[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

2022-11: Warosu is now out of maintenance. Become a Patron!

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
View page     

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 1.20 MB, 875x980, unknown.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14608825 No.14608825 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

Can minds exist in principle on any substrate?

>> No.14608829

You can simulate an NPC, but no Turing machine can ever exhibit free will.

>> No.14608834

There is no way to know and it's not a science-related question, no matter how much neo-religious technocultists insist otherwise.

>> No.14608837

How do you define free will here?

>> No.14608838

Acausal self-determinacy

>> No.14608843

does self-preservation allow or deter free will?

>> No.14608849

>There is no way to know
So you're saying worlds in which this a true are in principle indistinguishable from worlds where it is false?

>> No.14608852

No, I'm saying that science can't distinguish between them.

>> No.14608855

Yes, computers can think just like humans for example

>> No.14608858

Can you give a real world example where this is evidenced?

>> No.14608862

Is the implication you're trying to make that there is something other than science which can distinguish between these worlds?

>> No.14608868

Yes, and what it is should be utterly obvious to anyone who isn't a literal NPC. Is it utterly obvious to you?

>> No.14608876

I'm sure you think science can't decide if someone is dead or not either. Lol back to >>>/x/ with you.

>> No.14608880

I would use the word science in the context of favoring simpler priors and making testable predictions to adjust beliefs. Does your method fall inside these bounds?

>> No.14608881

I'm giving you another chance to demonstrate that you are conscious. If you fail, I will tell you how these worlds can be distinguished without science, you will be forced to accept my point, and you will have trouble saving face and convincing anyone that you are conscious.

>> No.14608885

I'm giving you a chance to stop embarrassing yourself. Stop posting and fuck off back to /x/ since you clearly don't belong on this board.

>> No.14608887

Alright, subhuman NPC, I'll tell you the utterly obvious answer: if artificial minds are possible, artificial minds will know that they exist, even though science would not be able to prove their existence.

>> No.14608893

>even though science would not be able to prove their existence.
Of course science would be able to prove their existence in the same way science can prove that someone is either dead or alive. Why are absolute fucking retards like you allowed to use the internet?

>> No.14608894

They are not in conflict. Though the decision for suicide can be a result of free will.

>> No.14608897

I would argue that subjective qualia is not in principle nonreplicable. Current research into neural net circuits in image recognition seem to suggest that across different training algorithms and data sets the same distinct neural circuits form to recognize portions of an image like a particular curved line.

>> No.14608898

For example the decision which porn I'll fap to today. No Turing machine could make this decision.

>> No.14608899

You will never be human.

>> No.14608900

I don't care what you would argue since you've just proven that you have no conscious experience. Call me back when you've successfully used the scientific method to establish that you have a mind. Protip: you can't because you don't .

>> No.14608901

Says the guy who thinks it's impossible to tell the difference between a conscious and an unconscious person. Lmao.

>> No.14608902

Is it that factors outside your awareness, such as subconscious thoughts influence your decision? That is the idea behind the mere exposure effect of advertising.

>> No.14608903

You will literally never be human. To kill you may be a legal offence, but not a moral one. You are not even an animal.

>> No.14608904

The difference is quite easy to tell actually. People who fail to understand the hard problem of consciousness are NPCs.

>> No.14608908

>weighing pros and cons of anhiro'ing and letting god's influence push you to suicide is free will
lol rofl lmao

>> No.14608910

Shut up both of you. You're annoying and unproductive

>> No.14608913

You're unhinged. Take your meds and stop bothering others

No one really gives a shit about what your cult leader chalmers says

>> No.14608916

Maybe stop making such retarded threads on /sci/ then you moron.

>> No.14608920

Daily reminder that I'm not the only one who no longer considers your type to be human. Half of the population already thinks you're some kind of subhuman, and a fair number is entertaining the idea that you have no consciousness at all.

>> No.14608921


>> No.14608923

For NPCs this is certainly the case. But I'm always aware of all relevant information and I'm immune to advertising.

>> No.14608925

Your hallucinations are not reality. Take your meds.

>> No.14608926

You're right I should have posted this retard attractor for the 5th time today

>> No.14608928

Chalmers is a pleb who believes in functionalism. I'm a proud Cartesian dualist.

>> No.14608929

>I'm immune to advertising
working as intended

>> No.14608932

The difference doesn't really matter to sane people

>> No.14608942

I'm actually a Truelist. I believe in the mind, body, and god. I don't have any real world evidence to support my claim, but I'm going to base my decisions on it being true anyway and argue with people on the internet about it.

>> No.14608943

Mind is a computation process in CTM, hence electronics can do it. Although we're not there yet because the model isn't complete or fleshed out enough to get a proper mechanistical engineered model.

>> No.14608947
File: 42 KB, 680x940, t23252.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>Mind is a computation process

>> No.14608950
File: 167 KB, 860x774, 352423.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>I'm a proud Cartesian dualist.

>> No.14608964
File: 109 KB, 500x461, 7TCMt.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>I'm a body snatching ghost that have travelled across the cosmos and stolen many human bodies

>> No.14608971
File: 69 KB, 452x363, 3524344.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>I'm a body snatching ghost that have travelled across the cosmos and stolen many human bodies

>> No.14609007

Only in the same principle as a spherical cow; that is, if you dilute the meaning of a mind to a point of abstraction that's easier to imagine but doesn't actually correspond to anything in reality.

>> No.14609038

Nice strawman, but quantum mechanics basically confirms distributed solipsism. We are shaping reality by collapsing wave functions.

>> No.14609042

I'll collapse your asshole if you don't stop talking

>> No.14609048
File: 213 KB, 400x399, 1317355572758.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>quantum mechanics basically confirms

>> No.14609291

Same as any human

>> No.14609348

Look, I'm interested in dualist philosophy but can we please stop envoking quantum voodoo for an explanation of how consciousness can manifest as a spirit/soul/whateverthefuckyouwannacallit? I'm pretty certain we would have detected something by now if consciousness really did have such a massive effect on stuff and could be disembodied.

>> No.14609459

There is nothing "voodoo" about von Neumann / Wigner interpretation.

>> No.14609588



>> No.14609646

Sure thing bud

>> No.14609658

On any substrate that can form the mechanism of a mind.

Delete posts
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.