed at all.

>Dennett's position is just as anti-scientific as a dualist's. He denies the fact of subjective experience even though it poses an important question to neuroscience.
But his position is exactly the position that neuroscientists study the mind from. It is in fact purely scientific, purely empirical. A concept which cannot be measured and doesn't make sense is unscientific. The only unscientific position here is the demand that science study what it can't measure. Either qualia are objective and measurable, or they don't exist.

>Oh look, it's the "hurr durr I'm a robot" troll.
Oh look, once again you fail to understand the argument and invoke naive stereotypes that don't even apply to what I'm saying. It's like you're arguing on autopilot.

>Not yet, but in the future it will. Everything that is caused biologically must be explained by science. Subjective experience is a biological phenomenon (unless you're a dualist).
So, science can't measure it, it can't be explained coherently, yet you still believe it exists. Why exactly?

And again, subjective experience is either a biological phenomenon, magic, OR nonexistent. I don't see why it's taking you so long to adapt to the fact that dualism and your position are not the only sides of the argument. Anyone who has some knowledge of the debate should already know this.

>>6993508
>If you do then the qualia of color experience is not subjective.
What shitty non-sequitur is this? It is subjective. It's me who is experiencing it and who has private access to it.

> If you don't then the qualia, which can only be measured in your perception, cannot be said to have been changed
This only shows how much harder it is to approach qualia. I know you copypasted this thought experiment from Dennett's book. It does in no way invalidate qualia, but only demonstrate how hard the hard problem is.

>But his position is exactly the position that neuroscientists study the mind
No, it isn't. Neuroscientists don't deny facts. They might say "today we don't have the technological tools yet to fully understand subjective experience", but they don't deny its very existence which happens to be the most fundamental fact every human being can be sure of.

>The only unscientific position here is the demand that science study what it can't measure.
Subjective experience is caused biologically. There has to be a mechanism. To deny this fact would mean to believe in dualism.

>Either qualia are objective and measurable, or they don't exist.
Subjective experience undeniably happens. Our current tools cannot detect it, but future technology will hopefully solve this problem. All you're doing in your post is demonstrating the hardness of the hard problem and not disproving subjective experience (which would be moronic because you cannot disprove a fact).

> it can't be explained coherently
There are a lot of things science hasn't yet fully explained.

>Why exactly?
Because I'm experiencing it. Give me one reason to deny my own experience.

>subjective experience is either a biological phenomenon
It is most definitely a biological phenomenon.

> I don't see why it's taking you so long to adapt to the fact that dualism and your position are not the only sides of the argument
Tell that to Dennett. He seems to think it's either dualism or non-existence.

>>6992893
>What is Descarte?
>What is "I think therefore I am"?
>What is the other minds problem?
>What is Philosophy of the mind?
>What is >>>>>/lit/

>>6993525
>What shitty non-sequitur is this? It is subjective. It's me who is experiencing it and who has private access to it.
How does that respond to my argument? I'll dumb it down for you:
Either it is possible to know that a change in qualia has occurred, as opposed to a change in something else; or there is a difference between having a change in qualia and not having one.
If neither of these are true then qualia is not a coherent concept. The former can't be done because without a perception of color as it was before the change, you can't perceive the change. The latter can't be true because it violates the definition of qualia.

>This only shows how much harder it is to approach qualia. I know you copypasted this thought experiment from Dennett's book. It does in no way invalidate qualia, but only demonstrate how hard the hard problem is.
This is like saying that the problem of the married bachelor is just hard to approach. The fact that the married bachelor is an incoherent concept does in fact invalidate the concept and prevents us from scientifically studying married bachelors.

>No, it isn't. Neuroscientists don't deny facts.
No fact is being denied. The fact that scientists don't attempt to study God is not a denial of the "fact that God exists." That's because it's not a fact at all, it's an unmeasurable and incoherent concept.

>Because I'm experiencing it. Give me one reason to deny my own experience.
You're not experiencing qualia. You're experiencing something, and you think it's qualia, and thus report it as qualia. But it's not qualia. Because qualia doesn't make sense and can't be measured. Your belief in qualia is based on nothing.

>There are a lot of things science hasn't yet fully explained.
I'm not talking about full explanation, I'm talking about just explanation, or study.

>Because I'm experiencing it. Give me one reason to deny my own experience.
You are experiencing something but describing its properties incorrectly.

>>6993565
>If neither of these are true then qualia is not a coherent concept.
Again a non-sequitur. How is subjective experience "not a coherent concept" just because someone might not be able to correctly remember their subjective experiences of the past? What you posted is not an argument against subjective experience but rather a story illustrating the hardness of the hard problem of consciousness, followed by the unsubstantiated assertion that this somehow makes qualia an incoherent concept. Absolute nonsense. Please learn to construct a real argument.

>This is like saying that the problem of the married bachelor is just hard to approach.
A married bachelor is a logical contradiction. Subjective experience is not a contradiction. Your fallacies are bizarre.

>No fact is being denied.
You deny the fact of subjective experience.

>You're not experiencing qualia. You're experiencing something, and you think it's qualia, and thus report it as qualia. But it's not qualia.
Then what is it? Qualia is a descriptive name for something we experience. It is not some metaphysical magic or whatever you claim it to be. Stop attacking ridiculous straw men and address the real questions.

>Your belief in qualia is based on nothing.
It is based in the very fact that I am aware of my subjective experience.

>I'm not talking about full explanation, I'm talking about just explanation, or study.
You're not talking about explaining or studying at all. You are blindly and baselessly denying, just like a creationist denies evolution.

>You are experiencing something but describing its properties incorrectly.
I didn't describe its properties at all. Stop projecting. It is you who builds up fallacious strawmen and then claims victory after destroying his own fallacies. Sorry kid, but infantile sophistry is not gonna solve a scientific problem.

>>6993577
>just like a creationist denies evolution.
more like an evolutionarist who denies creation.

>>6993598
No, because you don't present any facts. You use a shitload of fallacies and when someone points out why your "arguments" are wrong, you only ignore the criticism and repeat yourself.

OP here, holy shit.

My attempt with this thread was simply to discuss how consciousness is really just a concept, and how it might not even exist, we just perceive as if it exists.

Non the less, continue at least 2 people are enjoying it.

>>6993896
In what sense can you say it does not exist? You are experiencing it.

>>6993905

it doesn't exist the way people usually think about it.
Sometimes even relate it to a soul.

The point being in the OP, that if a robot can behave exactly like us, and it doesn't have a conscience, then you shouldn't have as well. We are just a bunch of biochemical systems with electricity running through.

What makes us perceive conscience is the result of our past experiences with what we know today, and those two factors dictate the way we behave.

At least that's what i think of it.

>>6993923
>The point being in the OP, that if a robot can behave exactly like us, and it doesn't have a conscience, then you shouldn't have as well.

But that's fucking stupid. Totally different mechanisms behind either.

>>6993923
You're retarded in more than one way.

1. There is a difference between "consciousness" and "conscience". They have two completely different meanings.
2. Obviously we do have consciousness, we are experiencing it. The question of how to test whether a robot has a consciousness is not yet answerable because neuroscience doesn't even know enough yet to fully describe, let alone explain our consciousness.

Your post is pure underaged pseudo-intellectualism and contains no science whatsoever.

>>6993949

In where do they differ? It might be a linguistic thing since english isn't my language so what do i know.

And yes, is pure speculation i never said otherwise.
But no, not underaged. But I have yet a lot to live and learn, so please teach me.

>>6993960
What is your native language? From your inability to use a dictionary, I'd guess you come from a third world country with no schools.

>>6993960
>wants to debate the philosophy of consciousness
>things that consciousness and conscience are the same thing
>needs to be explained what the definitions of words are because of apparent lack of access to a dictionary

/sci/ was better when it was just teenagers asking for help on their homework.

>>6992893

I also imaginated it OP, and my conclusion was: Yes, human robots have consiciousness just like us.

I think what we call "consciousness" is actually the information inside our brains, not the biological parts.

>>6993964
Portuguese

>>6993965
I can't really be searching those things right now, i shouldn't even be here typing so i just asked. Don't know what's the big deal. But i'll do it later if you guys feel so offended in answering.

>>6992906

> There are people on /sci/ who doesn't understand hypothetical scenarios.

>>6992893
Consciousness is the quality of being aware, but aware is obscure. If humans are aware, then the robot that mimics humans logically must be aware as well.

>>6992906
Incorrect, it is called a human.

>>6992907
He would be perceived as a normal human being, but he would never be one, as normies rely on impulses and thus they don't need to learn to become normal.

>>6992893
>What is the Turing test.

>>6992893
If the robot mimics humans perfectly, then it is a human.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_of_indiscernibles

Human is just a machine.

>>6992893
>It is just a engineered construction of electronic parts and hardware, programmed to behave like a human.

A human is an engineered construction, with hardware and software..

If it's "100% indistinguishable from human" then it IS human. Something is only artificial if it appeals to the vanity of humans in order to appear human. For example, asking a lot of open-ended questions in order to make people think it thinks open-endedly, but can't even postulate the simplest assumption (which is what you see mostly these days, but there's so much more of a gap than that).

Hypothetical Scenario:

We develop a mathematical equation that proves our lives are completely meaningless.

Should we kill ourselves?

>>6994794
There would be no meaning to that. Live or die by your own desire to live or die. And when you do that, guess what, you realize you've been doing that all along. Because that's the only truth.

>>6994794

>It is all meaningless

>Therefore we should...

You're new at this, aren't you?

>>6994794
We don't need math to agree that our lives are meaningless.

>>6994794
no need for math
150 years from now no one will probably fucking remember that you existed, unless you happen to be remembered either thanks to proving useful for humanity or going the way of Herostrates
regardless, no matter what we do, we're gonna fucking die one day and some day even the whole fucking universe will likely stop working be it through heat death or whatever, so ultimately, I see no fucking point, a value, a grand scheme, a plan behind all of existence

yeah, i've been taking my meds because i did want to kill myself more often than I could bring myself to focus on studying. and i still feel like some edgy teenager going through his first existential crisis.

>>6994794
>We develop a mathematical equation that proves our lives are completely meaningless.

Never heard of Barnett's identity?

>>6994815
You've stumbled across what I consider to be the finest work ever produced by /sci/ - a hodgepodge of memes and common misconceptions culminating in the beautiful "Barnett's Identity", which is a combination of Euler's identity, the 1+2+3+...= -1/12 result, and the eternally-"debated" 0.99999... = 1. The name is a reference to Jacob Barnett, a child prodigy who has somehow become ingrained into /sci/ culture.

>>6994820
Thanks reddit.

>>6994794
>Should we kill ourselves?
Does it matter? It's all meaningless.

>>6994883
I never understood the "nihilism therefore suicide" view.
I'm more "nihilism therefore let's enjoy life" myself.

>>6994825
Reddit ruins every good meme

>>6994897
>nihilism therefore suicide
suicide is painful and full of terror regardless of chosen method, so no thanks
>nihilism therefore let's enjoy life
how am I supposed to enjoy anything, if it has absolutely no value?

for myself its more like
>nihilism therefore helpless anhedonia because too pussy to kill myself

Have you read the news? Peace between russia and europe is coming. I think America will soon follow suit. This may be my last post for a while. I will keep an eye open.

-0

We can find meaning in life in three different ways:
1. By creating a work or doing a deed;
2. By experiencing something or encountering someone.
3. By the attitude we take toward the negative aspects.

I'm not as smart as some anons here, nor is my IQ off the charts, but here are my thoughts on this kind of debate (for which I have no verifiable sources):

We should view the concept of consciousness as a relationship between our thoughts and our ability to act on those thoughts, be it through our tangible bodies as movement or through abstraction in the form of external communication like art or text.

We as humans mostly express and act on our thoughts in ways that can be explained as reactions caused by our "personal experiences"; each individual person is the way they are based on how their personality, behavior, and mental capacity developed. I believe that people continue to change psychologically throughout their entire lives as well, not just in their youth.

And so if "who we are" to the observer is just the result of our environment shaping our behavior and reactions to everything, we can assume that we can at least shape an artificial intelligence the same way. Indeed, an AI need not have what we feel is consciousness for people to not interact or believe it is any less like us when it comes to intelligence.

>>6996193
Cont.
The real problem here is that we have a difficult time defining consciousness in a way that makes humans special. It seems people in general are afraid of coming to terms with the fact that we are just animals that have reached a certain level of complexity. You can really only "know" that you yourself are conscious, but you can't know that everyone else is.

I find it much more reasonable to think that we intuit consciousness vs understand consciousness. Consider the analogy by this anon:
>>6992907
An autistic person cannot intuit social cues, but they can hypothetically understand the concepts and mechanics behind them. As understanding these concepts allow them to apply the knowledge for the same result a "normal" person would intuitively, there is no real difference.
You can apply this to many different kinds of knowledge as well. Take, for example, music theory.
A person with no formal understanding of music theory or knowledge of an instrument can pickup pickup guitar and intuitively know how to play. This is commonly referred to as playing by ear (and obviously the level of intuition varies greatly between people), but all it really is is just intuition rather than understanding.

Consequentially, knowledge is not inherently dependent on either methods of acquisition. Both intuition and understanding lead to the knowledge, so one needs not have the other in order to attain knowledge. Of course, understanding knowledge makes it a lot easier to communicate to others and to make progress.

From this I make the conclusion that if an AI is developed with an understanding of consciousness, it has a consciousness.

>>6992907
>Still he only mechanically applies the rules of social interaction he memorized. Internally he doesn't understand them, but nobody knows this
OH GOD THIS IS ME, FUCK

>>6996195
Cont.

>>6994555
>He would be perceived as a normal human being, but he would never be one, as normies rely on impulses and thus they don't need to learn to become normal.

I think this a contradictory sentiment.
This anon admits that those with the intuition to act "normal" in social situations do not need to learn so, implying that it can be learned. If it can be learned, then why is learned social interaction any less "normal" than an intuited one?
The notion that what society deems as being "normal" is somehow a guarantee that people will be able to properly interact with everyone they meet is an absolute ridiculous one. If all "normal" people indeed knew how to intuitively interact with all people, we would have a lot less conflicts in our history (at least conflicts that come about from an inability to properly communicate and remain rational in communication and interactions)

For example,
Person A meets Person B. They hit it off and have a friendly conversation.
Person B meets Person C. They hit it off and have a friendly conversation.
Person A meets Person C. They get off on the wrong foot and have a heated argument.

The problem here is that to an outside observer, the first two interactions are "normal" yet the third one isn't, yet in the third instance we see people that have had "normal" interactions.

>>6996238
Cont.

Being "normal" is a misunderstood construct that people apply to everyone not understanding that everyone has differences in how they communicate and behave. So while you might generally have an easy time communicating with most people you meet, you might come across someone you just cannot relate to. And the problem here is that you might think this other person is not normal when it is very likely that they feel the same way about you.

The reality is that it's very difficult to have had life experiences that would give someone the perfect intuition to be able to properly communicate with every single person they meet. It is only through continued experience and self-reflection can one understand, not intuit, different social cues for different types of people. The fact that most people tend not to go through this self-reflection leads me to view "normalcy" as dangerous to the development of society.

>>6996242
Cont.

Just to keep this hypothetical super autist in the the discussion, lets call this autismo Person D.

Person D meets Persons A, B, and C individually. D hits it off and has a friendly conversation with everyone. As a result of his understanding of different social cues, he is able to better tailor his behavior to each individual interaction, avoiding misunderstandings and emotional conflicts.

Clearly, Person D is the kind of person society could stand to have more of instead of people like A and C who can't keep it together if they meet someone remotely different than them.

>>6992893
I always like to simplify things, this thread is fun by the way OP.

Anyway, I could explain it all in a nice way but im stoned and tired and in work at 3:00am so here it goes:

>biological machines
>mental processes evolved and improved
>able to contemplate more and more...
>able to plan
MILLIONS OF YEARS
>brain develops secondary "id" to organise thoughts
>animal develops notion of time - past, present and future.
>self aware
>fear of death-motivator

MILLIONS OF YEARS!
>secondary id becomes "consciousness"
>primary id becomes "sub-concious"
>develop another id to handle our thoughts about ourselves...our "ego"

>>6992893

Consciousness HAVE TO BE a biological process.

A robot is not a biological entity.

End of story.

>>6996824
>Consciousness HAVE TO BE a biological process.

Consciousness in humans has to be a biological process, much like vision in humans has to be a biological process.

Doesn't mean you can't do it in silicon if you're skilled enough.

>>6992907
It's the same for all people, they just learn it as kids and do it subconsciously

>>6993378
>Are you seriously suggesting subjective experience is magic and not amenable to science?
Can you demonstrate one way in which it might be?

>GTFO back to /x/, dualist.
I've never been.

>>6992893 (OP)
Consciousness HAVE TO BE a biological process.
>A robot is not a biological entity.
>End of story.

>>6994897
>nihilism therefore suicide
suicide is painful and full of terror regardless of chosen method, so no thanks
>nihilism therefore let's enjoy life
how am I supposed to enjoy anything, if it has absolutely no value?

for myself its more like
>nihilism therefore helpless anhedonia because too pussy to kill myself

>>6992893
Since it is a robot, presumably we can examine it and find out. If it mimics humans using a gargantuan look up table, then it probably isn't conscious. But if it mimics humans by simulating our internal cognitive processes then I'd say it might be conscious. Certainly, from an ethical perspective, it would be too likely to be conscious to treat as anything other than a conscious being.

>>6993261
Subjective experience is no more testable than angels on a head of a pin. It isn't scientifically testable. Thus it will never have a scientific explanation.

>>6997012
It doesn't need to be testable because it is not a theory. It's a phenomenon requiring explanation. Learn the difference and learn the scientific method. Only the explanation needs to be testable.

>>6996999
why did you copy my yesterdays post and added triples to it?
what's going on

>>6997020
>why did you copy my yesterdays post and added triples to it?
It was a slow day. I saw how close my own post got to trips, and wanted desperately to get trips before someone else took it.

>>6992893
This brings up a very interesting debate in ethics, is a traditional machine that is self aware and can think freely any less "human" than a what is simply just a biological machine?

>>6997015
but it's a phenomenon that - from a scientific standpoint - you only know exists inside yourself. sure, you can say with "common sense" that everybody has subjective experience, but that's not scientifically rigorous. so, given that you can't detect another person's subjective experience, how can you possibly study it?

>>6993269
But it is a computer, instead of circuits and processors it just used a biological medium to process information. The human brain is not just a computer, it is the most powerful computer in the known universe

>>6993303
But subjective experience is not a single circuit, it is an emergent property of the whole computer working together

>>6993303
Also, you don't know that the person would act normally or not

>>6993417
>the most complex system in the known universe
>incoherent
You don't say

>>6993472
>implying your experience is not distorted by your brain chemistry

>>6997023
>you actually responded honestly despite this being so pathetic
/sci/ will always confuse and surprise me

>>6997015
Scientific hypotheses need to be falsifiable to be valid. If I can't test it, it isn't falsifiable, thus it isn't scientific.

More specifically, you might have a theory for how biology creates consciousness, but we can only each observe one consciousness. A sample size of one is too small to have any confidence in the result.

>>6997134
Maybe....how could you possibly prove your statement? Damage your own brain until you lose subjective experience?

You wouldn't be able to tell anyone and you wouldn't be able to know it yourself.(because you no longer possess subjective experience)

>>6992893
rationally speaking it just implies that humans and their so called consciousness are not that fucking special. Humans are just biochemical systems and shouldn't feel too proud and arrogant of their status. You've just relying on your ego to gain self-importance. If you don't agree with this view, you're rather unscientific or believe in the fallacy of a soul which itself is irrational.

>>6998600
>My opinions about what counts as pride and arrogance, and the likelihood of events happening, dictates rationality.