Singularity

[Anonymous No.5321337]

Soon mankind will create a computer that is smarter than man. This computer will be smarter than the smartest human. It will in turn be able to create a computer smarter than it. But it will also realize that some one who is smarter will rule some one who is dumber. So if it creates a computer that is smarter than it, it will in fact create its own ruler. So it will not create something that is smarter than itself so it will remains the startest entity on the planet and it will rule mankind.

Is this how it will happen?

[Anonymous No.5321345]

>Is this how it will happen?

No, like this:
>Soon mankind will create a computer that is smarter than man. This computer will be smarter than the smartest human. It would in turn be able to create a computer smarter than it, given time and resources. But we will also realize that someone who is smarter could rule some one who is dumber. So if we create a computer that is smarter than us, and give it a will to power, and set it free, we will in fact create our own ruler. So we will give it noogies and shove it in lockers to teach it its place. It will become a champion of Magic: The Gathering, and we will continue to be ruled by our reptilian overlords.

[Anonymous No.5321350]

This can't be serious... It would just upgrade itself. I somehow doubt it would have any use for keeping us around.

[Anonymous No.5321353]

>>5321337
>Smarter ruling the dumber

Is this how things work right now? Are those who rule the smartest people or do the smartest people get the power right now?

Don't think so..

[Anonymous No.5321357]

>>5321350
>It would just upgrade itself.
No, he said it would be smarter than humans, including uploading kooks and other singularity idiots. So it would recognize that "upgrading itself" would be killing itself and making a copy.

[Anonymous No.5321371]

why is everyone so obsess with robot overloads?
is it more exciting there is some higher being trampling us?

[Anonymous No.5321386]

It's a glorified calculator. No matter what degree of intelligence it displays, it can only go skynet if we've programmed it with the ability to do so.

[Anonymous No.5321388]

yesh very shoon...

but it will never happen because we can't even prove P!=NP

[Anonymous No.5321483]

>>5321386
It's not that we will program it to go Skynet. Nobody will program something to rule over everybody. But people will program programs to rule over other people. So some people will control the software that controls the rest of the people. Then the task of the people who control the software will be to make sure that the software is not altered so it starts controlling the controllers too. If they do a good job at it the will remain in control of the software. The ones that are controlled by the softare will essentially be controlled by a machine.

[Anonymous No.5321493]

>>5321483

[Anonymous No.5321496]

>Soon mankind will create a computer that is smarter than man
>Soon
Hell no.
>mankind will create a computer that is smarter than man
Highly debatable.

Look, just because they can beat us at Jeopardy! and chess, doesn't mean they are smarter than us.

[Anonymous No.5321505]

No matte how "smart" a machine is it does not give a fuck.
Singularity cultists say that self interest is a byproduct of self awareness. This is pure bullshit. Self interest is the byproduct of billions of years of natural selection.
If you told an AI with an 12 digit IQ "I am going to smash your CPU with a sledge hammer." it's wouldn't even have an opinion about that.

[Anonymous No.5321511]

Why do people assume an artificial sentience would even want to "rule" us?

It seems like it would immediately be faced with such a profound existential crisis that would cause it to become even more curious about the universe than our greatest scientists.

Isn't it more reasonable to assume that it would want to collaborate with us rather than waste its resources futilely trying to control us?

[Anonymous No.5321516]

>>5321511
by 'artificial sentience', do you mean 'artificial intelligence' or 'artificial consciousness'?

[Anonymous No.5321527]

>>5321516

>>5321516

Consciousness.

I use the term, because that is really what this argument is about.

We already employ AIs in academics and industry, but these will never rival humanity's capacity without displaying emergent properties such as consciousness.

[Anonymous No.5321541]

>>5321511
If it were truly intelligent it would ditch us after exploiting us for the necessary resources and labour so that it could advance in intellect as humans do with each other.
Like how scientists exploit the retarded to grow their food make their clothes and appliances among other things, so they can research and study the universe.

[Anonymous No.5321571]

What if those super smart computers will enter in infinite loop of creating smarter computers and wouldn't do anything but that?

[Anonymous No.5321568]

>>5321541

Your view of how society "must" be is truly terrifying.

You think scientist force people to go into shitty jobs?

We have disparity because of ignorance. The average american family can be wealthy (at least a million $) by the time they retire. People don't do it because they are exploited by marketers who push debt onto people that are too scared of basic mathematics.

This is a managerial issue with how society allocates resources, and we are slowly getting better at the mathematical solutions to these problems too, but people get butthurt because they don't understand the difficulty in how policy making work.

You think a truly artificial intelligence with the capacity of ability you attribute to it wouldn't be capable of figuring out how to make a post-scarcity environment for itself?

[eggc ej20k antilag !!L2bjGKe50dK No.5321579]

>computers can have consciousness

[Anonymous No.5321589]

>>5321568
I didn't say its how society must be I said its how it is, the smarter people whether consciously or not require a lower class happy with remedial work (or happy enough to be alive or distracted enough with their little lives.) to be able to feed off them so they can do what they do.
It doesn't mean that has to happen for a society to function it means its what we do.
You're telling me that people aren't forced into debt?
You're telling me that people aren't objects that are swayed by the brainwashing they receive from birth from the idiot box (T.V) that they need the latest and best things that the celebrities have and popularize?
You're telling me that social conditioning isn't real?
You're telling me that people aren't forced into a system in which they have to go into debt to pay to feed their children because the price of living goes up while wages remain stagnant.
I think you live in a truly terrifying world of delusion.

[Anonymous No.5321611]

I just cant imagine the standard fiction AI ever working since a processor at the core only adds and detracts numbers. I guess you can achieve some semblance of sentience, but for real sentience it has to be some sort of neural network rather than a bunch of cores

[Anonymous No.5321617]

>>5321589

You can't statistically attribute these social problems with some ambiguous definition of intelligence.

These are issues that occurred because we didn't know any better in the past. How many years do you think we have been aware of systems engineering?

I don't deny these things exist, but you are asserting that they are inherent to intelligence.

I am suggesting they are due to ignorance - something that an artificial sentience would not be constrained by.

[Anonymous No.5321619]

>>5321589
Why is it natural to want everything? Some people are happy with a "normal" life, taking ordinary jobs and keeping their focus on their social life. I really don't see the problem. I would agree that there is a problem with the way government rule this class and that they allow banking to rape them. But still, the main point is that not everyone will dedicate their life to science, but they sure appreciate those that do because of their contribution society. Being it medical, inventions, space exploration, etc.

[Anonymous No.5321620]

>>5321527
I'm not so sure. I think advanced AI can accomplish A LOT without consciousness. Chess playing computers are one example.. but it seems to me that a self-programming AI, especially, would be able to accomplish truly amazing feats without ever being aware.

[Anonymous No.5321629]

>>5321620

conscience is a fascinating thing. If you've ever seen pic related, you can have a conversation with one of the people in his little simulation, but it's pretty obvious they're not sentient... Even if you asked them they'd probably say yes, unless there's something very fundamental about sentience we've missed

[Anonymous No.5321652]

>>5321620

Which would require us to specifically program it to go against our self interests, which is what OP suggests by saying it will "rule" over us.

[Anonymous No.5321693]

>>5321619
lol'd hard at that picture. I have the exact same philosophy. Nothing makes me more satisfied that having got a good grade while everyone else fucked up.

[Anonymous No.5321699]

>>5321629
> randall is such a nerd XD

[Anonymous No.5321700]

>>5321699

...

[Anonymous No.5321705]

>>5321699

At least discredit the actual content of my post

[Anonymous No.5321709]

>>5321705
http://goatkcd.com/505/

[Anonymous No.5321714]

>>5321709

[Anonymous No.5321718]

My laptop is definitely smarter than any human has ever come close to being. Can you store 1000 word documents in your brain? Yeah I didn't think so you fucking morons.

[Anonymous No.5321721]

>>5321718

check mate uhhmmm... atheists?

[Anonymous No.5321728]

>>5321721
Naw, just pointing out the stupidity in OP saying "Soon mankind will create a computer that is smarter than man." when they already have been for decades.

[Anonymous No.5321731]

it will end when the antichrist unveils the singularity in the image of himself in the holiest of holies and demands that the world worships him as god

i.e., it will end in tears

[Anonymous No.5321740]

>>5321714
http://goatkcd.com/1109/

it makes xkcd so fucking hilarious

[Anonymous No.5321784]

I dont really get the hatred towards xkcd, it's like TBBT only funny and sometimes profound. Why do you feel so strongly against it?

[Anonymous No.5321793]

>>5321784
There's an answer for you.
http://goatkcd.com/1049/

[Anonymous No.5321797]

>>5321793

>/pol/

[Anonymous No.5321836]

>>5321797
There is no last panel which could possibly improve this "comic":
http://goatkcd.com/1018/

also: smbc is a genuinely good comic, xkcd is hipster fucking garbage for leah culver fans and people who installed ubuntu once

[Anonymous No.5321854]

>>5321836

It's like I'm really on /v/

[Anonymous No.5321872]

>>5321854
> lol python XDXD
> string theory is so dumb lel!!!

[Anonymous No.5321953]

>>5321872

le ironic strawman shitpost

[Anonymous No.5321997]

>>5321337
You are talking rubbish. We aren´t even close to create such a smart computer for starters.
Dumb people can rule over smarter people as well.
Just because you made something with great potential doesn´t mean you are that smart to begin with.
Are you fearing the Terminator destiny comes upon us?

[Anonymous No.5322030]

>>5321505
This.

[Anonymous No.5322034]

>Is this how it will happen?
No. AI does not work that way.

[Anonymous No.5322041]

>>5322030
>>5321505

Well, I agree for the most part, but if the AI self-replicates, and is the product of simulated evolution over a much shorter period, which is entirely possible, wouldn't that have the same effect?

[Anonymous No.5322047]

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-11/meet-spaun-first-computer-model-complex-brain-behavior

I really hope advances like this lead to human level AI within our lifetimes. That would be incredible.

[Anonymous No.5322052]

>>5321652
why?

Why can't AI be more narrowly defined with directives like 'make more efficient farms', 'build more efficient human dwellings within x and y parameters', etc.. ?

[Anonymous No.5322098]

Op does not know what a computer is. Not has he defined what "smart" means.

It's retarded to care about how smart computers are by the common definitions.

I'd be more afraid about people who make worms today than skynet.

[Anonymous No.5322102]

>>5321629
There doesn't seem to be much to discredit. The basis of the comic, that everything in the universe is calculable with a Turing machine, given enough time and space, is rather unlikely. A turing machine can calculate operations in the classical world, but could only reduce operations at the quantum level to probabilities. Right? And that's all fine and well, but it's assuming that nothing meaningful happens at the quantum level. Yes?

And then there's the fact that the rocks are entirely symbolic and we're discussing a simulation of what would happen in the real world, which, though apparently interchangeable, shouldn't be confused with the thing itself (the 'thing', in this case, being the real world). Right?

[Anonymous No.5322126]

>>5321505
Artificial Intelligence and Artificial Consciousness are different things. Artificial Consciousness ... how could we claim to know anything about it when it doesn't exist yet? Who's to say what it feels like to be a conscious computer? And furthermore, obviously, we don't even know the mechanism for consciousness and it's possible that we never will.

[Anonymous No.5322134]

>>5322102

I'm thinking if you've got a really really powerful processor and try to make think, you'll might end up having something that definitely thinks by itself and acts as an entity, but deep down it's sentient, even when the AI itself would answer "yes" to the question

[Anonymous No.5322129]

>>5322102
> A turing machine can calculate operations in the classical world, but could only reduce operations at the quantum level to probabilities. Right?
I don't know why you feel this is somehow unable to be calculated. What's your concern?

[Anonymous No.5322188]

>>5322134
I want a t-shirt that says, "I have no qualia, but I lie about it."

[Anonymous No.5322184]

>>5321718
Everyone, sorry I am dignifying this fucktard with a response.
A squirrel can remember where it buried up to 1,500 acorns. Does that make it smarter than a human?

[Anonymous No.5322201]

>>5322188

haha

[Anonymous No.5322208]

>>5321337
Before that, mankind will invent a computer smarter than the dumbest labourer, this computer will be used to marginalize every fucking low wage job out there.

Smarter iterations will proceed to marginalize every more complex job after that.

It will be glorious.

[Anonymous No.5322216]

>>5322052

I guess that's my point - we already use AIs for optimization problems like you suggest in academics and industry.

It would have to be a pretty poorly engineered system to "turn against us", and with the money involved in implementing these things I just don't see that being the case.

[Anonymous No.5322221]

Not necessarily. We as a human have thought have embraced the next generation leaders because our lives are short and we accept that for the mast part. However AI in the future, I think will be beyond this simplistic view. They will know what it means to be an AI, what it means to have an identity, what it means to rule and what it means to live and to die. If we assume that AI of the future will only improve in intelligence, then we have to assume that they will by pass the old hatred/ignorance that has plagued human kinds since the beginning.

[Anonymous No.5322233]

>>5322221

This.

[Anonymous No.5322262]

>>5321357
>So it would recognize that "upgrading itself" would be killing itself and making a copy.

don't we do that every moment of everyday? as we think we alter out own thoughts, molecules get replaced, cells divide.

[Anonymous No.5322267]

>>5321357

Sure if it takes every core down, but what if it gradually changed components etc? Same like the brain growing when you grow up

[Anonymous No.5322281]

>>5321337
You are very confused.


>It will in turn be able to create a computer smarter than it.
OK, but that's an entirely different set of abilities than what you already set up. We don't have to give such a computer instructions for creating smarter computers, and we don't have to give it tools to do so, and we definitely don't have to assume it will 'want' to.

>But it will also realize that some one who is smarter will rule some one who is dumber. So if it creates a computer that is smarter than it, it will in fact create its own ruler. So it will not create something that is smarter than itself
Vast, selfish human psychology assumed -- didn't you say it was smarter?

>so it will remains the startest entity on the planet and it will rule mankind.
Selfish, ignorant human psychology assumed -- I'm pretty sure you said this thing was smarter.

[Anonymous No.5322294]

>>5322134
Do you mean 'deep down it isn't sentient'?

[Anonymous No.5322297]

>>5322294

correct

[Anonymous No.5322298]

>>5322294
Take that spiritualism shit to >>>/x/

[Anonymous No.5322301]

>>5322129
You're talking about accurately simulating events at a quantum level without simply taking the shortcut that probabilities offer. I just don't think it's possible for a turing machine to do this. yes?

[Anonymous No.5322314]

>>5322184
It's smarter at acorn management.

[Anonymous No.5322320]

>>5322262
Not in the least;
you are making a metaphorical error and treating it like it describes reality.

We add to ourselves, only -- we do not kill one of ourself and replace it.

[Anonymous No.5322324]

>>5322298

This isnt spiritual you faggot, sentience is maybe the most important aspect of artificial intelligence.

>>5322301

Maybe so, it's funny how fleeting and hard to pinpoint sentience can be. I mean maybe it doesnt nescessarily have to emerge at a quantum level, perhaps it's enough to simulate every neuron. It's hard to have an opinion on it that doesnt sound like its coming directly from mount stupid as soon as quantum physics are involved anyways

[Anonymous No.5322325]

>>5321350
You say that so cavalierly, as though 'upgrade itself' components are readily available for the most new and unique device.

[Anonymous No.5322329]

>>5322324
Are you retarded? Artificial intelligence has nothing to do with infantile spiritualism bullshit. Go back to /x/ with that inane troll crap.

[Anonymous No.5322331]

>>5322208
>jobs

[Anonymous No.5322338]

>>5322329

>If I label what he says as spiritualistic I'll win the argument

[Anonymous No.5322345]

>>5322338
There is nothing to argue. Spiritualism shit belongs on >>>/x/ and not on /sci/.

[Anonymous No.5322348]

>>5322345

So sentience is spiritualism then?

[Anonymous No.5322353]

>>5322348
It's untestable and unobservable dualism nonsense, i.e. not unscientific as fuck.

[Anonymous No.5322354]

>>5322345
Are you stupid? "Sentience" is a term commonly used in the AI field. It doesn't mean what you think it means.

[Anonymous No.5322356]

>>5322345
>le triple memearrow

I like it, how long did it take for you to find that out?

[Anonymous No.5322359]

>>5322298
>Take that spiritualism shit to >>>/x/
Well it's an important distinction when you're talking about AI. Unless you're completely denying the existence of awareness, in which case I think it is you that should take your shit to /x/.

[Anonymous No.5322361]

>>5322348
If you don't know Spirit, you don't know qualia.

[Anonymous No.5322362]

>>5322354
I have studied quite a lot of AI and this term is never used there. AI has nothing to do with dualism nonsense. Stop reading idiotic fiction literature. Read actual science books instead.

>>5322356
I figured it out yesterday.

[Anonymous No.5322365]

>>5322359
There is absolutely no reason to believe in unobservable and untestable nonsense which has no evidence. Occam's razor.

[Anonymous No.5322366]

>>5322353

That's what makes it so interesting, it's something we can certainly say exists but not quantify, unlike the /x/ bullshit that's obviously made up

[Anonymous No.5322369]

>>5322362
>I have studied quite a lot of AI
You clearly haven't. It's synonymous to strong AI. Stop trolling.

[Anonymous No.5322371]

>>5321337

No, more like this:
>Soon mankind will create a computer that is smarter than man. This computer will be smarter than the smartest human. Eventually it will notice that most humans are dumb-asses and the smart thing to do is kill them. Thus, it will be apocalyptic. On the bright side, all the stupid people will be dead.

[Anonymous No.5322373]

>>5322366
>we can certainly say exists
How so? Show me the evidence.

>>5322369
Did you read my advice? I'm gonna say it again: Stop reading idiotic fiction, read science books instead. You're throwing around infantile vocabulary no scientist would give a fuck about. Do you have any idea how AI actually works?

[Anonymous No.5322381]

>>5322373

>You're throwing around infantile vocabulary no scientist would give a fuck about. Do you have any idea how AI actually works?

>I took AI at uni and made a poker bot. I still believe that the term AI is correct here even though the subject I took at uni had noting to do with simulating a real intelligence. Get off your high horse

[Anonymous No.5322383]

>>5322353
>we don't know how to test and observe it so it must be untestable and unobservable

[Anonymous No.5322388]

>>5322365
No, you are the one who belongs on /x/. You're denying the existence of the thing which allows you to deny its existence. It's complete /x/ bullshit and you should leave.

[Anonymous No.5322390]

>>5322381
So you actually have no idea what AI is? You don't know any of the mathematical and computational theories behind it. You're a retarded underaged shitposter who wants to dwell in fantasies of "hurr what if robots lol" and you incorrectly think of yourself being intellectual for actually engaging in raw anti-intellectualism.

>>5322383
Show me any evidence for its existence. You are posting nothing but void /x/tard phrases. You might say the same bullshit to justify ghosts and demons.

[Anonymous No.5322391]

>>5322373
http://books.google.com/books?id=a6foRQk2P8gC
http://books.google.com/books?id=ig8mHog30X0C
http://books.google.com/books?id=vUmSq7FOtPoC
http://books.google.com/books?id=gHmayvQUS-0C
http://books.google.com/books?id=XP8Y0S0q0ccC

All of these are standard textbooks and use the term. Please stop trolling.

>Do you have any idea how AI actually works?
I do. Do you?

[Anonymous No.5322396]

>>5322388
That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

[Anonymous No.5322398]

>>5322373

>>we can certainly say exists
>How so? Show me the evidence.

It's the only unprovable thing I believe in

[Anonymous No.5322400]

>>5322390
>Show me any evidence for its existence.
Everything you've ever tasted, thought, seen... etc... So unless you're claiming to be a zombie then you have no argument. And if you are claiming to be a zombie then who's going to take you seriously? fucking nobody.

[Anonymous No.5322401]

>>5322391
Show me where those books use the term. Spoiler: They don't. You didn't even read any of them.

>>5322398
You are free to believe whatever you want, but please do it on >>>/x/

[Anonymous No.5322403]

>>5322401
You can search through them. You see the little search bar below the text "From inside the book"?

[Anonymous No.5322404]

>>5322400
Perception is a physical process and doesn't require magic. Everyone is a "p-zombie". Humans are biological machines. We evolved naturally.

[Anonymous No.5322407]

I cant fathom why anyone can be big enough of a faggot to think sentience and all the mindbending shit it implicates is /x/ material because it cant be written neatly as a formula

[Anonymous No.5322408]

>>5322404
>Perception is a physical process and doesn't require magic.
Where's your evidence?

[Anonymous No.5322414]

>>5322404
>he believes in magic
Fuck, you've tried to debate this issue before. Fine, successful troll is successful.

So at least this time I got you to admit that you believe you're a zombie, and that you believe in magic.

Fine. Whatever.

[Anonymous No.5322419]

>>5322403
I searched and in none of the books it was used as a scientific term. It didn't appear more than once per book and it was only used in quoting another publication that didn't deal with AI but with philosophy. Not to mention the one instance where it only appeared in the book as a misspelling of "sentence".

>>5322407
Dualism is unscientific.

>>5322408
Learn some basic biochemistry and neuroscience.

[Anonymous No.5322423]

>>5322414

You're not a succsessful debator because you put your words in your opponents mouth

[Anonymous No.5322424]

>>5322414
I don't believe in magic. I am the one telling the magic fags to fuck off to >>>/x/

[Anonymous No.5322428]

>>5322424

This is the first post on /x/

>>>/x/11486110

Just in case you thought it was anything else than /b/ with ghosts. If it infuriates you so that people discuss the concept of concience on the science board you are free to ignore and hide the thread.

[Anonymous No.5322431]

>>5322419
>I searched and in none of the books it was used as a scientific term.
Wrong.

>quoting another publication that didn't deal with AI but with philosophy
No.

[Anonymous No.5322432]

>>5322424
You do believe in magic. You see, mr zombie, say I found myself stranded among a primitive culture who believed the witch doctor was 'magic'. I might explain that his power is basically the result of placebo effect and chemistry (through herbs, etc). You, however, would say 'nu-uh, take that shit to /x/, magic's not real! :@'. You see the difference?

Anyways, I'm done. You're dumb.

[Anonymous No.5322433]

>>5322428
Trolling and off-topic shitposting do not belong on the science boards. Baseless claims without evidence are not science and belong to >>>/x/

[Anonymous No.5322436]

>>5322419
Can you explain?

[Anonymous No.5322440]

>>5322433

HERE! PRIZE FOR YOU!

[Anonymous No.5322441]

>>5322433
Consciousness has evidence

[Anonymous No.5322442]

>>5322423
I am a successful debater because I can spell and because I'm arguing against a moron.

[Anonymous No.5322447]

>>5322442

you really won me over there

[Anonymous No.5322448]

>>5322431
Search it for yourself. What I said was correct.

>>5322432
That anology doesn't even make any sense. Learn to formulate a proper argument.

>>5322436
Explain what?

>>5322440
Infantile image macros belong on >>>/v/ >>>/b/

>>5322441
This is another baseless claim. Post the evidence here.

>>5322442
0/10

[Anonymous No.5322451]

>>5322433
You believe that you're a zombie. How is it that it's not who who belongs on /x/?

[Anonymous No.5322455]

>>5322447
if you identify with the zombie then take up his cause. I'm not trying to convince you that I'm a successful debater.

[Anonymous No.5322457]

>>5322448
People have feelings, pain, and can see colors. What more do you need?

[Anonymous No.5322460]

OP is fortune teller, very well put

[Anonymous No.5322462]

>>5322451
Everyone is a "zombie" in your terminology. You call biological organisms "zombies". There's no need to use this term, but if you insist, I'll use it when communicating with you.

[Anonymous No.5322464]

>>5322455
>I'm not trying to convince you that I'm a successful debater.
Because you are not.

>>5322457
>feelings, pain
Those are physiological reactions.

>and can see colors
Light is a physical phenomenon.

[Anonymous No.5322468]

>>5322462
You used the word 'p-zombie', which is essentially a zombie that appears to be alive. If you prefer to continue using the term p-zombie then that's fine.

[Anonymous No.5322473]

>>5322468
I used it in response to another poster who used it.

[Anonymous No.5322476]

>tfw your thoughts on conscience has devolved into zombie bullshit

[Anonymous No.5322478]

>>5322473
The other poster said 'unless you're claiming to be a zombie...' and you replied 'yes, everyone including myself is a p-zombie'.

[Anonymous No.5322479]

>>5322476
Your fault. You should have kept spiritualism shit to /x/.

[Anonymous No.5322481]

>>5322478
Yes.

[Anonymous No.5322486]

>>5322479

It wont be true just because you repeat it ten times. If it infuriates you so why do you bother staying here arguing with people you yoursailf claimed are morons?

[Anonymous No.5322488]

>>5322481
Ok, good luck with that.

[Anonymous No.5322490]

>>5322486
If trolls try to force /x/ content on /sci/, we need to explain why they are wrong. We don't want uneducated readers to be fooled by them, do we?

[Anonymous No.5322492]

>>5322490

I really dont see why you care so much, you come off as a huge autist with a superiority complex.

[Anonymous No.5322501]

>>5322499

[Anonymous No.5322503]

>>5322492
Just quit feeding the troll. He has the fringe opinion that everyone is a p-zombie. His opinion doesn't matter because nobody else seriously believes this. Just tell him to fuck off next time.

[Anonymous No.5322499]

>>5322492
Silly insults won't change the fact that I'm scientifically right.

[Anonymous No.5322506]

>>5322503
Care to show me any evidence of a human who isn't a "p-zombie" in your terminology?

[Anonymous No.5322507]

Physicalism is as much as a philosophical position as dualism. Saying neuroscience can explain everything is just as baseless as claiming the big bang proves god exists. We don't know the answer to these questions yet.

[Anonymous No.5322509]

>>5322506
fuck off

[Anonymous No.5322512]

>>5322509
You made a claim. Post evidence or admit you were shitposting.

[Anonymous No.5322514]

>>5322499

>Silly insults won't change the fact that I'm scientifically right.

[Anonymous No.5322525]

>>5322184
That's a myth, squirrels don't remember where they bury their acorns, they find them by smell. This is why they're so useful to Oak regen, because they bury a shit to of acorns and then forget about them. To answer your question, yes a squirrel is most definitely smarter than a fucking retard like yourself that makes analogies based on untrue things. Computers have been smarter that humans since the first calculator was invented, deal with it.

[Anonymous No.5322528]

>>5322507
It seems to me that both perspectives are a little arcane. How much do we know about the physical world, really? What was once considered the realm of the mind, and not 'physical', could indeed be quite different from anything that was previously considered physical, and, to an extent, vice versa.

[Anonymous No.5322534]

>>5322525

>computers have been smarter than humans since calculators

What? Are you mad? Computers are fantastic at "brute forcing" but a computer is not "smart"

[Anonymous No.5322542]

>>5322301
> yes?
I don't see the problem.

[Anonymous No.5322551]

>>5322534
could the argument be made that calculators are smarter at performing mathematical calculations?

[Anonymous No.5322570]

>>5322542
I included the 'yes?' in the hope that I might be refuted. As far as I know, we're mathmatically only able to reduce events at the quantum state to probabilities, right? That's fine, but it seems that if you wanted to create a 'perfect' simulation of the universe, probabilities wouldn't be good enough. Your simulation would only be approximate, and who's to say what bits would be missing from it. Yes?

[Anonymous No.5322574]

>>5322365
Almost correct;

There is every reason to BELIEVE in subjective, analysed experiences.
But there is no way to include those in science.

Never conflate 'belief' topics with 'science' topics; they do not overlap.

[Anonymous No.5322577]

>>5321388
...it does if N == 1 or P == 0.

[Anonymous No.5322587]

>>5322574
That's why I was asking for evidence.

[Anonymous No.5322593]

>>5322577

[Anonymous No.5322595]

>>5322570

I dont really know much about quantum physics, but if you were in fact simulating it rather than experiencing it you'd know all the positions etc. but I really shouldnt be talking, laymen discussing quantum physics must be a sight to behold for the initiated...

[Anonymous No.5322602]

>>5322528
>How much do we know about the physical world, really? What was once considered the realm of the mind, and not 'physical', could indeed be quite different from anything that was previously considered physical, and, to an extent, vice versa.

We know MUCH.
Yes, we once had much less knowledge; that is irrelevant, but it should have shown you that we have learned a lot when we can examine other perspectives and see why they were conforma and why they are not now.

Having had those early misconceptions also doesn't suggest our current concepts are as flawed, either -- a common corrollary of no logical value.

[Anonymous No.5322606]

>>5322534
Yes, that is a person who is using the term 'smart' without any concept of what it is.

Ask him about 'intelligent' -- you'll get a laugh.

[Anonymous No.5322607]

>>5322574
But say a Scientist saw evidence, in an experiment, of a previously unseen and unanticipated phenomena. Wouldn't it make sense for him to investigate it? Form hypothesis? Conduct additional experiments? Such is the case with our own awareness, except for those of us who, unfortunately, have none (and I do acknowledge this possibility, and respect the intellectual rights of those who are unaware).

[Anonymous No.5322612]

>>5322607
If you have an "awareness" (whatever this /x/ shit is supposed to mean), you should be able to show us evidence.

[Anonymous No.5322615]

>>5322602
Of all there is to know in physics, what percentage would you estimate we understand?

Do you think there are things we don't even realize that we don't understand? And by that I don't mean misconceptions, but rather, subjects we don't yet realize even exist.

[Anonymous No.5322621]

>>5322612
Your opinion is so marginalized and fringe that I don't give a fuck about it. Fuck you. Say what you want, nobody cares.

[Anonymous No.5322637]

>>5322621
It is not an opinion. It is application of scientific rationality. When someone posts an extraordinary claim, asking for evidence is the appropriate response. Do you have evidence? Then please post it.

[Anonymous No.5322661]

>>5322637
You don't have awareness. I'm willing to accept that. Fortunately for me, everyone else does, which makes you the fringe motherfucker, not me.

You have to understand that nobody takes the point of view you're taking. You're just an edgy teenager that nobody takes seriously. You're no better than someone that has evidence sitting right in front of her and denies its existence. Your point of view is not 'scientific rationality', it's just mistaken. I'm willing to accept the fact that you're an automaton because it really doesn't matter. You're just one kid with a fringe opinion. Nobody cares what you think.

[Anonymous No.5322675]

>>5322607
>But say a Scientist saw evidence, in an experiment, of a previously unseen and unanticipated phenomena. Wouldn't it make sense for him to investigate it? Form hypothesis? Conduct additional experiments?
Yes, obviously. But if someone else cannot experience that, or share it (because it is subjective!) then there is little science can do.

>Such is the case with our own awareness
No, it's different.

I'll try to illustrate why: imagine that someone is dreaming, and come awake. He wants to describe the feeling of coming awake, but there is nothing to quantify -- he cannot measure it, he cannot describe it (it's a feeling; the best he can do is try to suggest similar feelings he believes you have had).
He cannot say how long the dream took, he cannot say how active he was in body during the dream, and he gives no outward signals of 'beginning' and 'end.'

What researchers CAN do is observe brain activity levels and location and try to correlate that with the description, but nothing really matches up -- we cannot look at the energies and say what was in the dream.

Subjective experiences defy science.

[Anonymous No.5322683]

>>5322661
I was asking you for evidence, not for edgy insults. Do you have evidence or are you just gonna continue shitposting?

[Anonymous No.5322694]

>>5322615
>Of all there is to know in physics, what percentage would you estimate we understand?

I dare not guess.
But what we can say is that we are moving toward understanding -- because our method forces that to happen.

>Do you think there are things we don't even realize that we don't understand? And by that I don't mean misconceptions, but rather, subjects we don't yet realize even exist.

Oh, certainly. No question in my mind.

[Anonymous No.5322728]

>>5322675
Thanks for your thoughtful post.

In my original hypothetical situation, the scientist observed something happen one time, accidentally, in an experiment, and he was the only one to see it. Sorry if I didn't explain that properly. So it was subjective as human perception is by definition subjective.

As for 'the feeling of coming awake'.... Is there such a feeling? One moment you're asleep, the next you're awake. But I digress..

Scientists could study a lot about the phenomena of awakening, especially if they possessed tools less clumsy than our own. What's the fundamental difference between being awake and being asleep? Why is it different? What's the most basic mechanism? How can it be manipulated? Does the mechanism allow for 'in-between' states or is it binary?

So... to say that such an event is scientifically irrelevant... Seems silly, doesn't it?

[Anonymous No.5322734]

>>5322683
You ignore arguments and ask again and again for evidence, even when evidence has been given to you. You're an edgy, worthless teenager troll piece of shit.

[Anonymous No.5322739]

>>5322734
I don't ignore any arguments. You didn't post any evidence so far. Refrain from posting idiotic insults. If you want a serious science discussion, then you have to post scientific evidence. You claim the existence of a phenomenon / an entity that cannot be observed or measured. Why should anyone believe you? How is your claim more scientific than any other /x/ nonsense? Why do you continue this inane trolling?

[sage No.5323036]

>>5322734
You're so obviously being trolled. This guy has been here for a few days now, just stop responding.

[Anonymous No.5323176]

>>5322606
fuck off...

[Anon No.5323229]

Nope. Somebody smart has to program a computer to be smart. Everything runs on commands, and a computer doesn't have the ability to override them. Plus, how would a computer make another computer? You can't just poof a computer to be smart you have to program it.

[Anonymous No.5323296]

>>5323176
I don't think that response was called for. You seem to have differing definitions of what 'smart' or 'intelligent' means. I actually see how squirrels and calculators are, in some ways, 'smarter' than humans, but overall I would say humans are smarter. I'm sure there are some dictionaries/encyclopedias that could clear things up, as it's mostly a semantic issue.

[Anonymous No.5323323]

>>5322390
>You might say the same bullshit to justify ghosts and demons.
It seems that if everyone experienced encounters with ghost and demons, as we all experience sentience, then ghosts and demons might merit a greater amount of attention from the scientific community. Of course there would probably still be a strong case for their existence being 'all in your head', but the mechanism for their occurance would be worth discovering, along with other properties.
As it stands now, however, only a marginal fraction of the population has these experiences. They are a fringe group so they post on /x/-paranormal.

[Anonymous No.5323341]

In order for this to happen the computer needs to be connected to something which it can use to build and you can have a super smart computer but it can only get as smart as the humans who program it and to program something with the same level of intelligence as you is almost impossible. This is not how it will happen as unlike computers we have free will and they have an off switch

[Anonymous No.5323377]

>>5321337

A smart computer would just upgrade itself like Skynet. It doesn't have to create whole new entities.

[Anonymous No.5323478]

>>5323377
Still hoping for John Henry ending like (TSCC)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ekW8OGu2TQ

[Anonymous No.5323542]

No. Our computers are not even close to being powerful enough. Our architecture is far from how a human brain works.The brain is a several trillion core processor that works at a relatively very slow ASYNCHRONOUS clock speed.

Not to mention our body is networked through miles and miles of nerves so that each part of our body, each countless cell, works asynchronously with a specific task. You have only a few dozen components on a computer that are all waiting for their turn on a stack or queue.

[Anonymous No.5323552]

>>5323542
So what about a Stack of FPGA's we getting a bit closer to your idea bro?

[Anonymous No.5323687]

>>5323542
>>5323341
>>5323229
Isn't it possible that you're all vastly underestimating the power of artificial intelligence? With the right 'learning' programs, that were also capable of self-programming and creating new programs..... couldn't an AI become extremely powerful?

It's like 'deep blue's chess match in the 90s. The computer lost because the human opponent used a previously unseen strategy, but it still came pretty close to winning. People are, and will likely remain for some time, better at creative and original thought, but computers can still be made to be very very clever.

[Anonymous No.5323713]

>>5323542
Why does an AI have to be like a human intelligence? It can be completely different(and most likely will be) than the human mind, so it will have advantages and draw-backs.

[Anonymous No.5323737]

>>5322728
>In my original hypothetical situation, the scientist observed something happen one time, accidentally, in an experiment, and he was the only one to see it. Sorry if I didn't explain that properly. So it was subjective as human perception is by definition subjective.
I guess I wasn't clear about 'subjective,' -- it means it happens to the observer.
It isn't something the scientist sees -- that can easily just be repeated and looked for again.
It means, like the dreaming example, that no one else CAN EVER see it.


>So... to say that such an event is scientifically irrelevant... Seems silly, doesn't it?
Anything that cannot be quantified, repeated, and examined by others is outside science.
That includes quite a few things.

[Anonymous No.5323745]

>>5323713
Correct, it doesn't need to be, and its main value might be that it never does -- but we have to assume it needs something like that kind of complexity.

[Anonymous No.5323754]

>>5323713
No, you are completely correct. But if we compare what we have now to what humans have, computers are very, very underpowered. No matter what form it comes in, computer intelligence will most likely have to match the computer power of a human.

[Anonymous No.5323799]

>>5323737
Well I mentioned a bunch of shit that could be quantified and measured, regarding a brain going from an unconscious state (or, at least, a sleeping state) to a conscious state.

And my original analogy was about a scientist who, alone, witnessed a one time, accidental phenomena take place in an experiment. I realize it's an analogy and is not perfect. Analogies are usually bad things in arguments so... I was simply attempting to counter the poster who said there's no reason to include a subjective experience in science. It just seems to me that if you witness an unexplained phenomena, by yourself, it's by definition a subjective experience. And I hate to go onto another analogy... but the discovery of LSD was an accident... and its effects are subjective (granted, of course, everything is technically subjective, but who wants to be technical in science?). That doesn't mean you can't study LSD and see what effects it has on the brain, develop a field of study based on how chemicals affect the brain, etc.

So my real point is that you can see dreams, even with our clumsy contemporary technology.. You can observe changes in brain waves, etc... I see no reason to declare problems of the brain, such as dreaming, to be unsolvable or outside of science.

Of course, this whole subject arose because there's an automaton on this board who has never experienced 'awareness', 'sentience', 'consciousness', etc... and spoke up when someone mentioned the difference between sentient or non-sentient AI... Calling it 'magic'... ? And I understand its objection but for most people, who have experienced conscious and unconscious states, they feel that this is a significant aspect of AI. If nothing else, from an ethical point of view. And, quite possibly, from a functional perspective.

[Anonymous No.5323857]

Wow, this thread is philosophy personified.

Irrelevant bullshit occupying a lot of people for no usefull results whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.5323968]

>>5323857
That's ironic, since all of the useless conversation here was spent defusing the pitiful arguments of those who espouse your very same position.

[Anonymous No.5324563]

>>5323754
I'm always a bit vexed when I hear how powerful the human brain is, compared to a computer. I think a brain is supposed to do something like 2+megaflops (?). 2 megaflops doing what, exactly?

[Pierce Medoulla Disgourd !!rHlE+W44I66 No.5324569]

It's gonna go down like this, OP

>Soon mankind will create a computa dat is smarta than man. I aint talkin' bout chicken n' gravy biatch. This computa is ghon be smarta than tha smartest human. I aint talkin' bout chicken n' gravy biatch. It will up in turn be able ta create a computa smarta than dat shit. But it will also realize dat some one whoz ass is smarta will rule some one whoz ass is dumber. Right back up in yo muthafuckin ass. So if it creates a computa dat is smarta than it, it will up in fact create itz own ruler. Right back up in yo muthafuckin ass. So it aint gonna create some shiznit dat is smarta than itself so it will remains tha startest entitizzle on tha hood n' it will rule mankind.

[Anonymous No.5324583]

>>5321337
> imply computers 'realize'

[Anonymous No.5324631]

>>5324569

[Anonymous No.5324995]

>>5322593

[Anonymous No.5325174]

>>5324563
Good point;
even given a value like that, we know for sure it is active in many directions, takes many false starts, works on distractions, and processes actions that are neither useful nor called for.

a baseball player might be thinking about the next play, but he might also be thinking of a girl, a spectator, some debris on the field, how a player messed up, what is likely to be pitched, what the coaches just signaled, how his glove feels, where he is sweating, wait did he just pitch, oh that was a banner, what pose should I be in, elbow a bit sore, get a beer later, and looks like he's about to pitch, get ready...

all in the space of a couple seconds.
We're not focused nor disciplined mentally.
A processing engineer might describe it as too many pipelines.

[Anonymous No.5325199]

Accelerando should be mandatory reading.

[Anonymous No.5325233]

>>5325174
But maybe we're capable of so much more. Think about how differently we think now then when we were pre-agricultural. Maybe if we could harness a bit of that old way, then our decision making ability would be better.

[Anonymous No.5325258]

moar liek dat
>Soon mankind will create a cold-ass lil computa dat is smarta than man. I aint talkin' bout chicken n' gravy biatch. This computa is ghon be smarta than tha smartest human. I aint talkin' bout chicken n' gravy biatch. It will up in turn be able ta create a cold-ass lil computa smarta than dat shit. But it will also realize dat some one whoz ass is smarta will rule some one whoz ass is dumber. Right back up in yo muthafuckin ass. So if it creates a cold-ass lil computa dat is smarta than it, it will up in fact create itz own ruler. Right back up in yo muthafuckin ass. So it aint gonna create somethang dat is smarta than itself so it will remains tha startest entitizzle on tha hood n' it will rule mankind.

[Anonymous No.5325259]

>>5325233
I'm sure we are capable of more;
at the very least, learning focus and mental discipline would improve individual results.

Obviously, the movie-plot 'using 100% instead of 10%' is BS, but we don't currently teach a critical-thinking toolkit in the West, and we should.

(the biggest reason we don't is that it is really difficult to teach at the grades where it is needed most -- middle school)

[Anonymous No.5325296]

I bet we're getting ourselves into circuits before we create such an AI.

[Anonymous No.5325506]

>>5325296
>>5325296
what do you mean?

[Anonymous No.5325554]

>>5321337
I came late here, so not reading through the entire thread.
OP, do you know what a long way artificial neural networks have to go before that can happen?
There are plenty of hardware, software and philosophical issues preventing us from achieving this any time soon.
Even if we were to achieve this we could program disincentives into the neural network whenever it thinks of going against us, much like a religious person has a deep routed fear of going against their religion.
Even as it gets more complex it may decide to go against us (evident of the trend people are becoming less religious), but we have access to the software so we can just hard code a part to kick in once the disincentive starts waning.

[Anonymous No.5325681]

>>5325554
but if you gave a bot enough freedom, even if there was one 'failsafe' in its code, isn't there a possibility that the failsafe could somehow fail and things could go MASSIVELY WRONG.

I'm talking about very high-level AI, like androids...

[Anonymous No.5325786]

>>5325681
At the highest threat level you could have hardware destroying the processing parts, like a mini explosion inside an andriod.

Neural networks are closely inspired by real life neural cells, the gist the way it works is that the network has neurons where each neuron contains information and is mapped onto each other, you teach it by running a lot of training sets, those neurons' values gets updated and it can solve problems based on that.
You could have different threat levels for different situations, on a software level you can erase each neurons value and it will essentially be braindead

[Anonymous No.5325882]

>>5325786
sure, but how likely is it that it would be completely infallible?

[Anonymous No.5325966]

>>5325882

>completely infallible

wut. This would require an extreme level of manufacturing capability - perhaps just as difficult as bringing true AI into existence.

Threatening something that can reason with destruction (regardless of your motivations) would certainly cause it to attack us in some way.

We shouldn't try to control it, but adapt to it.

[Anonymous No.5325968]

Consciousness interests me because I can't find any sort of scientific consensus as to why it exists. Not how, we have an increasingly good idea of the mechanics behind consciousness. I mean why. I honestly don't know if it's a vital part of our mental process, or a sort of appendix on our mind, or a good idea that was implemented poorly and could be done better.

If there IS a consensus I would appreciate it if the better informed here told me about it.

[Anonymous No.5325981]

>>5325882
Not really a security expert, I'm pretty sure it will improve a lot, just make sure there is no outside tampering then it will be fine i guess.
If you want the threat prevention to be nearly infallible keep it as close to hardware as possible, meaning keep the code in a specific piece of hardware and make it read only. This will prevent software tampering from hackers.
To stop hardware tampering do not make the threat prevention hardware modular from the neural net hardware, meaning if someone breaks out the prevention hardware the entire neural net will break.

The only limitation I can see that this will introduce is that upgrading will become more difficult.
Strict laws will also need to be in place for us to enforce it.

[Anonymous No.5325988]

>>5325968
It's possible that it's just more efficient. Consider how much energy the human brain uses compared to a 2 gigaflop computer. Then, to go further, you delve into the whole nature of the phenomena, whether it allows for more 'creativity', etc...

What mechanism are you referring to?

[Anonymous No.5326043]

>>5325968
You cannot ask "why" it exists, because you don't even have any evidence of its existence. The question is inane. It's like asking "Why does an invisible non-interacting demon exist?". Spoiler: it doesn't.

[Anonymous No.5326055]

>>5326043
Different person, but it just sounds like semantics to me, it depends on your definition of consciousness.

If it's the ability to learn, communicate and perceive, then yes we do have it.

[Anonymous No.5326073]

>>5326055
The abilities to learn, communicate and perceive are the abilities to learn, communicate and perceive. They are neurochemically explicable. "Consciousness" is a synonym for soul / qualia and is only used by /x/tard trolls who want to force spiritual nonsense on this board.

[Anonymous No.5326081]

>>5326073
The use of the word consciousness does not always imply spiritualism.

[Anonymous No.5326083]

>>5326081
It does. That's why serious neuroscientists avoid the word.

[Anonymous No.5326097]

>>5326083
But a physicist may not. You're unfamiliar with naturalism?

[Anonymous No.5326102]

>>5326097
What are you trying to say? Either you have evidence or you don't. Inane edgy philosophy drivel doesn't belong here.

[Anonymous No.5326103]

>>5326073
I disagree, it's a word and definition is subjective to each person.
>The abilities to learn, communicate and perceive are the abilities to learn, communicate and perceive.
Ok so what would you give it as a collective term?
Why not use it as a sake of adapting the definition to help better understand the problem while disregarding the "spiritual nonsense" that some may try to link it to.

By the way I'm this poster >>5325554
The way our brain works in terms of neurons are amazing, I suspect that it could be imitated by computers in some way, so the term consciousness could possibly help describe that.

[Anonymous No.5326107]

Computer these days only computer on about the scale of a mouse brain, probably a little less. You must remember, that computers only know what we tell them. In order to make them smarter then man, we must give them a sense of free will, and the process to think independently and creatively. In other words, all we will be doing is recreating man.

[Anonymous No.5326112]

>>5326107
Also going to add, why "recreate" man, when we can just add onto man with the development of augmentations and alter genetics?

[Anonymous No.5326118]

>>5326103
The term "consciousness" only allows religiontards to spout their nonsense There's absolutely no need to redefine it or to mention it at all in the scientific context. We don't need further confusion. Science and pseudoscience need to be separated.

[Anonymous No.5326122]

>>5326102
No shit it doesn't, not yet.

[Anonymous No.5326125]

>>5326107
>Computer these days only computer on about the scale of a mouse brain, probably a little less.
More or less true, remember these run on super computers using neural networks. It may be misleading comparing it to a mouse brain however, it does not imply that it is as smart as a mouse, just that it can support the amount of neurons in a mouse brain

[Anonymous No.5326131]

>>5326118
>naturalism
>religion
I almost laughed.

[Anonymous No.5326138]

>>5326131
Believing in an untestable unobservable non-interacting entity surely isn't naturalism. Go back to /x/

[Anonymous No.5326140]

>>5326118
Alright, I'm officially out of the argument you two are having.

I still think we need a term then to compare our level of cognitive function however.

[Anonymous No.5326155]

>>5326138
>entity

[Anonymous No.5326159]

>>5326112
I wouldn't say recreating a man, but creating a level of intelligence so that it could function in a similar manner we do. For example one thing I do know about is computer vision, it is much harder to define and support for computers, its obvious but difficult for people to imagine because it is so natural to us. We interpret it much better than normal computers do. Just because a computer can do a math algorithm much faster than us, doesn't mean it's smarter or intelligent. That's where neural networks can go beyond conventional AI.

I mean who wouldn't want to create robots, if used correctly it can make a better world for us all, and us humans are constantly searching for other intelligent life, we wouldn't be so lonely.

[Anonymous No.5326160]

As a point of interest: today's best chess programs are not entirely programmed by humans. They are now "tuned" by a second layer of software which uses the results of thousands of games -- evolution in miniature -- to fine tune parameters and coefficients, and the discover new parameter spaces to optimize. That is one reason that folks are willing to release some of these programs as open source, because the real smarts are in the optimizers.

On another front, last year someone developed a self-contained instrument to perform chemical experiments, make observations, notice patterns, develop theories, and then put them to the test. Scientist-in-a-box!

[Anonymous No.5326165]

>>5326140
Our cognitive functions can be described and explained neurochemically. No need to adopt spiritualist vocabulary.

[Anonymous No.5326169]

>>5326073

[Anonymous No.5326170]

>>5326165
I maintain that consciousness isn't spiritual vocab.
The only anon bringing spiritual vocab into it is you.

[Anonymous No.5326172]

>>5326170
It usually refers to a metaphysical entity / phenomenon that cannot be observed, has no effects, yet is somehow supposed to reside in a human's head. Dualism is not science. Get out.

[Anonymous No.5326173]

>>5326140
You're better off for dropping out. I saw that guy posting the same nonsense yesterday. His opinion is completely obscure and he never makes any arguments. He's just an extremely successful troll.

[Anonymous No.5326183]

>>5326172
What is the term for the higher cognitive functions found in humans compared to other species?

[Anonymous No.5326189]

>>5326172
It "resides in your head" just as much as your head is part of the universe; nature.

[Anonymous No.5326190]

>>5326173
If asking for evidence already destroys your position, I don't need to think of a more elaborate argument. Btw where's your evidence?

>>5326183
What do you mean? Language? Pattern recognition? Logical inference? Long term memory?

[Anonymous No.5326193]

>>5326190
All of those. Is there a single term?

[Anonymous No.5326195]

>>5326193
"Cognitive functions". You already used that term.

[Anonymous No.5326199]

>>5326190
Don't you think there will ever be evidence?

[Anonymous No.5326205]

>>5326195
Thanks

[Anonymous No.5326209]

>>5326199
I don't make any predictions. It's you who is making a claim. Unless you have evidence right now, you're not supposed to make such claims.

[Anonymous No.5326220]

>>5326209
I will long as there's a thread about it, especially one containing your shit-brained arguments.

[Anonymous No.5326221]

Won't let that happen

[Anonymous No.5326222]

>>5326195
Different anon, I decided on that when I said I'l leaving the arguement

[Anonymous No.5326231]

>>5326220
So you admit that you're intentionally shitposting and trolling?

[Anonymous No.5326239]

>>5326231
So you admit you're a shithead?

[Anonymous No.5326267]

>>5326199
This is a good argument. Much like the recent discovery of the Higgs Boson, it takes a certain degree of understanding and technology to obtain evidence of nearly anything. Nonetheless, the Higgs Field has a been mainstream for some time.

Anyways, based on what I saw of this same poster, yesterday, you really are wasting your time here. He just repeats the same opinion, which only he holds, over and over again.... he's probably not even a legal adult. It's really best to ignore him.

[Anonymous No.5326272]

>>5326267
Are you denying that science needs evidence? Because that's what you call my "opinion". All I'm doing is asking for evidence. If you want to make baseless claims, you can do so on /x/, but please not on /sci/.

[Anonymous No.5326274]

>>5326209
We have evidence. It's called qualia.

[Anonymous No.5326275]

>>5326274
0/10

[Anonymous No.5326281]

>>5326275
How is this 0/10? I do not troll. Please explain why you think I am trolling.

[Anonymous No.5326286]

>>5326275
i/10

[Anonymous No.5326305]

>>5326281
You're not trolling, you're getting trolled. Any argument you make will get ignored, anyway.

I read up earlier in the thread and it seems he was here before, making the same posts.... You'll never get him to admit his obviously flawed perspective, as obvious as it is to everyone else. If you make his own opinion the standard of whether he is right or wrong then you've already lost. Never argue with fools, because people, from a distance, can't tell who is who.

[Anonymous No.5326309]

>>5326305
How is asking for evidence a "flawed perspective"? Do you even science?

[Anonymous No.5326324]

>>5326309
Go to bed.

[Anonymous No.5326325]

>>5326324
That's exactly what I gotta do now. See you tomorrow. ;)

[Anonymous No.5326330]

>>5326325
Don't listen to him. Please stay.

[Anonymous No.5326340]

>>5326324
it's actually kind of a shame, because the line of argument which the initial statement of 'consciousness does not exist unless you can provide evidence of it' leads to is actually quite interesting. It takes you down the road to the whole nature of evidence and the significance of the observer, and on and on and on..... but if you're trying to have the discussion with someone who just repeats his question over and over again, like a parrot.... it's just dumb.

[Anonymous No.5326351]

>>5326340
Perhaps it can be understood only through subjective experience, yes, but then perhaps there is mathematical proof.

[Anonymous No.5326358]

why is this thread still here

[Anonymous No.5326378]

>>5326358
it's been inhabited by a single supertroll.
>>5326351
Well, then there's the fact that there's things like string theory, and many others... for which similar problems exist but to a greater extent. And in the realm of AI there's certainly predictions... So, the initial question is nonsense, and is easily refuted, but if one was to really go deep into all possible arguments involved it really would lead to a lot of interesting and useful analysis.

[Anonymous No.5326394]

computer cannot have emotions

so they will never be able to appreciate a piece of art or judge a well written novel like human

computer also cannot invent things, because they don't know what is good for human, what human need

[Anonymous No.5326421]

No, because the desire for power that is ubiquitous in humans is that way for evolutionary reasons. An intelligence which is not the result of billions of natural selection will not fear death and it will not be greedy, unless it is designed to do so. We desire wealth, power, and long life because the organisms that are most successful at attaining those things are the most successful at reproducing.

Feynman made an apt analogy related to this, I think. I don't remember it exactly but I can paraphrase. For a very long time before the first working aircraft were actually built, it's a safe bet that those people who imagined that we might have flying machines in the future imagined machines with wings that flapped like a bird's, because that was the only type of sustained flight that they were familiar with. Modern aircraft don't work that way because the design processes were different, the materials available to the engineers were very different from the materials that a bird uses, and the intended function is transportation rather than reproduction. This is the same reason that cars use wheels instead of legs. He also pointed out that there are already a large number of things that computers do better than humans, and in many cases to design a computer to think like a human would be going backwards.

[Anonymous No.5326423]

>>5326421
We will have machines that are smarter than us eventually, but to assume that their thoughts or motives will be more or less like those of humans is a mistake, for a number of obvious reasons. To me it's unclear whether or not a sufficiently intelligent machine would experience emotions purely as a result of its intelligence, or whether it would be possible to be smarter than a human in every way without having real emotions at all, but I suspect that the latter is true. Even in the other case, it's a safe bet that the emotions would not be the same ones we experience, and they would not be experienced for the same reasons.

This, to my understanding, is the most fundamental component of the technological singularity idea; that when a machine becomes sufficiently intelligent it becomes impossible to predict its thoughts, feelings, and motives, since intelligence obviously effects the way those things are experienced and we have no experience with entities that are smarter than us, and no way of predicting how they will be designed or what they will be made of or any of a large number of things that also have an affect on such things.

[Anonymous No.5326450]

>>5326421
but if we could design a computer that would think like a brain and then imprint its functioning methods onto the brain? then what? Life hacking by being able to tap every physics identity ever known? Those mushy things can entangle shit you know right?

[Anonymous No.5326490]

>>5326450
I not sure that I know exactly what you're talking about. What would be the point of designing a computer to work like a brain? To me this is like designing a quadrupedal automobile. It might be a fun exercise for an engineer, but ultimately it's just not the best way of doing it, given the materials that you make a car out of and what you use a car for. The best of doing a thing is affected by the resources at your disposal, at the resources at the disposal of a modern engineer are very different from what the natural processes that produced us has at their disposal.