>there exists some combination of programming language lines that produces consciousness If you believe this, you literally believe in magic and you're no better than a religious person. How do you justify such a belief?

File: 69 KB, 800x534, 800px-Typing_computer_screen_reflection.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 07:01:30 2018 No.10080850 [Reply] [Original]

>there exists some combination of programming language lines that produces consciousness
If you believe this, you literally believe in magic and you're no better than a religious person. How do you justify such a belief?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 07:08:17 2018 No.10080856 >>10080850 define consciousness

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 07:10:01 2018 No.10080857 >>10080856 Self awareness

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 07:15:30 2018 No.10080863 >>10080857 Any reason you can't program something to look at itself and recognize itself?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 07:17:02 2018 No.10080867 >>10080863 Why would that be possible? Name one reason

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 07:19:41 2018 No.10080871 >>10080867 We can do it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 07:20:38 2018 No.10080874 >>10080867 Object oriented programming (OOP), this literally a basic principle of computer programming. There's nothing special about self-awareness bruv.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 07:21:31 2018 No.10080876 >>10080874 What the fuck are you on about mate? OOP is a programming paradigm, it has zero degrees of self-awareness.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 07:22:43 2018 No.10080879 >>10080876 How?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 07:24:30 2018 No.10080881 >>10080879 What the fuck does OOP have to do with self awareness?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 07:26:10 2018 No.10080885 >>10080867 nobody's given a clear example for you, but anyhow image recognition software exists, so you could write a program that recognizes whether a picture is your computer or not, then run it on your computer

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 07:28:32 2018 No.10080887 >>10080881 Objects can reference themselves and change themselves and stuff, it's no longer just executing code in order right?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 07:28:42 2018 No.10080888 >>10080857 Like when computer is too hot so it turns of itself?

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 07:34:04 2018 No.10080894

>>10080885
>a bunch of statistics can statistically classify things
Wow, it's fucking nothing

>>10080887
Most OOP languages don't have reflection, so that's patently false. Even with reflection, your argument makes zero sense. Self-introspection is not self-awareness, not even close. Not even in the same ballpark or the same universe.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 07:38:11 2018 No.10080900 >>10080894 >Wow, it's fucking nothing yeah that’s the point. “self awareness” is a shit definition for consciousness. the point is that there is no scientifically accepted definition of consciousness so jabbering about it is meaningless

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 07:41:46 2018 No.10080908 >>10080900 That's true, there is no definition. And since we don't have a working definition, the problem is impossible to solve.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 07:46:49 2018 No.10080912 >>10080857 Define self awareness.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 07:47:48 2018 No.10080916 >>10080912 Having a motive or being able to have one

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 07:47:51 2018 No.10080917 >>10080894 >lets just change the definition so I'm right every NPC ever

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 07:48:13 2018 No.10080919 >>10080850 another dingus that doesn't understand computation. fuckin everything in the universe is computable. that doesn't mean you're going to do it von neumann achitecture though it's all the same i guess

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 07:50:32 2018 No.10080921

>Gödel proved the incompleteness of arithmetic, that is, that there are true statements in arithmetic which can never be proved arithmetically. Actually, the proof goes much wider than that. He provides a way of generating a statement, in any formal algebraic system, which we can see is true, but which cannot be proved within the system. Penrose's point is that any mechanical, algorithmic, process is based on a formal system of some kind. So there will always be some truths that computers can't prove - but which human beings can see are true! So human thought can't be just the running of an algorithm.
Can you guys see the huge hole the logic leaps over?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 07:52:14 2018 No.10080925 >>10080919 >fuckin everything in the universe is computable I don't buy that for a second. Prove it or go home

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 07:59:21 2018 No.10080932 U could simulate the neurons of the human brain....which is pretty hard but not imposible

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 08:01:44 2018 No.10080935 >>10080894 >>a bunch of statistics can statistically classify things What makes you think yourq own conscious is any different? Sounds like typu have a magical, non physical interpretation of consciousness.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 08:02:26 2018 No.10080937 >>10080850 I’m not exactly a big AGI person, but in principle, we can do some magic with lines of code. If it were all trivial, then people wouldn’t be throwing millions of dollars into complexity theory and AI research

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 08:05:52 2018 No.10080939

>>10080850
There exists some finite combination of neurological processing between a finite number of neurons that leads to consciousness. If you believe this then you’re no better than a religious person. How do you justify such a belief

Since I know you’ll be unable to understand how the two are related, because you’re obviously too stupid to draw connections between similar concepts, I will explain. Consciousness as you experience is a result of physical processes occurring in your brain, following a biological code. The idea that one can not replicate that same system through created computers implies that YOU hold a belief that there is something inherently magical about the brain differentiating it from a nonbiological computer. Therefore it is YOU who is no better than a religious or superstitious person

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 08:16:40 2018 No.10080946

>>10080887
???

Every single language ever written is executed in order (unless it’s some fucking meme language) OOP is no different. OOP is just data organized into objects. It still gets compiled down into sequential assembly, which gets assembled into sequential machine commands.

You sound like you just discovered OOP and don’t understand it at all. Code is still getting executed in order.

Also this entire thread is nonsense. Your DNA is just a list of code. What’s to stop us from programming against that?

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 08:17:13 2018 No.10080947

>>10080887
That’s not self awareness...that’s literally just the ability to reference memory in a von Neumann/Harvard architecture machine. Instructions are data that can be modified as well. Being self referential (which applies arbitrarily; church even proved that if a language has no inherent recursion, you can make it yourself since it is an inherent feature of language) is something even imperative languages support. Non sequential execution and synchronization is also something we figured out in the 80s. There’s nothing “self aware” about OOP

tl;dr you’re either shitposting or have no idea what you’re talking about

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 08:17:42 2018 No.10080949

>>10080850
say; individual letters represent individual atoms in in a molecule, therefore words would be molecules, leading to sentences and paragraphs being more complex structures like DNA, proteins, etc.
Some DNA doesn't form conscience (bananas), some have a limited form (semi-intelligent animals), and the majority of human DNA leads to conscienceness as we know it.
Of course this is all metaphorical

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 08:20:17 2018 No.10080954 >>10080932 Which would accomplish what exactly? >hurr neurons produce consciousness Prove it. Why do you people operate on unproven hypotheses?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 08:20:40 2018 No.10080956 >>10080850 >there exists some combination of programming language lines that produces consciousness If you don't believe this, you literally believe in magic and you're no better than a religious person. How do you justify such a belief?

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 08:22:01 2018 No.10080960

>>10080939
>There exists some finite combination of neurological processing between a finite number of neurons that leads to consciousness. If you believe this then you’re no better than a religious person. How do you justify such a belief
I don't have to, because I don't believe such nonsense. If you lay out all the technology required for internet, do you have internet? No, you fucking don't because the main actors (humans) are missing from it. So all you have is a bunch of useless circuitry.

You people have no idea how logic works, and you just take stupid assumptions that you don't understand yourselves and then you think you have it figured out when in reality you're as clueless as random space rocks.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 08:22:40 2018 No.10080962 >>10080939 This. OP could as well ask if computers can have a soul or not.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 08:24:11 2018 No.10080965 >>10080962 >materialism explains everything!!!oneoneone LMAOing at your stubborn stupidity We dropped materialistic philosophy when we discovered QM. Now go and fuck off back to 1850 you philosophically unsophisticated twat

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 08:25:10 2018 No.10080968
File: 409 KB, 1144x888, 1539215708879.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

you're correct OP. the type of futurism you're facing in this thread is faith-based fundamentalism, nothing more.

artificial "intelligence" = a bunch of algorithms and data that can be boiled down to raw 1s and 0s
humans and human consciousness = infinitely complex, beyond human comprehension

>b-b-but humans are just deterministic machines too!!1
prove it nigger

>>10080919
>fuckin everything in the universe is computable
this is a religious belief with no basis in reality

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 08:27:52 2018 No.10080972

>>10080946
>>10080947
Ok then what does self-aware mean if it doesn't mean self-referential/self-changing? I can't think of anything besides that for self awareness.
Yeah I know code always executes in order but objects group the code together so that section of code is now an entity on it's (that's what I meant)

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 08:30:19 2018 No.10080978

>>10080960
If you have several computers conected using the correct protocols, you have internet.

Humans dont play any role in the definition of the concept. You are making up the definition. Here, humans play the role that "magic" play in your conciousness definition.

The only difference is that you have not provided a name for what you think is missing from computers and present in our mind. Because when you say it directly, you have to use words like "soul", "magic" or "i don't fucking know, but there Its got to be sumthing", and people would realize how big a brainlet you are.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 08:31:51 2018 No.10080981 >>10080968 >humans and human consciousness = infinitely complex, beyond human comprehension Maybe beyond your comprehension

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 08:32:45 2018 No.10080983 >>10080965 So, he was correct. You think computer cant have conciousness because they are lacking something you don't know. But its got to be something. Soul or whatever. Then you are the one with a belief.

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 08:34:04 2018 No.10080986

>>10080972
Self awareness is the machine’s ability to recognize that it is a machine.

Self reference just means the code references itself, like recursion. I think AI is possible, but it’s going to be a massive algorithm that has complex adaptability and can make connections on its own. Interpreted languages (like scheme or lisp) are really good at grouping up sections and connecting them in a dynamic way. I think those languages will be used for some of the more complicated bits, but again, not because there’s something inherently intelligent about them, but because they’re the right types of tools for the type of operations that are needed.

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 08:36:24 2018 No.10080989

>>10080978
>If you have several computers conected using the correct protocols, you have internet.
No you don't, dumbass - where's the fucking content? Or does that just magically appear overnight? What's the point of internet without the humans? That's right, a bunch of useless wires that rot over time since there's no maintenance.

>>10080983
You're defining things here, not me. I admit I don't know, while you're so thirsty for an explanation you would just take everything, as long as it seems to explain things for the short run.

Sorry but you're simply putting words in my mouths trying to flip the argument over. My argument is unless we're damn sure what intelligence and awareness is, we shouldn't be fantasizing about making it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 08:41:32 2018 No.10080994 >there exists some combination of molecules the produces conscious life If you believe this, you literally believe in magic and you're no better than a religious person. How do you justify such a belief?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 08:43:39 2018 No.10080995 >>10080994 Agreed. Consciousness is clearly immaterial, anyone but an absolute brainlet can see that. There's no reason to entertain such hipster ideas as materialistic philosophy.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 08:43:43 2018 No.10080996 >>10080850 And our brains work by following a logical pattern of instructions. Just like computers...

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 08:44:28 2018 No.10080997

>>10080986
"recognize that it's a machine" is too abstract, if you set a bunch of attributes of a class to the properties of a machine (or class) and then had the class reference itself that's a sort of self awareness isn't it?
AI isn't necessary for self awareness, it just makes the program self-correcting

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 08:45:58 2018 No.10081001 Every single UMC (universal model of computation) is isomorphic to any other. There is absolutely no reason why a computer of sufficient power couldn't be programmed to behave like a human, or any other biological-based UMC.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 08:46:04 2018 No.10081002 File: 16 KB, 600x390, doubt_it.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10080850 Man, your consciousness is nothing more than chemical reactions involving electricity in your brain

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 08:47:00 2018 No.10081003 I challenge a single person in this thread to prove to me that they are conscious.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 08:49:12 2018 No.10081005 >>10080996 Prove that claim. I'll wait

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 08:51:21 2018 No.10081007 >>10081005 http://www.cs.tut.fi/~elomaa/teach/iTCS-12-5.pdf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_machine_equivalents

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 08:51:42 2018 No.10081008

>>10080989
Content? What content? What role that "content" play in the definition?
Internet is "several computer connected through specific protocol", nothing more, nothing less.
The definition doesn't say "it has to be useful", "it has to have content" to be called internet.
Are you really so dumb to understand this? Are formal reasoning so hard for you?

So then your question is trivial.
>Can computer produces conciousness?
>Conciousness is not well defined. Since it has something we don't know.
>Since we don't know what concioussness is, we can't say anything about it that is not a belief.
Ok, thats correct. But we couldnt even say we are conciouss... Unless you start with "i don't know what is concioussness but lets asume we have it".
So, if you use a concioussness definition that we fully understand, we can say computer can or cant not have it. And it would be not a belief.
The problem here is you are using "concioussness" has a bogus word. That can have or have not things as you please.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 08:53:48 2018 No.10081011 >>10081007 >hypothetical Aaaand dropped

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 08:55:46 2018 No.10081018 >>10081011 You're the type of guy who doesn't believe there are infinite primes

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 08:57:58 2018 No.10081021 self-aware = aware of self intelligent = intelligent These are two different things

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 09:00:04 2018 No.10081022

>>10081008
Look, you're clearly a brainlet so I'm not going to waste a lot of time with you. If you don't understand my analogy, maybe try thinking about it.

A replica of the brain would be exactly that, a replica of the brain. It's YOUR assumption that the brain already contains consciousness, as if that's a done deal once you have the brain. See, you're a dumbass and you don't fully comprehend that you're operating on an unproven and fallacious line of reasoning.

A brain could as well be a receiver of some unknown something, much like a radio is a receiver for radio waves that get turned into sound. In that case you're like someone trying to find the little man in the TV by smashing the TV to pieces. You're operating on a faulty line of reasoning.

And since I know you won't like that example, the brain might also be a quantum mechanical system. Good luck configuring that by simply replicating the "design" of the brain.

But you're so stupid I can predict you'll retort with some stupid ass reductionist reasoning. Before you do that, may I suggest you stop taking things for granted and start working from first principles instead? K tnx.

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 09:02:15 2018 No.10081024

>>10081011
You do know that all our computers are universal Turing machines?
They are not hypothetical. The mathematical formalization is a 7-tuple "hypothetical" model but that is just formalization. The machine itself is a real thing that we can make using any substrate - electrical transistors, neurons, even tapes with punch-cards on it. You can shuffle around rocks on the ground and it could be Turing complete.
Learn mathematics and computer science if you want to think about this stuff, dude.

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 09:04:48 2018 No.10081029

>>10081008
>Unless you start with "i don't know what is concioussness but lets asume we have it".
Then the answer to this is simple. If we look at a program and recognize it as conscious, then it is consciousness.
We can recognize things without being able to fully define them. I can see a bird flying in the sky and recognize it is a bird without being able to tell you exactly what kind of bird it is.

If we recognize it as conscious, then it has consciousness, and that's all that matters.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 09:04:57 2018 No.10081030 >>10080968 >nigger Why the Davis?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 09:06:46 2018 No.10081032 >>10081021 You'd have to be pretty unintelligent to be unaware of yourself.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 09:07:24 2018 No.10081035 >>10080954 Your post is proof you don’t need neurons to be able to think

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 09:08:33 2018 No.10081037 >>10081029 >We can recognize things without being able to fully define them. That's stupid. That makes definitions and logic completely meaningless and we might as well just shut off our brains completely.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 09:11:31 2018 No.10081040 >>10081037 Define music. You might be tempted to say "sound organized in time", or something similar but you'll end up with random noise also being music. Note this is just one example.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 09:13:21 2018 No.10081043 >>10080874 >>10080887 OOP is just a programming paradigm, you autist, stop embarrasing yourself.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 09:14:02 2018 No.10081045 >>10081040 people listen to random noise bro anything on the "creative" side of intelligence is just bunk to be honest

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 09:14:37 2018 No.10081046

>>10081022
>Before you do that, may I suggest you stop taking things for granted and start working from first principles instead? K tnx.
Except we are the ones operating on first principles - the principles of computation and the isomorphism between any UMC
Quantum computation is also formalized btw, that doesn't change anything, and any nondeterministic computer can be emulated by a deterministic one, so the idea that randomness can change anything doesn't matter.
The idea that the brain is like an antenna or receiver doesn't work, because we have direct empirical evidence (literally tens of millions of examples) of specific damage to one area of the brain rendering entirely mental processes inefficient. We can shoot magnetic waves at certain parts of the brain and turn off the process of that part of the brain. The brain itself is the model that is generating the process - just like we see with all other universal models of computation.
If you want to make the argument that this anon made here >>10080919 That makes sense, but what you're saying is just ignorance of the field and all the sciences involved.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 09:15:54 2018 No.10081048 >>10081024 Computers have finite memory and therefore are not Turing complete.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 09:17:07 2018 No.10081050 >>10081037 >That makes definitions ... completely meaningless They are, aside from allowing us to categorize things.

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 09:17:24 2018 No.10081051

>>10080939
>YOU hold a belief that there is something inherently magical

there is an inherent difference. A computer program, in the end, is just bits that can be written on a piece of paper. We know this for a fact. Humans as a whole, on the other hand, as they exist and operate in the natural world of infinite interconnectedness, are still a mystery to us.

the only way you can talk your way out of this is to prove that humans as they exist in the physical world can, in essence, be abstracted into 0s and 1s without any loss in complexity. This has not be proven. You are the one that believes in magic.

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 09:18:47 2018 No.10081053

>>10080921
>Penrose's point is that any mechanical, algorithmic, process is based on a formal system of some kind. So there will always be some truths that computers can't prove - but which human beings can see are true! So human thought can't be just the running of an algorithm.
It's not quite that straightforward. The argument is that there doesn't exist a finite proof. Really the argument is obvious. The set of finite sentences over a finite alphabet is countable. This means that the number of theorems you can state, the number of proofs you can write, even the number of sentences you can say (in any language) are all at most countably infinite. Now consider that there are countless sets out there that are uncountable and you immediately reach the conclusion that you can barely scratch the surface of things. This isn't a machine limitation only, it is a limitation to all humans. In the case where a human can know a statement is true despite there not existing a proof it is simply because there exists finite descriptions of infinite things and it's sometimes possible to fall back on those. This of course doesn't mean that every thing has a finite description, only a countable number of things do.

>>10080874
lmao, everyone look at this retard.

>>10080850
Is your consciousness in your DNA or is it in the structures it generates as it interacts with the physical world?

>>10081048
This. Though humans have the same limitations. Models of computation just tell us what can be computed, theoretically.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 09:19:01 2018 No.10081055 >>10081048 They are Turing complete, you don't need Infinite memory that is just the idealized version. Humans don't have infinite memory either.

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 09:20:14 2018 No.10081057

>>10081022
I LITERALLY said: "we couldnt even say we are conciouss...".
I'm trying to make you undestand that if you define councioussness like "something we don't what it is" you can't say FUCKING NOTHING. We could as well be talking about soul or magic. Its trivial. Everything we say about it will be a belief.

Now, if we define it as something we fully undestand we can say (or not) that computer could be conciouss.

Do we know what definition is correct? No. But you are also making a faith statement when you asume your "it has to have something more) definition as the correct one.

Could you be more retarded? You are a delussional narcicistic brainlet as I have not seems in ages. You only want to go to bed thinking "loll!! im the smarter", when you fail to apply any formal rasoning.
Btw, you have ignored the internet thing as you have been utterly destroyed.

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 09:21:11 2018 No.10081061
File: 1.24 MB, 1240x930, MzAwMjc3Mg.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10081046
Pictured is a qubit array of 49 qubits. 49 fucking qubits. THAT's our level of sophistication right now. And that's when we get it to work. We don't know shit about quantum computing mate.

>the brain damage argument
Yawn. I can start picking at your TV too until the picture gets all weird. Surely I've proven the little guy's in there too!

It's like amateur philosophy class ITT.

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 09:21:36 2018 No.10081063

>>10081051
but it's not really a mystery
There are like zero scientific mysteries anymore, there's nothing that we don't at least have a plausible explanation for. We just haven't bridged the gap between our theories and empirical evidence because of a lack of ability to experiment. Just for example the LHC confirmed the existence of gravitational waves decades after Einstein died. So to say "we don't know" is a misrepresentation.

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 09:25:28 2018 No.10081073

>>10081055

Me again, >>10081053 , actually not sure why I agreed with >>10081048 . Turing Machines do NOT have infinite memory, that's just a detail that's sometimes incorrectly stated or handwaved because it's easier for early comp sci students to understand. In actuality, a Turing machine has a finite but arbitrarily large tape.
Moreover, it's possible to daisychain Turing machines so that Turing Machine 2 gets input from Turing machine 1 in such a way that Turing machine 1 acts as a blackbox in place of an infinite tape. However, in this case Turing machine 1 must contain a finite program, so you're still limited to "data on an infinite tape generated by a finite program" which gives you at most a countable number of "populated infinite tapes".

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 09:27:00 2018 No.10081074

>>10081061
>Pictured is a qubit array of 49 qubits. 49 fucking qubits. THAT's our level of sophistication right now. And that's when we get it to work. We don't know shit about quantum computing mate.
Yes we do, we know a shitload about quantum computing. That doesn't mean we have the engineering capability to build a quantum computer. You do know we have already formalized a shitload of Quantum Computing algorithms, yes? This is not an argument, what you're saying betrays an understanding of the field.
This also assumes the brain using quantum mechanical processes, which all evidence indicates that it does not (no, micro-tubules aren't real. This has been confirmed multiple times. The brain is a classical Turing machine).
>Yawn. I can start picking at your TV too until the picture gets all weird. Surely I've proven the little guy's in there too!
This is not an accurate analogy.
>It's like amateur philosophy class ITT.
You're clearly the amateur hear. Analogy =/= equal an argument. All you've given are analagies, and denying of the formal mathematics and sciences.
There is a reason the vast majority of neuroscientists, computer scientists, physicists, and mathematicians do not agree with you - it isn't because of ignorance or lack of intelligence, it's because all evidence and logic disagree with you.
>inb4 "durr argument from authority"

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 09:29:22 2018 No.10081077 File: 190 KB, 838x392, stupid tyrany.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10080850 brainlets like you dont understand programming or AI. I hope that the AI robots purge all the brainlets and free us from their loathsome burden.

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 09:30:38 2018 No.10081079

>>10081074
Do you understand the difference between formalizing a quantum algorithm and REPLICATING a fucking quantum state composed of of trillions of particles? Because I don't think you understand that distinction too clearly. You could multiply the number of computers we have on Earth by one trillion and you still wouldn't be able to simulate that system, much less formalize it in any meaningful way. And yes, simulation is way easier than formalization. But of course you knew that.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 09:35:54 2018 No.10081087 >>10081074 Actually that's argumentum ad populum. Still, nice of you to admit you're peddling a fallacy.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 09:39:41 2018 No.10081092 >>10081005 What causes you to pull your hand away from a hot object when you touch it?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 09:41:00 2018 No.10081097 >>10081092 Instinct

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 09:43:46 2018 No.10081104

>>10081079
Yes, of course.
That doesn't mean anything though, because now you're making the argument that the brain is, in fact, material and all it's processes can be models and computed materially, just with different architecture.
It's still a UMC and it still is isomorphic to any other.
>>10081087
A fallacy is only a fallacy if it's built on nothing.
"80% of people prefer chocolate ice cream to vanilla, therefore chocolate icecream is the best flavor" is a fallacy.
"All the evidence, mathematics, and logic point to this conclusion so the vast majority of knowledgeable and educated people in the fields surrounding the topic agree with this conclusion" is not a fallacy.

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 09:44:34 2018 No.10081108

>>10081077
>implying its the stupid people that induce terror
it people that are smart enough to do bad things but too stupid to realize it's wrong are the terrorizers, there's a sweetspot
Like I'm infinitely smarter than Hitler just by not committing genocide

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 09:45:53 2018 No.10081111 >>10080850 >there exists some combination of lifeless atoms that produces consciousness If you believe this, you literally believe in magic and you're no better than a religious person. How do you justify such a belief?

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 09:47:20 2018 No.10081113

>>10081104
Except there's no hard evidence for any of that. You're making up fairy tales and trying to sell them as reality. The fact that 80% of science minded people agree with your point of view would be nothing more than proof of extraordinary philosophical naivety by the modern scientific community.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 09:48:39 2018 No.10081116 >>10081111 I don't. Consciousness is immaterial and only brainlets would disagree since they don't like the idea that we don't understand everything. Either that, or they're frightened of the implications. Nice quads though

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 09:49:34 2018 No.10081119 >>10081113 What would constitute hard evidence for it then?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 09:52:16 2018 No.10081125 >>10081116 >is immaterial let me stop you right there nothing is immaterial, if it exists in the real world it is material. So I guess consciousness doesn't exist. Why does this cause any kind of confusion at all for anyone? It's so simple.

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 09:52:23 2018 No.10081126

>>10081119
If someone wrote a program that behaved consciously and/or intelligently and showed traits similar to human intelligence, then that would be a hard evidence. Then we would have to figure out why that is so.

But you're trying to build the argument using the opposite approach, just on the basis of your lack of imagination.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 09:53:26 2018 No.10081128 >>10081125 Is dark matter material? If so, what is it? If not, then we just found something that isn't material.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 09:53:34 2018 No.10081129 >>10081126 turig machines already exist wtf, they existed like in the 50s

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 09:54:37 2018 No.10081132 >>10081128 dark matter is not baryonic but it is material

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 09:54:48 2018 No.10081134 >>10080925 Causality. If you know all of the factors at a given moment, the exact state of the universe, you're can determine what will happen the next moment, what will be the state of the universe.

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 09:54:55 2018 No.10081135

>>10081113
>Except there's no hard evidence for any of that. You're making up fairy tales and trying to sell them as reality.
No. ALL empirical evidence as well as the mathematical formalization agrees with what I'm saying.
The majority of modern philosophers (by that I mean, people with Ph.D's in Philosophy) also agree with this. It's not just mathematicians and scientists.

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 09:55:25 2018 No.10081137

>>10081116
I'm having a hard time following which side of the argument you are on, because if you apply that same logic to programs/computers then we can't rule out the possibility of being able to grant one consciousness.
Unless you are implying that we have something programs/computers cannot have, in which case you need to define what that is. If you cannot then you cannot conclude that programs/computers cannot attain it.

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 09:56:02 2018 No.10081139

>>10081108
>terrorism
>hitler
>genocide

nice buzz word soup you made there

ever watch the first part of the movie Idiocracy. Its literally happening. Go to anywhere in america today and see for yourself the dumbing down of humanity due to the absence of positive selective pressure for intelligence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unoMMru4-c0

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 09:58:16 2018 No.10081145

This shit is an entire field of fucking study why are people arguing.
ALL UNIVERSAL MODELS OF COMPUTATION ARE ISOMORPHIC TO ALL OTHERS. This is proven.
I can agree with the idea that the human brains architecture and material render it incredibly inefficient to model using silicon transistors or something to that effect. But that doesn't mean anything really.

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 10:02:43 2018 No.10081154

>>10081126
>>10081126
>If someone wrote a program that behaved consciously and/or intelligently and showed traits similar to human intelligence, then that would be a hard evidence. Then we would have to figure out why that is so.
That has nothing to do with proving that neural circuits are what creates consciousness.

>But you're trying to build the argument using the opposite approach, just on the basis of your lack of imagination.
This isn’t my lack of an imagination, this is me getting a fixed endstate so that you can’t keep shifting the goalposts by saying there isn’t enough proof.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 10:04:33 2018 No.10081156 >>10081139 >believing a documentary >avout anything I've seen plenty of retarded documentaries I my day thank you very much

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 10:13:49 2018 No.10081176 File: 49 KB, 308x445, 917r7Tukf6L._SY445_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10081156 >the movie idiocracy is a documentary no brainlet, it's a comedy from 2006

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 10:16:42 2018 No.10081185 >>10081176 I've heard of it but I've never seen it I think ancient aliens completely shattered my faith in docs lmao

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 10:20:51 2018 No.10081195 >>10081185 Documentaries kinda suck for facts. They're good entertainment but they're never made from a neutral point of view, you'll always have a director that already his ideas and is showing what he wants instead of documenting something.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 10:23:18 2018 No.10081200 >>10081134 Determinism was dropped the moment we got QM. Stop being a luddite. >>10081154 Your "fixed endstate" is rooted in fallacy and wishful thinking since you assume a basic Newtonian position and call it a day. But who am I to stop your lunacy.

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 10:27:26 2018 No.10081204

>>10081063
there's not a thorough understanding of really anything in the world. you're mistaking "being able to approximately explain/measure some thing/phenomenon once we assume a framework of some science" for a complete understanding. we know some stuff about the brain but we don't know the extent of what we don't know, and we don't understand how it all works together.

>to say "we don't know" is a misrepresentation.

it's a 100% correct representation. we don't know.

>i think eventually we will!
or
>muh Einstein

don't change anything

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 10:28:14 2018 No.10081207 >>10081185 >>10081195 this is an example of a conversation about any science related subject with average people in the current year https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAqIJZeeXEc

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 10:32:21 2018 No.10081224 >tfw you make claims and people dont even try to challenge let alone refute them Feels bad man.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 10:35:39 2018 No.10081238 >>10081200 >Determinism was dropped the moment we got QM >people dropped general relativity

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 10:36:25 2018 No.10081240 >>10081200 Why is it so difficult to state what level of proof would be required? Or do you want to keep moving the goalpost (which is itself a fallacy).

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 10:36:33 2018 No.10081241 >>10081238 Does GR imply non-determinism? I know for a fact QM does.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 10:38:24 2018 No.10081247 >>10081240 I already told you, a working implementation. Alternatively, you can go for complete understanding of how the brain works. Either of those will do. Until then, you're simply hallucinating as far as I can tell.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 10:40:02 2018 No.10081252 >>10081200 >Determinism was dropped the moment we got QM But that's wrong.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 10:41:57 2018 No.10081262 File: 367 KB, 1280x1483, wojak_01.nocrop.w710.h2147483647.2x.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10081252 It is if you're not a brainlet.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 10:49:27 2018 No.10081286 >>10080916 Well, that's what all machines that self optimize itself have.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 10:50:29 2018 No.10081289 >>10080981 Even machines have kind of similar problem, for self, even if they can understand humans atleast they interaction from given data.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 10:52:24 2018 No.10081293 >>10081053 I just have to note the fact, machines can operate in uncountable sets and even the fact that they can self claim something as truth without proove because it optimilizes their operation.

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 10:53:35 2018 No.10081298

>>10081241
I'm pretty sure Einstein was literally trying to prove determinism, as he was a spinozist. "God does not play dice" and all that. What is funny is that his field equations model the expanding universe, which disproved the idea of the fixed universe he believed in. I'm not sure if he ever changed his mind.
Anyway, it's all cause and effect and there is no random according to GR. But on the subatomic level there is indeterminacy. And since everything is made of particles you could imagine that things are also random on a larger scale and can't be determined. Well I asked my physics teacher back in high school about it and he told me that was wrong.
Maybe that's just a way of interpreting quantum mechanics. The moment we got them, people were pretty divided on how to interpret the maths. I think it was mostly Einstein vs Bohr. I'm not a physics guy so I might be inaccurate on a few things.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 10:53:59 2018 No.10081300 >>10081262 Is having wavefunction of probability of result deterministic? Like the result is exact in some way, but not defined yet.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 11:00:49 2018 No.10081310 >>10081002 >trusting chemicals to tell you they are chemicals

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 11:02:58 2018 No.10081318 >>10080916 Wrong.

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 11:03:00 2018 No.10081319

>>10081293
>I just have to note the fact, machines can operate in uncountable sets
Both humans and machines can only explicitly refer to a countable number of elements in any given uncountable set (in particular, they can only refer to those elements which have a finite description). For an example, the set of real numbers for which you can give an explicit description of (in the sense that the description identifies only that number uniquely) is countable. Numbers like [math]\pi[/math], [math]\sqrt{2}[/math], and so on are examples of reals with a finite description. Even the real number
[math]0.1001100011100001111\ldots[/math]
can only be referred to because it has a finite description that uniquely identifies it.

>and even the fact that they can self claim something as truth without proove because it optimilizes their operation.
Not disputing any of that. Humans do it too.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 11:12:34 2018 No.10081333 >>10081319 Ever heard of pointer and set property operation?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 11:15:12 2018 No.10081337 >>10081319 >I'm brainlet, I never operated by reference.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 11:19:31 2018 No.10081341 >>10081337 >>10081333 This retard here. >>10081319 Sorry, I assumed you're saying something different. Let's just hope you mean we can operate with infinite sets by their description.

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 11:36:05 2018 No.10081366

>>10081341
It's a subtle argument.

Keep in mind that the set of finite descriptions (i.e. finite strings over a finite alphabet) is countable.

>A finite description of a set that contains a countably infinite number of elements.
Okay
>A finite description of a set that contains an uncountably infinite number of elements.
Okay
>A finite description of an element.
Okay
>An element that has an infinite description as well as a finite description (e.g. [math]\pi[/math]).
Okay
>An element that does not have a finite description.
Not okay
>Individual elements in a set containing uncountably infinite elements.
It depends on if the element has a finite description or not. For instance, only a countable proper subset of the reals is definable (i.e. has a finite description), these "definable reals" contain the algebraic numbers as a proper subset. The remaining reals can only be described by infinitely long sentences (e.g. enumerating every digit in the decimal representation). These numbers are in a sense "unthinkable".

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 11:48:41 2018 No.10081384

>>10081366
It doesn't even have to be argument, it can be reasonable information change. Argument sounds like having a conflict greater than perspective.

Look there can be infinite descriptors of a set, but the descriptors of descriptive(describing the original set) can be countable or yet having countable numbers of descriptors again. With recursion and finite n-depth of analysis there are lot less problems, you can't describe in a way you can't express identity of set.

There's another thing, that you can compute with "probable occurence" e.g. waveform. Therefore even if there is uncountable number of possible outcomes, you can quantify them. It has disadvantage that it's a slow process, but nobody's listening when you tell them you need properly cooled 3D stacked CPU's to do your stuff, they laught at you that it's not "reasonable"

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 11:49:19 2018 No.10081389 >>10080874 >bruv

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 11:50:35 2018 No.10081392 >>10081384 >>10081366 DL;DR I mean, that infinite doesn't mean undefinable and can't be pointed or operated with.

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 11:53:51 2018 No.10081398

If you're interested in this MIT has some good AI classes reviewing papers to determine what exactly is consciousness
https://courses.csail.mit.edu/6.803/schedule.html
>understanding human intelligence from a computational point of view.

https://ai6034.mit.edu/wiki/index.php?title=6.S966:_A_Graduate_Section_for_6.034#Prospectus
>Gerald Sussman's course reviewing old ideas in AI and making fun of Machine Learning hype

Attn: Brainlets: These are both just thought experiement electives, don't take them too seriously the idea is to churn your brain not be handed a concrete answer

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 11:55:16 2018 No.10081404 >>10081398 State of website is disappointing a little.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 11:57:45 2018 No.10081409 >>10081398 Do you have also any "related forums" for certain course? It could help your education process.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 12:14:40 2018 No.10081432 >>10080856 Experiencing qualia

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 12:15:44 2018 No.10081435

>>10081404
>>10081409
Related are these lectures from CMU on 'general AI' https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLpIxOj-HnDsPfw9slkk0BfwuiNEYVnsd_

However keep in mind CMU mainly specializes in machine learning so the bulk of subjects will be about that, however you will still get a good grounding in various AI topics at the grad crashcourse level answering questions like 'what is required to make a system conscious'

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 12:17:15 2018 No.10081437 >>10080921 >but which human beings can see are true! So human thought can't be just the running of an algorithm. Nice non-sequitur m8. There's no reason why a human brain would be able to magically compute mathematical truths that computers can't.

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 12:17:40 2018 No.10081438
File: 52 KB, 425x366, 61RcOQLR1DL._SX425_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10080850
>combination of programming language lines

Actually consciousness would be an algorithm. The concept of self awareness is expressed in computer science with recursion. But recursion is done in iterations and therefor we don't recognize it as self awareness or consciousness as our own. The self awareness of a computer is done in distinct stages, one taking place after the next. This is too foreign to our own minds for an apples to apples comparison so it doesn't fit in our pre-defined perimeters of consciousness.
(pro-tip that is no universal consensus of pre-defined perimeters of consciousness, yet clearly it's assumed computers can't be conscious, therefore anything computer based is excluded be default/definition, is this .... wrong somehow? narrow minded maybe?)

I think this all boils down to the old analog vs digital thing again. Our analog consciousness is fluid, one iteration seamlessly blended into the next so they're indistinguishable and all one giant thing. While digital conciseness is more done in very distinct steps. Each step building on the next and clearly different and separate from the other. It's too foreign for us to recognize as conscious or awareness.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 12:20:55 2018 No.10081447 >>10080850 The only reason we haven't produced a true AI yet is the fact that we don't fully understand how our Brain, let alone consciousness, works.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 12:25:31 2018 No.10081458 >>10081447 Thanks for your input, captain Obvious

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 12:25:36 2018 No.10081459 >>10081432 >This is just my result, no others result. Machines could really do that. When you call it qualia it sounds somehow too much "I'm intelligent and simpler process of same thing is not"

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 12:27:01 2018 No.10081464 >>10081438 It's not recursion if you feed function into function. In recursion in programming you use result of itself within itself, not judging itself by itself. But I get you.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 12:28:24 2018 No.10081467 >>10081438 It depends on the sample rate, I really don't think you can boil even 32FPO kernels running simultaneously using same data in simple steps, yes it's possible, but why do you think it's not possible in human?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 12:30:10 2018 No.10081471 File: 21 KB, 474x296, 9C2Ng4e.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] If you are affraid of transhumanism, you can read my blog. https://forums.d2jsp.org/topic.php?t=78322083&f=276

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 12:37:19 2018 No.10081484 >>10080850 Isn't it the opposite. If you don't believe that then you believe there is some magic property to consciousness that can't be reproduced with material/electrical components. That would be magic.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 12:40:28 2018 No.10081494 >>10081484 Maybe there's sensitiveness to certain wavelengths inducing stuff in human brain that would not be induced in machine. And also backwards.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 12:45:40 2018 No.10081501 >>10081494 Maybe you're a stupid faggot, huh.

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 12:46:36 2018 No.10081506

>>10081384
>>10081392
1. I'm saying that humans have the same limitations as computers in that respect.
2. I'm not referring to the number of descriptors of a set. Only the length of said descriptors. In other words, a finite description refers to a description that can be given as a finite string (e.g. formal mathematics or even English prose is fine, as long as it's finite). [math]\pi[/math] has several finite descriptions. One of them happens to be a finite algorithm/program that allows us to compute it's value. However, there are real numbers for which we do not have a finite description, in fact "almost every" real number lacks a finite description. I cannot give you any examples of such numbers because doing so would require me to write a finite description of said number.
3. It is perfectly okay to state true statements about sets that contain an uncountable number of elements, as long as the set has a finite description. For some obvious examples, look at the interval of real numbers from 0 to 1. Stuff like coming "probable occurrence" and such fall under this category. As long as you're not trying to state facts about the undefinable elements within the set then there is no problem.

>I mean, that infinite doesn't mean undefinable and can't be pointed or operated with.
However, given an uncountably infinite set, it must necessarily contain only a countable subset of elements that can be explicitly referenced or operated upon. You may make inferences about other uncountably infinite subsets of said set (as long as they have a finite description) as well.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 12:47:16 2018 No.10081508 >>10081501 So you are trying to say there is not a wave in electromagnetic spectra humans are influenced by and machine doesn't catch it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 12:48:04 2018 No.10081510 File: 8 KB, 636x773, wj.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10080954 >>10080960 >>10081002 >>10081003 >>10081125 Found the philosophical zombies

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 12:50:52 2018 No.10081513

>>10081506
Explicitly defined set is set by definition, therefore I commit set oprations on the set, and if I encounter identity which "can" be contained by the set, I look at the rules of set if it's there. No need to go trough the set to define if something belongs to it, if it has defined rules.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 12:51:54 2018 No.10081517 >>10081506 If we haven't defined identity, it's not identity. Just in case you have problems with identities.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 12:59:51 2018 No.10081539 >>10081508 Wut

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 13:00:30 2018 No.10081540

>>10080850
True. Just like you can't create a tree using a computer simulation of a tree, I don't see why you would be able create consciousness using a computer simulation of consciousness.It's more likely that the physical components of a brain are required for consciousness to appear.

>>10080856
Subjective experience, the things similar to what you hopefully experience daily.

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 13:03:07 2018 No.10081545

>>10080900
Now equip your calculator with sensory receptors and responses for each imput. Computers don't have needs though, what could drive them to self improvement>consciousness if they don't need to survive and reproduce? If they don't perceive what's good for them and what's not? If we got to self awareness computers can definitely simulate it. They'd not be like us and it's easier to latch ourselves permanently to computers to act as consciousness. That will lead to problems because there are baddies and good goys. The baddies will want themselves as the main consciousness, the goys will want a collective. Some will want superpowered humans that are basically upgraded versions of ourselves. All three might happen. The only way we get out of earth permanently is by becoming parts of a gigantic space faring and self aware ecosystem(earth is already, lacks widespread awareness) or pure data(shit expedient).

Your consciousness is your experience, all consciousnesses are the same phaenomena responding to different stimuli at different times and retaining a different history of those stimuli, reactions and results. You can add different brainpower as a variable in how it develops also, but without knowing how this works in practice this is just jibberish. Anyway now that you got a natural consciousness you aren't forced to keep it in the initial body if not by lack of knowledge and means. Just the act of moving it will bring changes since you start experiencing reality differently. Anyway I think there are already ways to convey yourself and your ideals to others, wanting immortality of your toughts is wishing for madness since material existence is a minimal part of reality, a longer life would be cool if we had means to sustain it. And immortality of the body is meaningless since we already know how to make new ones from ours.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 13:08:32 2018 No.10081554 >>10081540 All youve said here is that you have to build the computer in a certain way to be conscuous. What way is that btw?

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 13:10:07 2018 No.10081558

>>10080850
>consciousness is limited to cell based living beings and there is nothing that can contradict this statement
If you believe this, you literally believe in magic and you're no better than a religious person. How do you justify such a belief?

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 13:11:56 2018 No.10081561

>>10081558
That's not a good comparison. There is nothing magical about stating certain chemicals/molecules have certain effects that other ones don't. That's just chemistry.
If it turns out consciousness as a emergent property can only come from biological based nuerons that's not magic, that would just be physical laws

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 13:15:04 2018 No.10081566 >>10081561 What effects? What chemical bond or reaction uniquely causes consciousness?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 13:15:41 2018 No.10081570 >>10081566 >chemical level Try quantum

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 13:18:10 2018 No.10081575

>>10081554
Possibly but not necessarily something similar to a brain. Frankly just trying to mimic a pre-existing organic brain would be the simplest way to do that.

What I was saying is that just writing x lines of code is unlikely to produce a conscious entity, even though the program might eventually act as if it was conscious.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 13:20:43 2018 No.10081579 >>10081570 Sounds like woo to me.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 13:21:14 2018 No.10081581 >>10080968 Smartest post ITT, unironically

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 13:21:24 2018 No.10081582 >>10081566 If we knew that we'd have solved consciousness already. My point is, that line of thought is not taken out yet. It is still very much within the realm of possibility.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 13:22:41 2018 No.10081587 >>10081579 That's essentially because you're, uh, dumb. Obviously consciousness isn't limited to Newtonian processes, we can twist our computers every which way and they turn out to be stupid, linear machines still.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 13:25:58 2018 No.10081594 >>10081587 Are you implying our brains dont operate on a chain of cause and effect? That quantum effects somehow make random things happen and this noise is special and unreplicatable in a non biological brain? Why?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 13:30:45 2018 No.10081605 >>10080850 How program is more magical than a heap of particles?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 13:31:01 2018 No.10081607 Computers are digital and made of metal and brains are analog and made of plastic. They are not similar at all so there's no reason to think you could program consciousness.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 13:31:28 2018 No.10081610 >>10080850 >there exists some combination of chemicals in water that produces consciousness wow people rely beliv that baka

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 13:31:39 2018 No.10081611 >>10080874 cringe

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 13:32:17 2018 No.10081612 >>10080968 >human consciousness = infinitely complex Prove it. You can't because the cult of the "infinitely complex" human brain is just faith-based fundamentalism, nothing more.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 13:33:26 2018 No.10081613 >>10081610 /sci/ is a dualist board. If you can't get down with that then you don't belong here.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 13:34:50 2018 No.10081616 >>10081116 If you don't understand it, why are you sure that it's magical?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 13:35:24 2018 No.10081618 a computer program can mimick an arbitrary funcion to arbitrqry precision. Your consciousness is a function turning sensory input into actions.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 13:35:32 2018 No.10081622 >>10081613 Dualism is literally people in masks dancing around a fire praising the volcano god

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 13:37:14 2018 No.10081623 >>10081618 >Your consciousness is a function turning sensory input into actions. prove it

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 13:37:43 2018 No.10081624 >>10080850 Okay, you massive fucktards I'll give it to you: while True: pass

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 13:38:17 2018 No.10081625 >>10081613 >dualist what

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 13:39:00 2018 No.10081626 >>10081622 The phenomena of subjective experience IS non-physical. That means that dualism is the only sensible stance and also that you're retarded.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 13:44:08 2018 No.10081633 >>10081607 The reason is cross-platform programs.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 13:44:13 2018 No.10081634 >>10081626 Oh boy a qualia fag

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 13:45:30 2018 No.10081637 >>10081626 How is it nonphysical, thats like saying software is nonphysical, word games

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 13:47:15 2018 No.10081640 >>10081633 I chuckled

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 13:48:06 2018 No.10081641 >>10081626 They reduce to physical phenomena, so no matter how you juggle words, you won't get magic.

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 13:50:41 2018 No.10081648
File: 6 KB, 229x220, 1536253879358.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10081634
>Oh boy a qualia fag

>>10081637
The things you experience aren't physical, the feeling of cold or warm for instance isn't a physical object you can hold. How is this hard to understand?

>>10081641
>They reduce to physical phenomena
No they don't, at best there's a high likelihood that they're caused by physical phenomena, but that doesn't make them equal to physical phenomena.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 13:53:54 2018 No.10081656 File: 7 KB, 225x225, 123864532.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10081648 >neurons releasing neurotransmitters into postsynaptic fluid is not given on a physical basis

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 13:55:42 2018 No.10081658 >>10081656 What the fuck, who are you quoting?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 13:56:15 2018 No.10081659 >this thread is a bunch of localized neurons talking to each other over internet Materialists make me lol

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 13:56:59 2018 No.10081660 >>10081648 Caused, equal, reduce, it doesn't matter how you juggle words, there's no magic there, only physical processes, like in computers.

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 14:00:46 2018 No.10081670

>>10081658
>The things you experience aren't physical, the feeling of cold or warm for instance isn't a physical object you can hold.
This "experience" is 100% on a physical basis, one can never argue with metapysical philosofaggots such as yourself, because you use words to make the goalpost appear somewhere where it's not. Can't even define what consciousness is, but still argues about it. I'd rather argue with mentally ill people about how gender and sex are the same thing

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 14:01:01 2018 No.10081674

>>10081660
Physical structures cause the non-physical subjective experience to appear as an emergent property. Ergo dualism holds. This is the most logical approach to explain the existence of consciousness, since it assumes the minimal amount of things.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 14:02:20 2018 No.10081675 >>10081670 >Can't even define what consciousness is I already did it several posts ago >>10081540 Your turn, retarded physicalist.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 14:03:59 2018 No.10081680 >>10081675 Nobody cares about dumb definitions you pull out of your pseudointellectual ass. Let me define you: Faggot

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 14:04:08 2018 No.10081681 Dual brainlets assert that mind and program are different, but can't express where they are different. Instant btfo.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 14:05:49 2018 No.10081687 >>10081680 So this is the power of physicalist argumentation?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 14:06:08 2018 No.10081690 >>10081675 >Uhhh it's a SUBJECTIVE experience (MIND ME, NOT OBJECTIVE!) You UHHHHHH EXPeRIENCE lol. My definition good guys eh

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 14:06:10 2018 No.10081691 >>10081674 You can juggle the same words about programs too.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 14:07:57 2018 No.10081694 >>10081681 One is a linear process and the other is a self-conscious experience? How's that

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 14:09:56 2018 No.10081699 >>10081694 What's the difference?

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 14:11:21 2018 No.10081703
File: 9 KB, 636x773, 15399676847762.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10081690
>*beep boop subjective experience not real*
Yes, non-physical things are all the things that aren't physical. Are you saying non-physical things and your experiences don't exist? If your subjective experiences don't exist, how come you believe the things relayed to you by your subjective senses exist? Do you need to be able to hold something for you to believe it exists? How come any other form of existence is invalid to you?

>>10081691
Well, I guess you can call a program non-physical if you use the term to refer to the general logic of the program instead of something else.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 14:11:56 2018 No.10081704 >>10081694 >a self-conscious experience fucking lmao

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 14:15:24 2018 No.10081708

>>10081703
>Yes, non-physical things are all the things that aren't physical.
Holy shit who would have thought
>Are you saying non-physical things and your experiences don't exist?
I'm saying my experiences are physical, brainlet
>If your subjective experiences don't exist, how come you believe the things relayed to you by your subjective senses exist?
My experiences DO exist. on a physical basis.
>Do you need to be able to hold something for you to believe it exists?
Why the fuck would I need to hold it? Is holding things in your dirty ape-hands the only way you can percieve the physical world? I have photoreceptors, chemoreceptors, termoreceptors and baroreceptors in my body, all thanks to proteins.
>How come any other form of existence is invalid to you?
What the fuck

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 14:18:32 2018 No.10081714
File: 34 KB, 817x443, 1520628278568.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10081708
>I'm saying my experiences are physical, brainlet
If they're physical, then why can't I experience them? Why can I only experience a lump of your brain mass instead of the experiences? Maybe that's because those experiences aren't physical after all.

>Why the fuck would I need to hold it?
Then why are you unable to grasp that something you can't directly sense as an external object might exist?

I'm done talking to you, brainlet.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 14:18:36 2018 No.10081715 File: 2.90 MB, 200x200, 1520284149547.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >can't even code video games without constant bugs >can code consciousness

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 14:22:56 2018 No.10081724

>>10081714
>If they're physical, then why can't I experience them?
Because you're not connected to my brain.

>Then why are you unable to grasp that something you can't directly sense as an external object might exist?
When did I ever say that?

No problem retardo, as I said my previous post, discussing with people like you is a bigger waste of time than talking to frogs and I get more certain in this after every conversation.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 14:32:57 2018 No.10081743 >>10081714 >2018 >there are STILL people who don't get that thought have a strictly physical basis Do you live under a rock faggot, god damn https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zd9WhJPa2Ok

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 14:37:19 2018 No.10081746 >>10081699 Are you a NPC

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 14:37:34 2018 No.10081748
File: 104 KB, 1478x1454, 1536253879458.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10081743
Subjective experiences most likely originate from physical processes, but that doesn't make them equal. It's pointless trying to hammer this in for you since you clearly lack the intelligence to ever understand such a basic idea.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 14:40:27 2018 No.10081753 >>10081748 >most likely shows how much you know >dude you're just too dumb to understand 8deep5me

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 14:42:15 2018 No.10081757 >>10081743 Thought has physiological response, what the fuck is your point? I swear to god it's like I'm arguing with 14 year olds

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 14:43:02 2018 No.10081759 >>10081748 >Goes to board called Science and Math >spends ages arguing about the fidelity of a concept that will never be scientific, since it is not possible to prove it or disprove it You remind me of a certain group of people

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 14:44:54 2018 No.10081763 >>10081748 What happens first, a thought, or neurons firing?

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 14:44:59 2018 No.10081764

>>10081703
Information by itself doesn't literally consist of matter, but is entirely encoded in a material carrier - this relationship is too close to allow to call it non-physical. It would be laughable to call entropy non-physical even though it's immaterial like information.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 14:45:09 2018 No.10081765 >>10081759 1. consciousness exists, as certainly as anything can be known exist 2. consciousness can be examined using scientific methods, just not directly 3. you're a brainlet

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 14:45:31 2018 No.10081767 >>10081759 Yeah, he reminds you of actual scientists. As opposed to brainless NPCs that call themselves scientists yet aren't capable of a single creative, individual and rational thought.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 14:45:47 2018 No.10081768 >>10081763 Pssshhhh neurons firing isn't a physiological process! Don't make him sperg out again

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 14:46:11 2018 No.10081770 >>10081763 As I already said several posts back, it's most likely that the physical part comes first.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 14:47:17 2018 No.10081773 File: 228 KB, 1400x650, 1533931912793.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10081471

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 14:49:00 2018 No.10081776 File: 2.93 MB, 1716x1710, 1536095495075.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10081767 Thanks for having my back, /sci/ can sometimes be full of these pop-sci worshipping NPCs

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 14:49:25 2018 No.10081778 >>10081715 Bugs are just features, you bigot.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 14:51:30 2018 No.10081781 >>10081746 It's like calling one apple round and another red. Well, there's difference, but they are not mutually exclusive, they are independent aspects.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 14:54:32 2018 No.10081786 >>10081748 Retarded qualiafags can't grasp the fact that the subjective experience is literally physical. Yes, there's still confusion about how physical objects are being experienced, but the question whether if it's physical or not is settled.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 14:55:36 2018 No.10081788 >>10081768 no u >>10081770 >it's most likely that the physical part comes first So the neurons fire first, creating a thought. The neurons being non-conscious, correct?

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 15:04:49 2018 No.10081803

>>10081788
I don't get the point you're trying to make. As I already said I think the most reasonable stance is that a certain physical patterns spawn the non-physical consciousness. If we extrapolate from there and assume that panpshycism is true, then all physical objects possess subjective qualities, but supposedly only certain configurations are refined enough to spawn a bundle of subjective experiences that form something like human consciousness.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 15:07:53 2018 No.10081807 >>10081803 Are you basing your stance on a deterministic reality, with the physical causing the non-physical?

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 15:08:31 2018 No.10081808

>>10080850
>>there exists some combination of programming language lines that produces consciousness
I think it might be possible to accurately model a brain at the molecular level and create consciousness that way, but that would require immense computational resources. I don't think it's possible to create a conscious general AI through traditional programming or through machine learning.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 15:09:58 2018 No.10081813 >>10081807 Does my post not answer your question? Yes, physical events likely are the cause of non-physical events.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 15:15:27 2018 No.10081821 >>10081813 >Does my post not answer your question? No, because panpsychism doesn't have the physical causing the non-physical, they don't appear to be separate "things" in that sense.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 15:16:30 2018 No.10081824 >>10080850 I believe that universe operates on finite set of rules i.e. theory of everything is possible. If that's true, then we can simulate it and in principle simulate beings that manifest consciousness (us).

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 15:21:18 2018 No.10081833 >>10081821 To be fair, emergentism might be the more correct term for it.

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 15:22:58 2018 No.10081834

>>10081612
we understands stuff that is in 1s and 0s absolutely. we don't understand anything in the natural world absolutely.

even assuming the human mind could in fact be finite and understandable, it hasn't been proven to be so, while we know that every computer program is finite for a fact. i'm not making a claim on the exact natures of these two things (human mind and a machine), just that they're two different things. your stance is they're the same or could one day be the same. it's not analogous, your switcheroo is braindead sophistry.

>yea well even though my position requires faith on more information/progress you can't prove i won't get there so ur relying on faiths too!!! checkmate christcukcs

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 15:26:20 2018 No.10081838 >>10081824 >I believe that universe operates on finite set of rules Where do these rules exist?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 15:27:16 2018 No.10081839 >>10080888 Fucking trips of truth. Also, thw difference between a religious oerson and the coder who can make machines self aware and give them unique personalities and conciousnesses... is that he can do it before your very eyes, for a fee.

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 15:32:27 2018 No.10081849

>>10081833
Emergentism is just a more long-winded approach that is ultimately the same as the physical causing the non-physical because it is still stuck in a deterministic reality, there has to be separation and a chain of events.

The deterministic view of reality is the cause (no pun intended) of these false descriptions.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 15:34:59 2018 No.10081854 >>10081241 >I know for a fact QM does. No, no you don't. QM is, mathematically, completely deterministic.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 15:39:36 2018 No.10081860 >>10081854 If mathematics was deterministic it wouldn't work.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 15:42:58 2018 No.10081863 >>10081854 >QM is, mathematically, completely deterministic Where is the electron as it orbits around the atom?

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 15:45:42 2018 No.10081866

>>10081834
>we don't understand anything in the natural world absolutely
Fix your education, flatearther.
>even assuming the human mind could in fact be finite and understandable, it hasn't been proven to be so
Mind is finite because brain is finite, people even counted the number of neurons in it.

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 15:49:26 2018 No.10081875

>>10080850
Consciousness arise from the interaction of atoms. We can simulate atoms interacting. Therefore with sufficiently large amounts of memory, computing power, and time we can simulate conciousness. The actual amount of code necessary to run a conciousness simulator might not be very large, but the input files to such a consciousness simulator, which would be a set of atoms and molecules and their state would be ungodly huge.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 15:55:05 2018 No.10081888 >>10081875 >Consciousness arise from the interaction of atoms. Incredible that people believe this, especially when atoms don't even exist either.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 15:56:01 2018 No.10081891 >>10081888 This

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 15:57:29 2018 No.10081893 >>10081860 Only deterministic mathematics can work. Others don't. >>10081863 It's in a superposition.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 16:01:23 2018 No.10081899 >>10081860 what? >>10081863 the fact that you asked me that shows me you don't even understand the first thing about Quantum Mechanics. You're stuck in 19th century physics thinking the universe is made up of little marbles.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 16:04:07 2018 No.10081902 >>10081893 >Only deterministic mathematics can work. Others don't. Can't have infinity in deterministic mathematics.

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 16:16:11 2018 No.10081926

>>10080850
If a computer program can become sentient, it's not that there's something special about them ones and zeros that would create consciousness, but rather that the basis for consciousness is already present and the computer program presents it in a more sophisticated way.
Not sure if conscious versus not conscious is a fair distinction to make or not.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 16:20:58 2018 No.10081934 >>10081926 >the basis for consciousness is already present The basis being?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 16:26:11 2018 No.10081940 >>10081875 >We can simulate atoms interacting. No we can't

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 16:32:14 2018 No.10081944 Consciousness doesn't exist , it's dumb pseudoscience voodo mysticism invented to push cults and sale of books and courses

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 16:34:23 2018 No.10081949 >>10080850 If DNA can come together to form a self-referencing apparatus, then so can code to exactly the same extent and degree..

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 16:36:15 2018 No.10081952 File: 30 KB, 636x773, npc.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10081944

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 16:37:45 2018 No.10081955 >>10081944 Does physicalness exist?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 16:46:46 2018 No.10081970 >>10080850 >consciousness Hol up, pesud.

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 16:47:20 2018 No.10081973

>>10081944
Consciousness is simply awareness of awareness. It exists. It may not be it's own separate thing. It may be entirely explainable in physical terms. It may not be a soul or a cartesian self, but it does exist, you complete fucking moron. Awareness is still quite a mystery to physical science because any attempts to reduce it into physical terms have fallen short and only explained the contents of awareness rather than the experience of being aware. To whatever extent and degree nature can account for this, that exact extent and degree can be achieved by computer code. The question is the same one it has always been. "What is awareness?" is it a property of matter? Energy? voidness peering in between the ordered behavior of physical things? And once we understand what exactly gives rise to the experience of being aware, or to experience itself, we can understand to what extent and degree a computer can do so.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 16:50:51 2018 No.10081976 >>10081973 >Consciousness is simply [bunch of meaningless words uttered into the echo of the infinite nothing] This is why reductionistfags will always and forever be wrong

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 16:55:19 2018 No.10081981 >>10081976 What makes something physical?

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 16:55:59 2018 No.10081983

>>10081976
Conscious is defined as awareness of awareness. That's the part that can be reduced to the physical behaviors of the brain. The brain is the apparatus of self-referencing through which awareness becomes aware of being aware.

Awareness is the mystery. I admitted where quantifiability and falsifiability ended. What's reductionistic about that?

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 16:59:16 2018 No.10081987

>>10081955
Wtf is physically so
>>10081973
If by awareness you mean storing a model of the outside in memory and reacting to it then computers/robots had it for decades .
Ops post seems retarded then because an Arduino that moves a motor when a sensor is tripped has consciousness

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 17:00:00 2018 No.10081990 >>10081976 >I only need the first three words of a paragraph to know it confirms my philosophical biases. Guess how I know you're an idiot?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 17:01:42 2018 No.10081991 >>10081987 >If by awareness you mean No. That's cognition. Awareness is thinking that that cognition belongs to you, an observing self.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 17:04:23 2018 No.10081993 >>10081987 >Wtf is physically so Does the physical exist?

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 17:04:59 2018 No.10081995

>>10081934
I don't know. It's really hard to try to break something like consciousness into units. But imo it makes much more sense as a claim that everything exists as a primitive state of consciousness, and that stuff like the human mind is a composition or system of primitive consciousness than saying boom neurons magically create consciousness. Like the neurons just bring consciousness together in a way that is meaningful.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 17:10:25 2018 No.10082000 >>10081990 When you start off with a stupid sentence like that, don't expect me to read your bullshit all the way through. "Awareness of awareness" is a bunch of fancy terms. It describes nothing, it's reductionist at absurdum. Makes no sense to me.

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 17:11:49 2018 No.10082002

>>10081995
>everything exists as a primitive state of consciousness, and that stuff like the human mind is a composition or system of primitive consciousness than saying boom neurons magically create consciousness. Like the neurons just bring consciousness together in a way that is meaningful.
What's the difference between "neurons" and "consciousness", and how does this difference between them allow the "neurons" to bring "consciousness" together in a way that is meaningful?

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 17:17:13 2018 No.10082011

>>10081991
The Arduino chip to thinks the sensor input belongs to him , this statement is as valid as saying a human does the same. It's an un empirical non statement.

>>10081993
Pretty sure your question is like asking if water is wet , it's an ouroboros question since a thing existing and being physical are the same thing

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 17:20:19 2018 No.10082015

>>10082002
Neurons exist in a state of consciousness, and aren't themselves "consciousness".
Neurons bring consciousness together because the human brain is a system that processes information. Like it causes the perspective or phenomenon of "self" because that's how we take in information (i.e. as if we are a subject acting/being acted upon).

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 17:22:51 2018 No.10082021 >>10080850 Consciousness is the biggest embarrassment in all of science. To think we might have super-human AI before we understand how our own brains truly work is disturbing.

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 17:25:55 2018 No.10082031

>>10081995
How about not bringing in the whole unscientific idea of consciousness in in the first place .it's as valid as me saying there's an invisible non interacting magic teapot hovering over your head ,this teapot like consciousness by it's very definition is unfalsifiable and thus the question of it's existence lacks a truth value. Saying it exists is the same as saying it doesn't exist as the two hypothetical realities of these two possibilities are identical.
Since there are infinitely many such arbitrary statements we usually just call them false for convenience although technically they're 'not even wrong'
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong
This is mostly a semantic problem but in the common everyday sense consciousness doesn't exist.

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 17:35:53 2018 No.10082053

>>10082015
Same could be said for a raindrop , it processes the information of all the external forces and dm waves on it , as your definition of which chunck of baryonic matter 'processes information' is arbitrary then everything possesses consciousness.
It would be dumb to claim humans have consciousness then because why would the consciousness of a human or some part of him arbitrarily stop at some point ? All the matter it contacts processes information after all.

Every piece of matter and everything it interacts with and every possible subset of them possesses consciousness by that logic . An electron from my fingernail, a whole molecule from your ass and 2 dark matter particles from the Andromeda Galaxy form a gravitationally and EM interacting 'information processing' system and thus have consciousness

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 17:37:27 2018 No.10082056

What is a good definition of consciousness?

A faculty of mind that provides a framework to reflect on self or any external object, from the perspective of self.

Reflect meaning to decompose, correlate, or pattern match a single or multiple subject matter.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 17:38:35 2018 No.10082060 >>10082021 It's not an embarrassment it's simply voodo bs meant to trick housewives into joining cults or meditation courses What you're saying is the equivalent of saying that not understanding ghosts and prophecy is an embarrassment to science

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 17:43:39 2018 No.10082068 >>10082011 >Pretty sure your question is like asking if water is wet , it's an ouroboros question since a thing existing and being physical are the same thing Does imagination follow the laws of physics?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 17:46:49 2018 No.10082076 >>10082068 Is imagination a facet of consciousness?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 17:50:35 2018 No.10082084 >>10082015 >Neurons exist in a state of consciousness What makes the "neuron" itself, different to the "state of consciousness" it is "in". What physical properties does the neuron have that the state of consciousness does not have?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 17:51:51 2018 No.10082088 >>10082076 That's not what I asked. Does imagination exist? If so, does it follow the laws of physics?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 17:54:55 2018 No.10082096 File: 1 KB, 123x122, 1455149358991.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10080850 program is not enough. you have to run it too. we don't understand what consciousness is, but between atoms and minds, something's gotta give.

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 18:06:59 2018 No.10082120

>>10082096
>>10082088
>> but between atoms and minds, something's gotta give
Don't the laws of physics have a similar problem? There is no good model that describes the macro world all the the quantum world simultaneously.

You could therefore also go as far as to say that no mathematical representation in physics truly models reality -- but only approximates it

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 18:19:37 2018 No.10082143 >>10082120 >You could therefore also go as far as to say that no mathematical representation in physics truly models reality -- but only approximates it Correct, a model can never be the real thing.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 18:35:30 2018 No.10082166 >>10080850 >OP implicitly giving consciousness transcendental qualities >says detractors believe in magic/religion

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 18:59:27 2018 No.10082193 >>10082166 This. I'm on team reductionism, and if you don't think you can reduce your consciousness down to physical properties that could theoretically be simulated, you believe in magic.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 19:02:44 2018 No.10082201 >>10081940 Maybe we can't with our brainlet classical logic gates today, but what about quantum gates that can don't have to run operations subsequently?

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 19:04:50 2018 No.10082206

>>10082193
>This. I'm on team reductionism
Your consciousness is on team reductionism? Who is "I"?
>if you don't think you can reduce your consciousness down to physical properties that could theoretically be simulated, you believe in magic.
Why do you have to reduce?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 19:08:48 2018 No.10082213 >>10082206 >who is "I"? My current assembly of physical matter >Why do you have to reduce? So that you can simulate it from it's parts? You have to build things from smaller things my dude. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 19:12:30 2018 No.10082224

>>10082213
>My current assembly of physical matter
You're creating a separation between "my" and "physical matter", what properties separate these "things"?
>So that you can simulate it from it's parts? You have to build things from smaller things my dude.
What "parts" does consciousness have?

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 19:17:27 2018 No.10082228

>>10082224
>you're creating a separation
OK, let me rephrase that. Consciousness is the result of the current state of physical matter in an entity. Saying "my" was just for rhetoric use.
>what parts does consciousness have
I can't claim to know. But I do think it makes sense to think you could figure out what those parts are, and then simulate them working together to create a valid consciousness.

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 19:35:16 2018 No.10082245

>>10082228
Physical matter is not all there is within the realm of physics, although I will assume you meant to include shit like light too. Also, at the most fundamental level, what exists is neither physical nor mental/ideal. It is just mathematical structures all the way down. The physical-mental divide exists just because we happen to be just a part of everything and, from being that particular part, other parts appear to us (us as in the aforementioned part) as objective or material.

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 19:44:25 2018 No.10082256

>>10082228
>Consciousness is the result of the current state of physical matter in an entity. Saying "my" was just for rhetoric use.
You're creating separation again. How can physical matter be 'in' an 'entity', when they are not different things?
>I can't claim to know.
Do you claim to know that 'consciousness' has 'parts'?
>But I do think it makes sense to think you could figure out what those parts are, and then simulate them working together to create a valid consciousness.
What is your definition of a 'valid consciousness'?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 19:50:57 2018 No.10082268 >>10081838 Rules do not exists at a particular place. They are not bound to space and time.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 19:56:28 2018 No.10082275 >>10082268 Are these "rules" physical?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 20:08:00 2018 No.10082294 Godel already completely BTFO any and all materialist physicalist philosophy. QM shat all over determinism. Anyone still clinging to these "philosophies" shouldn't be taken seriously.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 20:09:44 2018 No.10082301 >>10082294 Godel and non locality did what you say, but QM just shat all over one kind of determinism. Some form of stochastic "determinism" and superdeterminism are still valid possibilities.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 20:10:44 2018 No.10082306 >>10082301 >Some form of stochastic "determinism" and superdeterminism are still valid possibilities. Ok sure, true

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 20:12:07 2018 No.10082308

>>10082294
>Godel already completely BTFO any and all materialist physicalist philosophy.
No he didn't you don't even understand the theorem
>QM shat all over determinism.
No determinism is still real
>anyone who doesn't believe in schizophenic idealism shouldn't be taken seriously
wow sounds like cultist faggotry

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 20:14:13 2018 No.10082310

>>10082308
>No he didn't you don't even understand the theorem
I've worked through the proof of his incompleteness theorem. I'm not talking about incompleteness, I'm talking about the man's other arguments.
>No determinism is still real
No it isn't
>wow sounds like cultist faggotry
The only cultists are those who still cling to determinism

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 20:33:08 2018 No.10082335

>>10081513
>>10081517
Let your language be the language for set theory (i.e. second order logic). The number of sentences you can write in this language is at most countably infinite. A set that can be defined explicitly is one for which there exists a sentence in the language of set theory.

Ergo, if you want to encode an uncountable set like the real numbers then you must do so indirectly. That is you must define a set containing elements that you can't define explicitly. This is analogous to how the axiom of choice may tell you that a certain choice function exist even though it's impossible to write an explicit function.

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 22:29:26 2018 No.10082538
File: 4 KB, 512x512, 1455015490842.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10082120
>no mathematical representation in physics truly models reality -- but only approximates it
any physicist worth his weight in salt knows that. only naive freshman-year physlets think otherwise

that being said, if you assume subatomic particles don't have minds because they follow mathematical rules, but people made up of atoms do have minds, then the inescapable conclusion is that arrangements of unthinking matter somehow can produce consciousness. Since we can model matter very precisely using math, it stands to reason a computer program in execution can somehow be conscious under certain circumstances, as absurd as that sounds.

Of course, we too are physical systems that can be described by unthinking equations. Perhaps consciousness is only a really good illusion of the 'universe experiencing itself', for lack of better words and scientific thought.

What fascinates me about the mind is that it is continuously changing, yet we maintain a sense of self that persists throughout our lives. How is a mind connected from moment to moment?

Some simple questions are: given a certain arrangement of matter that has a mind at some point in the spacetime, if that arrangement was recreated somewhere else in spacetime, would the minds be 'connected' like how are minds are connected from moment to moment?

Similarly, if you had a universe that consisted of two people with perfect mirror symmetry to start with, would their be two minds, or only one? If only one, would quantum effects break the symmetry eventually and give rise to two minds?

These questions are getting at 'what separates two minds'? Spacetime coordinates? A follow up is 'Is my mind the same as it was a moment ago?' (probably not, but clearly there is a connection since you maintain a sense of self, and don't find yourself waking up as someone else every morning).

Speaking of which, sleep is interesting because we suppress our mind temporarily every time we sleep.

Lots of questions...

Anonymous Fri Oct 19 22:37:25 2018 No.10082549

>>10082538
>it stands to reason a computer program in execution can somehow be conscious under certain circumstances, as absurd as that sounds.
No it would stand to reason that the computer [would] be conscious. But it would be trapped in its shell unable to make any free choices.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 22:38:24 2018 No.10082552 >>10080887 It's just a different way to organize program code. It still boils down to imperative statements in the end

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 22:38:55 2018 No.10082554 >>10082549 >free choice a useless concept, as it can never be tested

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 22:41:01 2018 No.10082558 >>10080850 Why is that so hard to believe? It's just when a computer gets smart enough to get smarter. We can do it right now any time but our computers aren't powerful enough yet to get smart enough fast enough to be impressive.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 19 22:47:50 2018 No.10082574 >>10082549 >mentions free choice talking about science you're retarded mate, go study business or some shit

Anonymous Sat Oct 20 03:26:50 2018 No.10082824

>>10081866
being able to count the number of neurons in someone's brain is not a proof of anything. it's not any less retarded than measuring a human head's physical size and calling that a proof of the human mind's finitude. you're just measuring and counting some one-dimensional values in the human body, that are in the end arbitrary because you don't understand the thing as a whole.

Anonymous Sat Oct 20 03:44:14 2018 No.10082840

>>10082256
>you're creating separation again
I'm starting to suspect you're trolling, I think you can understand what I'm getting at without paying attention the exact syntax of my words
>do you claim to know consciousness has parts
Here let me pull something it seems you would say: technically, I can't claim to "know" anything
>what is your definition of a "valid consciousness"
What are you trying to argue? I'm stating things I'm thinking, but it seems you're more interested in questioning my narrative than having an opinion of your own. Why do you care about separation and it's implications?
My claim, is that you could theoretically understand what makes a consciousness, and simulate it.
Now, what do I think a valid consciousness is? Let's put it your way: whatever people all agree it is.

Take a tip from this guy >>10082245 he understands that I'm brainlet and didn't think through saying "physical matter" and successfully inferred what I meant to get at

Anonymous Sat Oct 20 05:16:59 2018 No.10082917

>>10082060
What an elaborate way of showing off your ignorance on this issue. Modern science does not know exactly how consciousness arises in the brain and what regions correspond to it. Pretending the hard problem doesn’t exist doesn’t make it go away retard.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 20 05:18:57 2018 No.10082920 >>10082060 Go fuck yourself retard.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 20 05:21:35 2018 No.10082922 >>10080850 Either magic exists, or consciousness is something that can be achieved by a deterministic machine. These are your only two choices.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 20 05:23:21 2018 No.10082923 >>10082060 Such a /sci/-tier response it’s incredible some of you remember to breathe.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 20 05:31:16 2018 No.10082927 >>10080968 >humans and human consciousness = infinitely complex, beyond human comprehension Humans exist in finite space and time with finite amount of energy. Believing that they're infinitely complex means you're a religious nut.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 20 05:35:33 2018 No.10082932 anyone who doesn't take consciousness seriously based on specious materialist dogma peddled as scientific rationalism is a danger to humanity

Anonymous Sat Oct 20 06:06:57 2018 No.10082971

>>10082922
either there exists a fundamental difference between humans and machines that hasn't been bridged, but you choose to believe it eventually will (you believe today's "magic" will be tomorrow's science), OR there is no fundamental difference and then you have to explain how literally everything isn't just deterministic operations under physics and a fallen autumn leaf being blown to places by the wind wouldn't be just as "intelligent" as a human or the most advanced AI, by drawing the line somewhere else. is there a line and where is it?

>>10082927
>finite space and time with finite amount of energy

for an isolated system. you have no proof the universe is like that.

it doesn't matter anyway, you have to concede the things we're talking about are objectively beyond our current comprehension. you pray and believe they someday will be understood fully.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 20 06:11:13 2018 No.10082975 >>10080919 >everything in the universe is computable Will this program halt?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 20 06:22:39 2018 No.10082984 >>10081824 So you're saying rules are inherent to how the universe works, not just constructed upon the actual universe because we like rules so much?

Anonymous Sat Oct 20 12:03:31 2018 No.10083402

>>10082275
Dunno. What does make rules physical.
They would govern the way physical word works.

>>10082984
As long as they can predict same things, their origin does not matter. All you need is to learn them. If you know how to simulate world as we know it, you can produce consciousness.

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 20 13:24:27 2018 No.10083566 >>10082558 But computer isn't smart to begin with

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 20 13:28:58 2018 No.10083574 >>10082922 Third choice: we don't fucking know yet. Or are you telling me QM wouldn't be considered absolute arcane magic if you presented it to people in the 16th century?

>>	Anonymous Sat Oct 20 20:16:03 2018 No.10084353 File: 1.92 MB, 228x261, 1341704259057.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >there exists some combination of pixels that makes a perfect image of me fucking your mom

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math