Can computers have consciousness?

File: 36 KB, 320x533, tania.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 11:55:03 2015 No.6669080 [Reply] [Original]

Can computers have consciousness?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 11:56:13 2015 No.6669083 >>6669080 Yes If you own a Mac, it's constantly screaming "I'M A HUGE FAGGOT"

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 11:57:22 2015 No.6669088 Obviously. I press its buttons, and it pisses me off.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 11:58:16 2015 No.6669090 >>6669080 Define consciousness.

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 11:59:56 2015 No.6669099

The idea of AI constantly bugs me, because it's not even going to be this satisfying scifi parable thing where full-fledged AI springs out of some singular discovery and we go HAHA NOW I WILL ENSLAVE YOU BRO and turn it into humanoid servants with sad faces. It's going to be something like semi-autonomous meta-heuristic thingies that are debatably sentient/sapient being shoved into a trillion different industries and applications, until a thousand years later humanity advances its philosophy of mind a bit and realises they've been forcing intelligences to calculate the best place to park their mom's car or to fire the proper amount of water from their bidet for a millennium.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 12:01:20 2015 No.6669103 >>6669090 no, you define consciousness

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 12:02:21 2015 No.6669108 they even have a sleep mode now :3

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 12:16:12 2015 No.6669151 >>6669080 Assuming you mean what most people seem to mean when they speak of consciousness, no. But neither do humans. Consciousness, like the soul or free will, is an illusion.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 12:18:26 2015 No.6669156 >>6669151 nice meme

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 12:24:03 2015 No.6669172 >>6669151 Well memed

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 12:30:45 2015 No.6669204 >>6669156 >>6669172 Your meme is an illusion too.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 12:30:50 2015 No.6669205 > has shit to do with literature. You should fag less and hang yourself

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 12:32:24 2015 No.6669213 >>6669151 see >>6668669

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 12:34:10 2015 No.6669217 >>6669099 Eh, no matter. We'll genetically engineer new and superior intelligences for us before long.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 13:42:55 2015 No.6669490 >>6669080 Who is this girl and why i see her posted so much on lit.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 14:00:25 2015 No.6669588 >>6669490 Simone D. Mone

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 14:08:59 2015 No.6669617

>>6669080
If we are conscious, there's no reason to believe that computers cannot be conscious as well. It's simply a matter of combining adequate processing power and memory with the right set of programming and sensory inputs.

Or at least, the computer would be indistinguishable from a conscious being to an outside observer. Which of course brings us to the question of whether there is a difference between something and a perfect simulation of that thing, the answer to which may have little actual meaning outside of linguistics.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 14:23:11 2015 No.6669691 File: 372 KB, 5000x5000, 1280425170104.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6669588

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 14:24:21 2015 No.6669696 File: 75 KB, 801x853, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6669080 Only mammals have true consciousness

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 14:25:39 2015 No.6669704 File: 30 KB, 306x468, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6669151 >Consciousness, like free will, is an illusion

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 14:28:04 2015 No.6669719 >>6669151 >>>/pol/

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 14:45:44 2015 No.6669800 >>6669080 This bitch is a 6/10 at best You have shit taste op

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 14:53:41 2015 No.6669831 To say that anything other than the self is conscious is to misunderstand the nature of consciousness. inb4 someone says the self is an illusion or somethign retarded like that which completely misses the point

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 14:55:50 2015 No.6669844 >>6669831 Okay, so you've shifted the question to: can computers have a self? To which your informed answer is...?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 14:58:05 2015 No.6669857 File: 9 KB, 280x180, wise-monkeys[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >ITT: the ilusion of consciousness is a meme.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 15:01:06 2015 No.6669870 >>6669844 the self is an illusion.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 15:01:54 2015 No.6669876 >>6669844 Not "can they have A self?" but "do they have THE self?", which they obviously do not

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 15:02:43 2015 No.6669879 >>6669080 I think answer - yes. DNA of living organisms can be represented in the digital form. Consequently consciousness can also be represented in the digital form.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 15:03:28 2015 No.6669881 >>6669870 Says who? >>6669876 >which they obviously do not There is nothing obvious about this.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 15:03:43 2015 No.6669883 >>6669879 >DNA results in consciousness L O L O L

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 15:04:09 2015 No.6669884 >>6669879 while (1) { printf("im alive!"); } look! it is conscious!

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 15:05:03 2015 No.6669887 >>6669881 >There is nothing obvious about this. Do you mean it's not obvious that the human body that the self occupies is not a computer?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 15:05:50 2015 No.6669892 >>6669883 Human DNA does.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 15:06:46 2015 No.6669898 >>6669881 >who You are me and I am you anon, we say it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 15:06:51 2015 No.6669899 >>6669892 Which paper

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 15:07:25 2015 No.6669900 File: 436 KB, 688x530, 1424855104243.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6669879 >DNA = Consciousness

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 15:07:53 2015 No.6669903 >>6669884 Paramecium caudatum also has little consciousness. Approximately as computer, and as you

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 15:08:20 2015 No.6669907 >>6669892 Confirmed for idiot. Just an absolutely nonsensical argument. Human DNA does not yield consciousness I can't believe I'm even entertaining this. You cannot merely simulate human DNA and thus simulate consciousness.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 15:08:37 2015 No.6669909 >>6669080 no

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 15:09:10 2015 No.6669914 >>6669900 fool

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 15:11:07 2015 No.6669921 http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/1057-consciousness-comes-from-dna

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 15:11:34 2015 No.6669925 >>6669907 >DNA does not yield consciousness Clean notebook cannot give the work of Shakespeare. > Human DNA does not yield consciousness It is important part of consciousness.

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 15:12:03 2015 No.6669929

>>6669887
>Do you mean it's not obvious that the human body that the self occupies is not a computer?
Indeed, this is anything but obvious. And even less obvious is the claim that said self may only occupy a human body.
>>6669899
>>6669907
Human DNA leads to humans. Humans have consciousness.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 15:12:51 2015 No.6669931 >>6669929 >And even less obvious is the claim that said self may only occupy a human body. I didn't say anything about what it can do, but what it does, IE, what it's currently doing right now.

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 15:14:24 2015 No.6669945

>>6669925
I hate you so much. I hate your broken attempts at language and I hate your dumb arguments. I hate that you don't understand what consciousness means. I hate it. I hate that you think life can be simulated In a computer and thus consciousness exists in said computer. I just... I just really want you to leave.

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 15:15:27 2015 No.6669949

>>6669080
To the answer "CAN computers have consciousness" the answer is:

-If you believe having a soul is a requirement to be conscious, then no (that is, because your beliefs say it).
-Else, yes. Other question would be "do they have", which would be hard to answer, because we would need a strict definition of 'consciousness'

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 15:16:22 2015 No.6669954 >>6669931 Well then that is irrelevant to OP's question, which asked for possibility, not actuality. Also, you still have to draw the distinction between the human body and a computer.

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 15:17:24 2015 No.6669962

>>6669949
I'll make it even easier.
Can a computer operate without instruction? No. Anyone with any programming knowledge or any basic knowledge of anything will tell you that, no, they cannot operate outside of what is programmed of them. Thus, no, they are not conscious.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 15:17:39 2015 No.6669964 >>6669949 >soul Why can't computers have souls? That's a mean thing to say.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 15:18:59 2015 No.6669967 >>6669954 I wasn't directly responding to the OP, but rather making an important point that absolutely everyone in the thread is neglecting except for me.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 15:19:05 2015 No.6669968 >>6669962 Can humans operate without instruction? >inb4 you draw an arbitrary line between evolved genetic code and human-written code

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 15:19:20 2015 No.6669970 >>6669962 It is not the same thing being able to act independently than being aware of your exitence.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 15:20:29 2015 No.6669976 >>6669967 Yeah, the self, today's computers don't have it. But how is it even relevant, unless we then ask, could they?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 15:22:07 2015 No.6669983 >>6669976 Because everyone here is working with an inherently faulty notion of consciousness, and in your case, the self.

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 15:22:34 2015 No.6669987

The first object of the intellect is being. Everything else grasped by our intellect is a modification of being. How do you think we'll be able to tell if a machine has this fundamental awareness of being / existence?

When I carry a cup from one desk to another, that is not an act of an intelligence, that is a mechanical act. It's my awareness of the cup's existence, my awareness of my carrying the cup, etc., that is the act of the intelligence.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 15:22:34 2015 No.6669988 >>6669945 >I hate that you think life can be simulated http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis The Idea is old as Everest mountain.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 15:24:40 2015 No.6670001 >>6669983 Ok, were is the fault in my notion of the self, which you seem to derive from the fact that consider the question after potential computer selves valid?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 15:25:43 2015 No.6670004 >>6670001 You think the self can be plural.

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 15:27:18 2015 No.6670013

>>6669968
Humans, mites, frogs, birds are conscious beings right? We are programmed to the extent that our brains (in our case) and our bodies are coded. Animals may operate as they please. They can succeed, they can fail, they choose where to hunt and they choose where to roam. This is not programmed. Conscious beings, due to being aware of their being, are allowed a degree of freedom. Please, do not bring up absolute determinism because it's nonsensical and unprovable and it's best to operate, as Kant and Fichte both said, under the assumption that conscious beings are allowed a degree of free will in their experience.

A computer chooses nothing. Zero. A computer cannot learn. A computer makes no choice. There are the illusions of choices that may be perceived to people with no experience in programming, but these are illusions and nothing more.

The argument "lmao humans are computers in a way :)" is a philosophy 101 Argument that TAs use to form a definition of consciousness.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 15:29:17 2015 No.6670021 >>6669988 >I hate that you think life can be simulated AND THUS consciousness exists inside a computer Journalist in the making over here

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 15:30:13 2015 No.6670027 File: 8 KB, 259x194, images.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6669080

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 15:30:31 2015 No.6670031 This is simplistic as fuck. We have no proof something does not exists, therefore it exists! Then i suppose ill start looking for unicorns.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 15:31:24 2015 No.6670037 >>6670004 There are plural humans. Do they have the same self?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 15:31:31 2015 No.6670038 >>6670031 to >>6670013

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 15:32:08 2015 No.6670040 That's mathematically impossible.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 15:32:15 2015 No.6670041 >>6670037 No. Only one of them does.

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 15:36:51 2015 No.6670059

>>6670013
>mites
Calling them conscious is a bit of a stretch tbh. More than a bit.
And if you want to bring up Kant, free will is just as impossible as determinism.
>A computer cannot learn.
Blatantly untrue. It obtains information in a different way than I do, but the information is being obtained. If this is insufficient, clarify what you mean by "learning".
>A computer makes no choice
Can you explain how you know this without commiting the same deterministic fallacy you were accusing me of?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 15:38:45 2015 No.6670067 >>6670041 So, your entire point is that only you are conscious? Have I been trolled by an actual, or pretending solipsist? How very annoying, congratulations, I was almost mad for a second.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 15:42:56 2015 No.6670078 >>6670040 What are the mathematical requirements for consciousness?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 15:47:01 2015 No.6670100 >>6670067 Solipsists believe that only the self exists. To say that there is only one self is not solipsism.

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 15:49:46 2015 No.6670116

>>6670059
1. So mites are programmed? Why is it a stretch to assume they are aware to a degree? Do all spawns of one mite go to the same location and do the same things as the others despite having the same genetic coding? Can a computer that is programmed the same way as another computer vary it's actions from that computer In any way?

2. Perhaps I should have phrased this more efficiently. A computer can not learn on its own. A computer cannot form habits or modes of function or decisions outside of what it is told. Please provide a human/conscious being that is analogous to this.

3. A computer makes a decision based on how it is coded. Based on what it has been programmed to do.

4. I see you've read a summary of Kant online. Fun fact: Kant said, in regards to Ethics, human beings must operate under the assumption that free will exists. Whether or not absolute free will exists is unprovable and nonsensical, for it is a priori. Kant was not a hard determinist. Be careful throwing around the phrase "Kant didn't believe in free will" without actually reading him.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 15:50:09 2015 No.6670118 >>6670067 Look, if you think about what the word "self" refers to, then it's pretty obvious there can only be one.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 15:50:50 2015 No.6670122 >>6670100 Hey, you're right. But what would you call your position? Are there any philosophers who believe this, that there is only one self, possessed by only one human? Or did you pull this out of your own ass?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 15:50:53 2015 No.6670123 >>6670078 There are none! that's the point.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 15:51:42 2015 No.6670129 >>6670122 Allow your egalitarian delusions to be washed away: http://individual.utoronto.ca/benj/ae.pdf

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 16:03:10 2015 No.6670182

>>6670116
>1
You do realize that mite behaviour, and the behaviour of more complex creatures, can easily be simultated? Computers can become leaders of fish swarms.
>2
>On its own
A human being can't learn on its own either. Apart from genetics pre-forming the modes of learning, there's also the social component: you have been taught a language, and a set of behaviours. Without those, what would you learn that a computer can't?
>3.
Empirically speaking, i.e. without paying respect to the neccessity of a transcendental subject, the very same applies to humans. And here's the thing: we cannot observe the trancendental subject, thus we cannot deny pre-emptively the possibility of a computer having apperception.
>4.
Ethics are irrelevant when judging the possibility of consciousness. That's why he deals with them in the second critique, not the first. Of course, a conscious computer would, given a certain level of complexity, be a reasonable being, and thus be obliged to follow the categorical imperative, giving it moral autonomy.
This is quite different from the question if it, empirically, has free will.

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 16:03:37 2015 No.6670184

>>6670059
>explain the deterministic fallacy
I'm not sure you understand what hard determinism is and why it's unprovable and why philosophers have since written it off in regards to coming to a conclusion. A computer exists in the realm of our experience. We make the computer. We tell the computer to do steps 1-8. We watch the computer complete these actions. We know why it makes these actions and we know that, based on each prior decision, which was also predetermined to happen in one way and one way only, why the current step in the procedure executes as it does. It can happen one way. Even If the computer is told to randomize a decision, this decision is based on probability and nothing less. It is still determined.

Human beings cannot trace back each decision and come to a conclusion as to why it happened a certain way. Speculation is viable, sure. But nothing is concrete. No absolute conclusions can be drawn that suggest that a step in a conscious being's process could happen only one way.

This is why hard determinism is applicable to computers and not to conscious beings.

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 16:12:33 2015 No.6670223

>>6670182
1. It being simulated is irrelevant. You could simulate human behavior. That simulation, however, is created via coding that allows for each step to be rationally traced to the previous with no room for variation. This is not applicable to conscious beings.

2. Ridiculous argument. Humans stray from socially constructed norms all the time. Humans have a choice in how they interact. Computers cannot stray from this norm without the instruction to do so.

3. See my other post explaining hard determinism

4. I merely cited Kant to refute your claim that Kant believes there is no free will. Absolute free will and absolute determinism are both unprovable. Computers are absolutely determined and can have no unprogrammed variation in their actions. Humans do not have to submit to the categorical imperative. That's why Kant provided an example of what the world would be like if all humans did. In your example, the computer must do so, for it is programmed to do so. This just shows how the two deviate.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 16:14:19 2015 No.6670233 How do we even prove that other human beings are conscious?

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 16:14:58 2015 No.6670236

>>6670184
>A computer exists in the realm of our experience.
A human being exists in the realm of our experience.
>We make the computer.
A natural process makes the human.
>We tell the computer to do steps 1-8.
DNA and education tell the human to do steps 1-8 (breathe, eat, drink, fuck, sleep, employ senses, apply concepts, shitpost)
>We watch the computer complete these actions. We know why it makes these actions and we know that, based on each prior decision, which was also predetermined to happen in one way and one way only, why the current step in the procedure executes as it does.
Theoretically such empirical knowledge of a human would be possible without contradicting the kantian antinomy (which is not based on a lack of empiracal knowledge, mind you).
It can happen one way. Even If the computer is >told to randomize a decision, this decision is based on probability and nothing less. It is still determined.
Again, from the point of empirical observation, the same applies to humans.

>Human beings cannot trace back each decision and come to a conclusion as to why it happened a certain way. Speculation is viable, sure. But nothing is concrete. No absolute conclusions can be drawn that suggest that a step in a conscious being's process could happen only one way.

That's the thing you dolt: even if this was possible, Kant's antinomy would hold. And there is no logical necessity that we couldn't know such things.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 16:20:01 2015 No.6670259 File: 12 KB, 302x167, index.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6669080 For Hollywood and literature: yes. For reality of the present day: no. For reality of the future: we hope yes

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 16:22:46 2015 No.6670266

>>6670223
>This is not applicable to conscious beings.
Mites are fairly simple creatures. It certainly is possible, they have brains no more complex than a casio calculator.
>Humans stray from socially constructed norms all the time.
Indeed, and chances are, you will find reasons for that, i.e. events or factors that, in a sense, programmed them to rebel. The entire medical field of psychiatry is dedicated to that. Or, was, now it is dedicated to throwing pills at people.
>your claim that Kant believes there is no free will.
Reading comprehension. I was refering the third antinomy, which concludes that both determinism and free will are necessary assumptions, and therefore equally impossible.
>Humans do not have to submit to the categorical imperative.
the concept of Achtung says they must be pretty fucked up in order not to, or at least necessarily feel shitty about failing to do so. Wrote my BA about this, actually, so don't try to out-Kant me, you cunt.

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 16:24:13 2015 No.6670273

>>6670236
>DNA and human education
>comparing this to computer programming
Highschool method of reasoning, are you serious?
Theoretically such empirical knowledge of a human would be possible
No. No this would not be possible for the reasons I just gave you. There is no sound way to prove that a human's Decision may happen in one way and only one way. There is a very easy way to trace back a computer's "reasoning". Just look at the programming. I mean, if by theoretically, you mean theoretically if we could be sure, then sure. Theoretically, if we COULD prove hard determinism, sure. But that's stupid and nonsensical. Anything can happen in theory.

And there is no logical necessity that we couldn't know such things
Haha oh wow oh wow. Alternate decisions lie outside our realm of experience. They do not exist for us. We see things happening one way and one way only. We cannot know for certain if they could happen another way for that is a priori and outside our experience. That's what I mean when I say that we can view a computer's programming and KNOW for CERTAIN that it cannot act differently. We cannot "know such things". Knowing such things would mean that we proved hard determinism. Which we've already affirmed is impossible to prove. You're contradicting yourself.

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 16:29:02 2015 No.6670289

>>6670266
I feel so sorry for anyone that read your BA because you seem to think that proving hard determinism is possible.
>chances are there are reasons for this
L O L.
>chances are
What the fuck. Guess what? In computer programming, there are no chances that decisions can be traced back to their source. They just can. Comparing something as complex as the human brain to a programming sheet is ludicrous.

>the concept of Achtung says they must be pretty fucked up in order not to, or at least necessarily feel shitty about failing to do so.

What the fuck does that prove? Okay, so they feel bad about not submitting? But they still don't DO IT. A Computer can't say "haha hey, nah. I'm not doing it. I might feel bad and I'm a pretty fucked up computer, so nah. Not for me"

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 16:31:12 2015 No.6670300

>>6670273
>Highschool method of reasoning, are you serious
Explain what is wrong with the reasoning. Protip: you can't.
>Theoretically, if we COULD prove hard determinism, sure
Jesus christ, it's like you never read Kant. Kant's point is exactly that, from a point of view that just observes phenomena, hard determinism is the default position. Free will only comes in because it is a necessity to the observer.
You are arguing from ignorance. You are doing the square opposite of what Kant does.
>We cannot know for certain
See this? This ks your entire argument. We cannot know for certain. Is this what sets conscious beings apart from non-conscious beings, not knowing for certain? That's not philosophy, that's mysticism.

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 16:35:29 2015 No.6670327

>>6670300
Your method of reasoning is "education is brainwashing and we do what we do because we are told to do so. There is no room for variation. We are *beep* *boop* computers."

Your argument originally hinged around the idea that computer programming and human programming is the same. I'm saying that no, human beings have room for variation in their actions and computers do not. Dispute this?

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 16:36:25 2015 No.6670331

>>6670289
>Comparing something as complex as the human brain to a programming sheet is ludicrous
Why? Also, is consciousness just more complexity? Is that all it takes? What about the mites then?
>I feel so sorry for anyone that read your BA because you seem to think that proving hard determinism is possible
My BA was about moral motivation, not determinism. Reading comprehension.
>What the fuck does that prove
A determinating force of morality, that's what.
Achtung means that, as soon as you understand the categorical imperative, you will feel unworthy of happiness unless you follow it. Even the autonomy of moral behaviour comes in the shape of programming.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 16:38:45 2015 No.6670338 >>6669080 testing the spoiler feature but no

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 16:39:56 2015 No.6670343

>>6670327
>There is no room for variation.
Of course there is, because there are too many causal factors at work for anyone to control. This is the only reason for variation, but feel free to come up with one counter-example. And stop getting mad, I'm certainly not saying there is no autonomy, just that it must necessarily exist within this causal framework, which, as Kant shows, is a thing our reason cannot really comprehend.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 16:40:39 2015 No.6670345 >>6670338 and again in a non materialist reductionist sense everything has consciousness theres no special process that gives a computer something like a experience of mind that it wouldnt have already

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 16:40:48 2015 No.6670347 >>6670300 >hard determinism is default position Only if you conjecture induction is more valid than introspection.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 16:43:04 2015 No.6670357 >>6670347 This is exactly what I said, come on. We only observe determination, we only act freely. It's a fucking antinomy ffs.

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 16:44:05 2015 No.6670363

>>6670300
>hard determinism is the default position

"Causality in accordance with laws of nature is not the only one from which all the appearances of the world can be derived. It is also necessary to assume another causality through freedom in order to explain them"

An effect can be “regarded as free in regard to its intelligible cause”

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 16:44:59 2015 No.6670367 >>6670345 >in a non materialist reductionist sense 2spooky4anyone

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 16:46:00 2015 No.6670371 >>6670343 Ah okay. You are saying that computers, despite their programming, have a degree of freedom in their actions?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 16:48:04 2015 No.6670381 >>6670363 That's the point, freedom is necessary, but empirically undetectable.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 16:48:19 2015 No.6670383 >>6669083 underrated post

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 16:48:44 2015 No.6670389 >>6670343 >because there are too many causal factors at work for anyone to control. ...in the computer? The computer has too many factors to control? I'm genuinely confused about this

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 16:50:13 2015 No.6670394

>>6670381
Yes. I recognize that freedom is undetectable. It is also impossible to prove that free will does not exist and you certainly cannot do so by pointing to outliers in the population and speculating via psychoanalysis why they act a certain way and write that off as empirical

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 16:50:44 2015 No.6670397 >>6670371 I'm saying it is possible. I do not know what it is that makes humans conscious, but I'm very much inclined to believe that it a) comes from our biological makeup and b) does not hinge on randomness or indeterminacy.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 16:52:32 2015 No.6670403 >>6670397 Okay. So you are saying that a) theoretically computers can operate outside their programming b) human action is predetermined

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 16:54:23 2015 No.6670408 >>6670389 No, I was explaining why variation in humans is compatible with determinism. >>6670394 Again, exactly my point: the identification of causes, be they education, genetics, or programming, cannot disprove free will.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 16:55:00 2015 No.6670413 >>6669962 The real question is whether a Chinese Room is any less functional than we are, provided sufficiently complex rules. Consciousness is overrated and irrelevant to function in any case.

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 16:58:27 2015 No.6670420

>>6670403
No, I'm saying human freedom does not consist in a violation lf their 'programming' and neither would the freedom of a computer require this. b) is a question of perspective, it is both necessarily true and necessarily untrue, which only tells us that our metaphysical capacities are quite severely limited.

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 16:59:24 2015 No.6670427

>>6670408
Variation in decision making is not compatible with determinism, what do you mean? Determinism, by definition, excludes variation in decision. Things may happen one way through causality.

>exactly my point
Are you trying to say that your view all along was that it's impossible to disprove free will? Because I distinctly recall you claiming that all choices in humans could, theoretically, be traced back to their roots with no room for variation in these decisions, just as a computer.

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 17:02:37 2015 No.6670439

>>6670420
I would heartily disagree with the statement that human freedom is compatible with the notion that humans are programmed.
I agree with the second point in full and, as I've said, attempting to validate this nonsensical for it lies outside of experience (which is why I used a computer as an example, for its processing lies completely within experience).

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 17:04:01 2015 No.6670445

>>6670427
>Variation in decision making
What do you mean by this, even? Two different people making different choices? This is easily compatible with determinism: they acted differently, because they ARE different, i.e. nature and nurture have made them into beings that would walk opposite paths.
>Are you trying to say that your view all along was that it's impossible to disprove free will? Because I distinctly recall you claiming that all choices in humans could, theoretically, be traced back to their roots with no room for variation in these decisions, just as a computer.
I'm saying that this is not a contradiction. This is tiring, read Kant: critique of pure reason, namely the third antinomy.

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 17:06:45 2015 No.6670453

>>6670439
>I would heartily disagree with the statement that human freedom is compatible with the notion that humans are programmed
How can you then agree with my second statement? Which pretty much says that both freedom and determinism are both equally valid?

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 17:08:40 2015 No.6670458

>>6670445
No I don't mean that. I mean that one human can vary his decision. He has the freedom to do so. His free will lies in the fact that he may act a certain way without it being programmed. I am not comparing two people.

This IS tiring. Im done with it. I understand that youre referencing the notion that everything lies in causality and im also stating that human freedom is, as we've said, impossible to disprove. But yeah, I'm done, this is circular. I've read it. I disagree with you. I disagree that Human programming is akin to computer programming. Its ridiculous

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 17:12:54 2015 No.6670474 >>6670420 1. Human freedom isn't compatible with hard determinism. 2. Hard determinism is impossible to prove. I'm out.

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 17:13:40 2015 No.6670476

>>6670458
>I mean that one human can vary his decision
That doesn't make sense. One singular token, in this case, a singular decision, cannot vary. You need at least two instances of the same decision for the word 'variation' to make sense. And that's the thing, you don't step into the same river twice, and there are no two instances of the same decision.
>His free will lies in the fact that he may act a certain way without it being programmed.
Begging the bloody question.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 17:16:06 2015 No.6670487 >>6670476 The ability to vary one's decision. The ability to choose. Humans have this. Computers do not.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 17:16:32 2015 No.6670491 >>6670474 Read Kant ffs. And yes, get out.

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 17:19:19 2015 No.6670502

>>6670487
>The ability to vary one's decision
That still doesn't mean a damn thing. Variation requires more than one decision.
>The ability to choose
Captcha just chose to make me identify roadsigns, but some pictures were too small for me to egen see the damn things.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 17:23:48 2015 No.6670524 >>6670491 I hope I never write a BA on someone I know little about

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 17:30:23 2015 No.6670550 >>6670524 You've run out of arguments? That is okay, I have been wrong a few select times, too. You don't even have to admit it. You just have to shut up.

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 17:34:06 2015 No.6670566

>>6670116
>A computer can not learn on its own.
http://www.washington.edu/news/2014/06/12/new-computer-program-aims-to-teach-itself-everything-about-anything/
>>6670116
>A computer cannot form habits or modes of function or decisions outside of what it is told. Please provide a human/conscious being that is analogous to this.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-31620759

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 17:34:56 2015 No.6670569

>>6670550
I'm sick of yor circular reasoning and your "uhhhhg just read Kant" despite having nothing to say. It's embarassing. For instance, a second ago I said "human freedom isn't compatible with hard determinism"

Your response to this was "read Kant ffs"

Here's a definition of hard determinism for you: Hard determinism (or metaphysical determinism) is a view on free will which holds that determinism is true, and that it is incompatible with free will, and, therefore, that free will does not exist.

I'm actually embarrassed for you. Where did you graduate?

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 17:38:44 2015 No.6670579

>>6670569
>Hard determinism (or metaphysical determinism) is a view on free will which holds that determinism is true, and that it is incompatible with free will, and, therefore, that free will does not exist.
And that is almost literally one half of the third antinomy. The second half says the opposite. Note why Kant does this, it is a critique of metaphysics. Kant is not a compatibilist, he demonstrates how two incompatible positions can be proven through pure reason.

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 17:38:52 2015 No.6670580

a) your brain doesn't think in characters, or letters, or words, or numbers; it thinks in function of abstractions/objects
b) for various decades now we have been doing object oriented programming with increasing precision
c) we are developing software (code) that tries to emulate human processing of information

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

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 17:38:58 2015 No.6670582 >>6670566 http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130207-will-we-ever-simulate-the-brain OPs question = are computers conscious Computers as we know them are not conscious. Those are very nice links.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 17:40:45 2015 No.6670593 >>6670579 Hard determinism is not compatible with free will by definition. Trying to wriggle out of this by saying "well, KANT DID IT" means nothing. Where did you graduate?

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 17:46:18 2015 No.6670625

>>6670593
>Hard determinism is not compatible with free will by definition
I just said the very same thing. Pay fucking attention. I'm saying the problem is not solvable.
>Where did you graduate?
You are, honestly, way too butthurt and unlikable for me to give you the slightest chance at ordering 6 gorillion pizzas to my home. Just get over it, this shit goes over your head.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 17:53:14 2015 No.6670665 >>6670625 I bet you win a lot of arguments by pretending that you had that view all along. If I went to CC I wouldn't admit it either.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 17:53:18 2015 No.6670666 >>6669151 >Consciousness, like the soul or free will, is an illusion. This is an 18+ site

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 17:54:19 2015 No.6670671 >>6669696 But Pepe is an amphibian...

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 17:56:51 2015 No.6670683 >>6670665 You now have the opportunity to read that whole fucking thread again and try to catch me contradicting what I said right there. Good luck. Failing to do this, will you fuck off?

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 18:00:47 2015 No.6670707

>>6670116
>Can a computer that is programmed the same way as another computer vary it's actions from that computer In any way?
Are you retarded? The answer is obviously yes. Take two factory setting laptops, give one to me and give one to you. My computer will send my post to you, this is the computer acting differently even though it's totally the same.
>Do all spawns of one mite go to the same location and do the same things as the others despite having the same genetic coding?
Just like all computers, all mites do not find themselves in the same situation, therefore they will not act identically. Also, genes do not code for behavior. Genes code for expression of protein and such minor chemical events. Putting genes in a certain environment(say, a womb) causes them to be expressed differently, growing and cascading into something resembling a macroscopic organism. Genes do not code, but they influence behavior. Similarly, computer code is not this magical divine authority, computer code is just the abstract feedback of physical matter. You write for game.exe to start up and to display the world, which causes the little electronic switches inside the computer to perform a cascading set of actions which normally sends signals to your monitor to display the world of game.exe. Normally, because sometimes your graphics card is damaged, and suddenly the computer doesn't do what it's programmed to do!

Point is, code is nothing but physical matter, just as humans and all other lifeforms and thus to speak of programming as something fundamentally different from biological processes is ridiculous. Just because computers are put together by people you let yourself get fooled.

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 18:07:39 2015 No.6670750

>>6670683
Me: human beings have room for variation in their actions, computers do not

You:
Of course there is [room for variation] because there are too many causal factors at work for anyone to control. This is the only reason for variation, but feel free to come up with one counter-example. And stop getting mad, I'm certainly not saying there is no autonomy, just that it must necessarily exist within this causal framework, which, as Kant shows, is a thing our reason cannot really comprehend.

Me:
>because there are too many causal factors at work for anyone to control.

...in the computer? The computer has too many factors to control? I'm genuinely confused about this

You: I was explaining why variation in humans is compatible with determinism

(Here I think you forgot that we are talking about one person's actions and not comparing behaviors between humans)

Me: hard determinism isn't compatible with free will

You:
KdixmeoMrosn
"Read Kant areggggg"

Me:
Hard determinism (or metaphysical determinism) is a view on free will which holds that determinism is true, and that it is incompatible with free will, and, therefore, that free will does not exist.

You: yeah of course, I knew that all along. It's unsolvable (?)

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 18:12:11 2015 No.6670777

>>6670750
The point there, how fucking slow are you, was that what you call variation in humans is just humans being different from each other and hard to predict/explain, due to a number of factors, none of which contradicts determinism.

You still have to explain how an action can 'vary'.

And where is the contradiction? If it's there, you should be able to point it out.

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 18:12:16 2015 No.6670779

>>6670707
Lol. Taking the entire argument out of context and proving that computers can execute their programmed functions in different ways. One computer can type A when someone hits A and one computer can type B when someone hits B. They're different!

Two computers are programmed to only do addition. Can one do addition and one do subtraction? No. They both do addition. They do what they are programmed to do.

Equating this to humans is absurd but I'll entertain it. Two humans are instructed to never do drugs. One human does drugs. One does not.
Two identical twins come out of the womb. One decides to play basketball and one decides to play baseball.

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 18:17:48 2015 No.6670803

>>6670777
Variation in their actions meaning the ability to behave in different ways. Meaning that one human is able to make a choice in his actions. A being can choose whether to turn left or to turn right.

The contradiction lies in your statement "variation in humans is compatible with determinism" but now I think i see that you actually just lost sight of the argument, seeing as you left out "action". You started comparing the actions of two people. I said that people can vary in their actions, meaning that they can act differently if they want. They are not confined to one choice (whether to turn right or left).

In one timeline, a said being's action is to turn right. In another, said being's action is to turn left. Saying that this being must turn left in all timelines is hard determinism and incompatible with free will.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 18:19:56 2015 No.6670814 >>6669988 Just because it's an old idea doesn't mean it's not a stupid idea. Everyone jumps over the HUGELY controversial assumptions in the Simulation Argument in their rush to say "hmmm, interesting...." or "whoa."

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 18:20:06 2015 No.6670815 >>6670707 >Confusing environment factors with commands Kek

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 18:25:09 2015 No.6670836

>>6670803
Oh well, the problem is your misuse of the term, variation.
I know it's dick move on my part, but look shit up before you post shit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variation
>they can act differently if they want
And are you trying to tell me that what they want can ever be anything but the result of prior events?
>They are not confined to one choice
How would you know this? You only ever see them make one choice.
>In one timeline, a said being's action is to turn right. In another, said being's action is to turn left
This is nonsense, I have only ever observed one timeline.

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 18:26:57 2015 No.6670844
File: 33 KB, 500x375, thinkingcat.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6669151
>>6669704
>>6669831
>>6669870
Better to just say that the self and consciousness aren't meaningful concepts to discuss. They have no meaning to anyone but the observer, and the observer doesn't need to think about them because they're implied in the idea of a observer at all. They're necessary premises for being able to talk about anything, not subjects in themselves.

>>6669617
>the question of whether there is a difference between something and a perfect simulation of that thing, the answer to which may have little actual meaning outside of linguistics.
Yes, but only if you truly mean that a "perfect simulation" is indistinguishable by ANY means. It's not a perfect simulation of a brain if I open it up and see all the wires, or if I start taking a hammer to it (even without knowing what's inside) and it doesn't break down the way a human's would.

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 18:29:35 2015 No.6670852

>>6670779
>Two identical twins come out of the womb. One decides to play basketball and one decides to play baseball.
No such thing as two identical twins. Their bodily makeup, their momentarily bodily chemistry the moment they come out of the womb and even since conception, is different. And their position is different indeed, one child is picked up by mother, one child is picked up by father, events cascade further and further.

And the electric signal when someone presses A is so much more different from the electrochemical signal when a bright light is shone into the eye? One is an input and one is not? You think that the putting together and coding of a computer is fundamentally different from the growth of animal, but how? It's all matter interacting, code is just matter, brains are just matter, both arise through natural processes.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 18:30:36 2015 No.6670857 >>6670815 A command isn't magic. A programmer is not god.

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 18:32:20 2015 No.6670866

>>6670836
>misuse of variation
Fair
>And are you trying to tell me that what they want can ever be anything but the result of prior events?
Yes. If you believe they had no choice, this is hard determinism. Free will is incompatible with this idea.
>how would you know this?
This is what Kant and almost all the Germans following Kant say: you can't know this. You cant know that it would happen the other way either. You cant know if they would make the same choice in every timeline. You cant know if they would make different choices in every timelines. Thus, the prospect of ever proving or disproving hard determinism is nonsensical. Furthermore, if one chooses to subscribe to hard determinism, one relinquishes free will.
>I can't see the other timelines
Exactly. Which is why Kant says that it lies outside of our experience.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 18:35:31 2015 No.6670878 >>6670852 Your argument that electric signals in the eye mirror electric signals in a computer does absolutely nothing to further your argument that humans are programmed. Read this thread before posting. Nobody Wants to backtrack

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 18:39:32 2015 No.6670900

>>6670866
>Yes
Ok then, why do other people want what they want? Did they choose to want that? Why, because they wanted to want that? Why did they wqnt to want that? Etc, etc...
>This is what Kant and almost all the Germans following Kant say: you can't know this
Then why claim it?
>Thus, the prospect of ever proving or disproving hard determinism is nonsensical.
You don't need to prove it, literally everything you can experience will by definition be in line with it.
You are making claims about other people based on things that are outside your experience: how do you legitimize this. And how do you, furthermore, legitimize making the contrary claim about programmed machines?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 18:43:06 2015 No.6670909 >>6669080 No, because theyre art

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 18:45:36 2015 No.6670920 Why not? We model computers after brains, eventually we'll model it down to conscious actions. As far as how long that will take, I have no idea. Maybe a decade, maybe a century. Maybe never. I'm just saying it's not impossible.

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 18:45:48 2015 No.6670922

>>6670900
I never claimed to prove or disprove hard determinism. In fact, Ive been claiming the opposite the entire time. I don't understand your argument that you don't need to prove it or that everything will be in line with it. If that's to say that, in terms of our immediate experience, it doesn't matter, you are right. That is irrelevant, however, for the question is over whether or not humans have free will in their choices.

The case of hard determinism for computers, however, is different. This is because, when told to do a string of commands, those computers will operate the exact same way in every timeline. This is certain.

A human being told that he is given a choice to turn right or left may (or may not) vary (correct) in his decision across these timelines.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 18:47:28 2015 No.6670931 >>6670920 >we model computers after brains What is with the influx of reddit, popsci informed plebs here.

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 18:50:56 2015 No.6670946

>>6670878
I never said that humans are programmed, and quite honestly I'm surprised that you even think so. What I said was that the distinction between programmed and born is useless when discussing this subject. You see programming as an infallible order, and thus anything that can be made with it as an automaton, "computers cannot disobey their programming", but programming is just matter.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 18:54:10 2015 No.6670960 >>6670946 Computers cannot disobey their programming.

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 18:55:51 2015 No.6670965

>>6670931

In several simplified, basic, and high level ways we do.

You really have 3 basic parts of a computer. You have your processor which does the processing, both active and passive, you have your hard drive which stores memory long term, and you have your I/O, which deals with sending and receiving data.

Similarly, you have the main processes of your brain, which processes conscious, subconscious, and unconscious things that go on. You have in your brain memory, some memory you have fresh in your mind, basically like RAM. Other memory you have to think a bit to recall. Admittedly this is completely different from computers, as memory is all stored in a fixed location, where your memory is more of a series of connected thoughts (Although linked lists are like this, so are pointers in some way).

Then your I/O, your brain deals with information coming and going all the time, same with a computer.

Again, it's a high level look, but computers were modeled in general to behave like brains do, because that's the way we function.

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 18:56:49 2015 No.6670969

>>6670922
You sure are a piece of work m8. Look, what I mean when I say, we experience an utterly deterministic universe is: when somebody does a thing, no matter how much knowledge you obtain about how they ended up doing that thing, it will inevitably take the form of a straight causal line, as inescapable as a command in a piece of code. Freedom is something radically different, it is a property of that which you must assume in order to be able to think, your own noumenal self. You cannot know from experience that other human beings also have conscious thoughts, and thus free noumenal selves, it's an act of projection to assume it.
>when told to do a string of commands, those computers will operate the exact same way in every timeline. This is certain.
It is exactly as certain as your assumption that I may have typed a different line in another timeline. Which is to say, not certain at all, as we know fuck all about other timelines. The inevatability of the execution of command bears no formal difference to the inevitability of the actions I have already taken, from your perspective.

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 18:58:14 2015 No.6670975

>>6670960

Artificial intelligence isn't about reading code, though, it's about writing code.

It's all about dynamically creating new functions, learning, being able to create new information.

That's why most artificial intelligence studies use languages like scheme, because it's very well suited for writing code as it goes.

Human's can't disobey their "programming" either, in the sense that A. You can't change things you have done (IE, you've created new thoughts, you can't undo those thoughts), and you can't do anything with your body, like all of a sudden stop your heart.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 18:59:35 2015 No.6670980 >>6670960 You cannot disobey your programming, either.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 18:59:38 2015 No.6670981 >>6670920 >conscious actions what is a conscious action ?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 19:00:34 2015 No.6670983 >>6670960 Correct, computers cannot disobey their own physical processes. But, that goes for all of us, and every thing.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 19:01:19 2015 No.6670989 >>6670981 By its own will and accord, know what it's doing and does it. Nothing tells the computer to do it, and the computer can comprehend at any basic level what exactly it's doing.

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 19:02:22 2015 No.6670997

>>6670969
>not understanding basic metaphysics
I don't even know how to help you I really don't. This is as basic as it gets. The argument of the other timeline is only put it in place to prove that you can't trace back decisions merely by causality because some decisions (turning left or right) can be chosen through free will. This is the purpose of introducing another timeline.
>as inescapable as a command in a piece of code.
No. This is what Kant says is unknowable. For someone so versed in Kant you have an extremely difficult time grasping this concept.
>You cannot know from experience that other human beings also have conscious thoughts
Right. Solipsism is another thing that is unprovable for it lies outside experience. Idk what you want from me. I hate you. I want you to understand but I can't help you. Can someone help him?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 19:03:27 2015 No.6670999 >>6670980 >>6670983 How do you know? Protip: you don't

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 19:05:14 2015 No.6671006 >>6670999 >YUO CAN'T KNOW!!!

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 19:05:54 2015 No.6671010 >>6671006 You can't.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 19:06:52 2015 No.6671012 >>6671010 You can't know that I can't know

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 19:07:08 2015 No.6671015 >>6670989 So in order to make a conscious computer we first need to make it comprehend shit. good luck with that.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 19:08:30 2015 No.6671019 >>6671012 actually I know you can't know. Which is why people should say shit like "duh we can't disobey OUR programming either" It holds no ground.

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 19:08:46 2015 No.6671022

>>6670997
>The argument of the other timeline is only put it in place to prove that you can't trace back decisions merely by causality because some decisions (turning left or right) can be chosen through free will.
That would be a severe case of begging the question if I've ever seen one. Sorry for trying to be benevolent.
>This is what Kant says is unknowable
It is unknowable, But: all knowledge we will be able to obtain will take this form. Therefore, unless we make assumptions we cannot back up, other people's actions will appear deterministic to us. There is nothing that can break this spell for good. And therefore, the appearance of a computer's actions as deterministic cannot be taken as proof of the absence of free will.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 19:12:25 2015 No.6671032 >>6671019 So how can we go against our physical processes when this going against would be a physical process in itself? Or do you believe humans are more than matter?

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 19:12:29 2015 No.6671033

>>6671022
>all knowledge we will be able to obtain will take this form.
What?
>begging the question
How do you think this? The alternate timelines are set in place to probe that it is unknowable whether or not someone was able to choose left or right. I think you're unable to grasp this timeline thing. The timelines are showing that the decision to pick left or right is unaffected by prior causes.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 19:13:55 2015 No.6671036 >>6671032 Please elaborate on why you think that humans can't go against their "programming" Also please explain how we are programmed. I can't understand your ramblings

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 19:15:40 2015 No.6671041 >>6669080 yes read like, any Hofstadter and you'll be convinced in ~20-30 minutes.

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 19:19:19 2015 No.6671054

>>6670013
>A computer cannot learn.

Strictly false, there are entire disciplines of computer science based in making machines learn. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_learning

>A computer makes no choice.

That's only true if you presuppose what you're trying to prove in the first place (i.e. that there is some magical property of neurons or the human brain which makes it able to be conscious which a computer cannot have)

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 19:19:34 2015 No.6671055 >>6671015 Isn't that like, a major component of consciousness?

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 19:22:55 2015 No.6671060

>>6671036
>Please elaborate on why you think that humans can't go against their "programming"
Humans are physical processes, like bacteria are, but vastly more complex. You cannot go against your physical processes if you are entirely a physical process, it would be like turning to face your back, you always point forward. It's very simple.

Computers are also physical processes like this but less complex

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 19:24:08 2015 No.6671061

>>6671033
>what?
How are you this thick?
Ask yourself, what can you really know about any other human being's action? To assume an actual choice is to project, that's not knowledge. What's left is physical movements, motivations, causes of those motivations, causes of the causes, and you can arrange them in a nice line each after the other. That is the deterministic account. You are free to believe that this involves freedom of choice, but you do not actually know this, not for anyone but yourself, and even then it's one massive metaphysical clusterfuck attached to it, but this freedom is still indispensable, for you. Stop projecting it onto the other person, and the difference to a computer vanishes. You are now the only free being in the universe. Now, use your freedom to rev up the projection again, but this time also apply it to certain computers.
>The timelines are showing
The timelines are unknowable. I have no concept of what is possible in other timelines. Timelines do not prove a goddamn thing other than that I do not know what would have been possible had not the things ocurred, that have indeed ocurred. Why do you think this is so powerful, it does nothing at all.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 19:30:05 2015 No.6671081 free will discussions are reddit-tier philosophy

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 19:33:08 2015 No.6671097

>>6671061
I KNOW THAT YOU CANT KNOW THIS IVE BEEN SAYING THIS ALL ALONG

listen man im done with this. I don't even know why I care if you understand hard determinism and how it relates to free will. You are incorrigible and you wrote a BA on Kant for community college and you don't know what determinism is and I don't care anymore. I just don't care. I hope to god that you never, ever understand hard determinism and that you continue being this self-deluded because life will actually probably be awesome for you if you can't understand an argument. That way, you can always win. I hope you have a stellar time with your apparently useless philosophy degree (lol) from Milwuakee Community and do great things with yourself. How you obtained a Phil degree without grasping metaphysics is beyond me.

Peace.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 19:35:07 2015 No.6671107 Just ordered a book on the subject. Ask again in 1 month and I will answer.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 19:36:59 2015 No.6671119 >>6671097 Oh, my mad friend, I have one final question: How the hell do you know how computers would behave in different timelines? You claimed you did.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 19:39:44 2015 No.6671134 >>6669099 pearls before swine

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 19:41:55 2015 No.6671146 man /lit/ needs IDs

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 19:42:37 2015 No.6671150 >>6671146 What for?

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 19:45:17 2015 No.6671169

Had a good conversation with my algorithms lecturer over this. It pretty much comes down to true AI will never exist because computers will always just follow algorithms to determine what actions to do, rather than making its own choice. Computers also will never learn like we do, instead they just store new data that can be used by the algorithms to make decisions.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 19:46:01 2015 No.6671175 >>6671150 to keep undergraduates filtered

>>	« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » Wed Jun 10 19:46:04 2015 No.6671176 >>6671150 IDing shit posters and circle-jerkers.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 19:47:46 2015 No.6671184 >>6671150 to make it almost worthwile trying to follow a conversation

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 19:48:18 2015 No.6671188 >>6671169 So instead of doing the things we do, they do things that sound almost exactly like the things we do, but are totally not the same because semantics? What a relief.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 19:49:07 2015 No.6671191 >>6671169 I've said this the entire thread. Prepare yourself for "humans are programmed and have no choices" which will turn into "we are the same as computers" it's a goddamn hivemind

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 19:49:09 2015 No.6671192 >>6671176 such as

>>	The cats Wed Jun 10 19:49:42 2015 No.6671200 >>6671175 >>6671176 >not understanding how IDs work >>6671184 >being new and posting

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 19:50:51 2015 No.6671205 >>6671119 Not that anon but computers are programmed to do things one way?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 19:53:01 2015 No.6671216 >>6671205 And we are motivated by our past and our nature to do one thing the next moment, not the other.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 19:53:08 2015 No.6671218 >>6671200 jesus you're still here

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 19:54:25 2015 No.6671226 >>6671216 >comparing human decision-making to computer programming The two are not the same anon

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 19:58:12 2015 No.6671249 >>6671226 True, one is determined by complex natural and social causes, and the other is determined by the motivations of a human, determined by complex natural and social causes.

« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » Wed Jun 10 20:04:03 2015 No.6671269

>>6671192
You'd have to ask him that, I've never filtered

>>6671200
>not understanding how IDs work
Implying.
That anon is thinking of filtering some poster within this thread. Sure he'll resurface in some other thread, but it could find you as The Cats or an anon if you took the name off within the same thread. Am I wrong?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 20:05:27 2015 No.6671279 >>6671169 The question posed in the OP is about consciousness. Algorithms, decision making, learning, etc. are certainly important topics for AI, but I don't see why you think the argument over consciousness "pretty much comes down to" them.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 20:09:36 2015 No.6671300 >>6671269 You've never filtered anyone? even evola kid or rei? how do you stand it?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 20:10:44 2015 No.6671306 >>6671249 A yields B A = B Yes!

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 20:14:02 2015 No.6671319 >>6671306 That was never my point, but rather that both are under the same degree of determinism.

>>	« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » Wed Jun 10 20:23:43 2015 No.6671372 >>6671300 I either read them or I don't. I do close threads on occasion. Best new-ish feature next to reverse image search

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 20:30:43 2015 No.6671411 >>6671269 I meant IDs are good for ignoring people such as yourself. You seem ok at first, but scratch the surface and you're as bad as the rest of /lit/.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 20:33:04 2015 No.6671422 >>6669080 No, because humans can't have consciousness either. "Consciousness" is pseudoscientific bullshit.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 20:37:22 2015 No.6671441 >>6669080 Well, I'm a materialist and a reductionist, so I must assume that it can. Not that I have any idea how, or how that would work, or how to tell if a computer has consciousness or not.

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 20:41:16 2015 No.6671461

>>6671441
As a materialist and reductionist, what's the problem with believing that there is something special about the meat/chemicals of brains that gives rise to consciousness?

You don't need to invoke magic or other tricky concepts to say that there's something about the physical composition of brains that is important, and mechanical computers will not have it.

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 20:53:03 2015 No.6671507

>>6671319
How can you say that humans are under the same degree of determinism? You've arbitrarily used the word degree, as if determinism has levels. How can you know that human decision-making is determined without resorting to "muh speculation and muh intuition"

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 20:54:24 2015 No.6671515 >>6669080 oh god my crush had a face structure like this, i hate you op >tfw pathetic beta when near your crush

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 20:56:07 2015 No.6671525 >>6671507 he doesn't understand determinism

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 21:08:39 2015 No.6671588

>>6671461
Well, because that doesn't make any sense. The meat and chemicals of our brain are made of atoms; atoms, as far as we can tell, can be perfectly described by mathematical rules. This means that it should be theoretically possible to build a complete, mathematical description of our brains whose internal dynamics would be indistinguishable from our own, and that in turn could be simulated by a computer. Since I believe that consciousness somehow arises from the physical stuff going on in my brain, I can think of no good reason that the simulation shouldn't have it to.

Of course, such a thing would be completely impractical and vastly beyond our abilities as a civilization, but I can find no theoretical reason why it shouldn't work.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 21:15:34 2015 No.6671622 >>6671588 All well and good, but to be fair, the brain is less understood than is popularized

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 21:18:27 2015 No.6671637 >>6669857 The word illusion implies the reality of consciousness; "consciousness is an illusion" literally contradicts itself and thus cannot be true, like "black is white" or "OP isn't a fag."

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 21:20:47 2015 No.6671644 >>6669949 >If you believe having a soul is a requirement to be conscious, then no Why can't a computer have a soul?

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 21:22:29 2015 No.6671652

>>6670814
Most scientists believe in the hypothesis, justifying it that you don't really need a computer or processor of any kind to run a simulation, because the world we see is a simulation created by what is essentially the interaction of numbers and probabilities.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 21:24:00 2015 No.6671657 >>6671622 Undeniably true, but it seems unlikely that the brain involves exotic laws of physics at this point.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 21:24:22 2015 No.6671659 >>6669083 I really laughed at this Pretty dumb but it got me for some reason thanks

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 21:25:18 2015 No.6671663 >>6671644 What can't dogs be people? I absolutely hate when people ask nonsensical questions and expect answers

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 21:28:38 2015 No.6671671 >>6671663 Dogs can't be persons because they don't display self-awareness or future-oriented planning.

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 21:32:53 2015 No.6671688

>>6671169
>It pretty much comes down to true AI will never exist because computers will always just follow algorithms to determine what actions to do, rather than making its own choice.
Your algorithms teacher must be a total knob; an algorithm is literally any step-by-step description for making a choice. If we had perfect knowledge of the human brain, you could write down in explicit detail an algorithm for human choices. We don't even need to have knowledge of how the human brain works to suppose the existence of a "Human Algorithm" that determines how humans make decisions... as long as one assumes that physics follows a logical set of rules, it follows that there exists a Human Algorithm (specific to each human).

So the idea that a computer following an algorithm is incapable of making a choice is complete nonsense.

>Computers also will never learn like we do,
This is debatable, but it's a reasonable--
>instead they just store new data that can be used by the algorithms to make decisions.
Ok this is rubbish. Humans store data that is used by the Human Algorithm to make decisions.

If you want to believe that computers will never learn like we do, fine. Human learning isn't too well understood and there's no telling whether scientists will ever be able to replicate it. But segregating "human decisions" and "computer decisions" is without basis.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 21:34:14 2015 No.6671696 >>6671659 No prob man, if you want to read more I have a weekly newsletter as well :)

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 21:35:29 2015 No.6671699

>>6671588
>atoms, as far as we can tell, can be perfectly described by mathematical rules.
Hardly uncontroversial, but even if we accept this, you seem to be implying that if something can be perfectly described by mathematical rules, than it IS mathematical rules.

Describing != being, and simulating != being, either. Simulation can only be perfect at a given layer of abstraction, it can never be 100% indistinguishable to all possible tests, because then it would simply be duplication.

I'm not sure what you're imagining here, but why would you think that because the simulation is really good, it would therefore have ALL the properties of the original? Even if you think reality can be completely described with math, that's still a representation--it's not the real thing. Putting all the right representations in the computer will be an extremely powerful predictive tool, but it will not BECOME the correct atoms you need to make your brain work.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 21:36:42 2015 No.6671704 >>6671652 >Most scientists believe in the hypothesis lol no, and the rest of your post is word salad

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 21:40:10 2015 No.6671713 how in anyway could computers experience the world?

A Different Anon Than The Abov(...) Wed Jun 10 21:40:11 2015 No.6671714

>>6671688

I'd go further and say that even if you believe in souls, there still has to be a Human Algorithm.

If my soul is the part of me that is important, it must have inputs and outputs, probably from the brain. (After all, if it is to be a meaningful part of my decision-making process, it must have outputs that feed back into my brain and thus my actions; and if it has no inputs then I'm not making decisions based on anything, which is very arbitrary.)

So the soul has inputs and outputs. It must, also, have internal rules. (Why? Well, by definition, if there are *no* rules to its output, then it's indistinguishable from a random noise generator. A soul that could be replaced by a fair coin is a poor soul indeed!) Of course, those rules might be fundamentally not rigid and deterministic, but any nondeterministic process can be represented as an ordinary algorithm that can call a random-number generator.

So even if there's a soul, there has to be a Soul Algorithm that describes its decision-making process. It might be an uncomputable algorithm, mind, but there'd be an algorithm.

(And I doubt it's uncomputable, since humans don't seem to show any signs of super-Turing abilities; As any programmer can tell you, we're pretty shit at analyzing arbitrary code, for instance.)

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 21:40:39 2015 No.6671716 >>6671671 They display both of those things.

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 21:54:52 2015 No.6671769

>>6669080
We cannot answer this question without a clear definition of consciousness. Even if you are simply using human-level intelligence as a marker, without a way to actually measure intelligence and consciousness, the question is completely subjective. You could say that we are more intelligent because we don't trip over stairs and laugh at the DARPA contest robots because they take so long for tasks we complete ourselves no problem. But, if you compare a computer's ability to store a database and perform all sorts of calculations on its data without error to a human's, its no contest. Consciousness, according to Google, is "the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings", which is still too ambiguous and vague. If my computer is on and can receive input via its keyboard, is it not aware of its surroundings and awake? Honestly, this question cannot be answered until objective goals of consciousness have been defined. Until then, this question has many answers and will remain subjective.

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 21:58:03 2015 No.6671782

>>6671769
The philosophical definition of consciousness is different from the medical ones; it's ill-defined but basically boils down to "the ability to have subjective experiences." It is also described in terms of the "internal theater" - all the experiences going on behind your eyes, in your head, like imagination, worries, thoughts, etc. that you experience having.

Like, for instance, you ever noticed how you have emotions, or that you are thinking and noticing things? If so, you're conscious.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 21:59:23 2015 No.6671787 >>6671782 (If not, you are probably a p-zombie and should receive immediate ephiphenomenal treatment by the nearest epistemologist.)

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 22:02:42 2015 No.6671801

>>6671782
So if one becomes "self aware", one is conscious? Is this the same as the statement "If a computer can determine whether it is on or calculating something, then is conscious"? Emotions and experiences are nothing more than biological reactions to your experiences and inputs, similar to a computer. The computer can also perceive when it is receiving sensory date through a connected device. The computer is a network of electrical signals. We are a network of chemical signals. Is the computer conscious now?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 22:03:57 2015 No.6671806 >>6671769 >if my computer is on and it can receive input via its keyboard, is it not awake? No. This is a ridiculous conclusion.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 22:03:58 2015 No.6671807 File: 34 KB, 800x600, shinyfeelzing_by_shawarmachine-d88qwjr.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >tfw the hard problem of consciousness is actually really hard to solve

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 22:06:07 2015 No.6671815 >>6671806 Pretty sure that was a rhetorical question. The point is that being "aware of one's surroundings" is vague to the point of uselessness.

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 22:06:14 2015 No.6671817

>>6671699
I'm saying that if it is described by mathematical rules, then there is a mathematical structure with all the properties of that thing.

If humans are made of atoms, therefore there exists a mathematical structure with all the properties of a human - if we apply inputs to it, then it will do the same thing, in the same way, as if we had applied the equivalent input to a real human.

And since when you ask me if I have consciousness, I tell you yes because of my own experiences having internal experiences, it would seem very strange to me if this mathematical structure said "yes" despite *not* having internal experiences - especially since it by definition responds in a materially identical way!

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 22:06:22 2015 No.6671819 >>6671801 >The computer can also perceive when it is receiving sensory data through a connected device. The computer doesn't think about or "perceive" what it's doing, it just does. You're drawing conclusions from nothing.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 22:08:08 2015 No.6671828 >>6671815 Awareness has long been a key point in consciousness. I see nothing vague about it.

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 22:08:20 2015 No.6671831

>>6671801
Emotions and experiences are internal reactions to inputs, but not all internal reactions to inputs are emotions and experiences.

If I am adding two and two, and the computer is running its own program, it is nonsensical to proclaim that the computer must also be adding two and two simply because we are both networks of signals.

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 22:08:34 2015 No.6671832

>>6671801
>if one becomes "self aware", one is conscious?
sure
>Is this the same as the statement "If a computer can determine XYZ
no
>Emotions and experiences are nothing more than biological reactions to your experiences and inputs, similar to a computer
similar != identical, they are VERY roughly analogous and really only so because it makes computers a lot easier to talk about

everything in the universe has "reactions" to stimuli but it's pure sophistry to make it sound like therefore that's all we're talking about when we talk about conscious reactions, i.e. feelings

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 22:10:31 2015 No.6671841

>>6671806
How is that? When the computer is on, it is actively calculating and storing information, as per its instructions. When the keyboard receives human input, it sends the information as electrical signals back to the port and to the motherboard. The OS loaded interprets the data received and determines what to do with it. When we awake, we are not initially off or lacking chemical signals, as that would mean death. We are perpetually using chemical signals to communicate sensory and motor information to various places in the body. We receive sensory information just as the keyboard does, and it relays the information back to an interpreter, just as we do when we receive sensory input. You should also improve your argument by adding evidence for why you believe my conclusion is ridiculous. Simply refusing to believe my argument is false because it is not expected and seems wrong is not a valid counter.

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 22:11:48 2015 No.6671846

>>6669080
I don't know. I don't see anything that says they can, and I don't see anything that says they can't. Were decades, maybe a century away from knowing that.

I don't see anything that says that AI is inevitable either. If you look at the 1960 science fiction and even regular scientists writing, they thought it would certain we would have an AI before 2000. Well...our technological capabilities was far beyond what they predicted, and we didn't have AIs then.

Hell it's 2015, and our computers are probably a billion times more powerful than they could have ever imagined, and we're still not even close to having an AI.

So I don't know, I don't see anything that says it's inevitable, or even possible, but nothing that says it isn't.

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 22:14:15 2015 No.6671860

>>6671817
>if it is described by mathematical rules, then there is a mathematical structure with all the properties of that thing
What about the property of actually existing?

You can mathematically describe the mass of something, you cannot mathematically give it the property of actually having mass.

I have a feeling you are saying "all the properties" but you are really only imagining a small subset of the properties, and probably the ones we are used to thinking of sci-fi computers as having: the ability to hear, see, talk back, etc.

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 22:14:46 2015 No.6671863

>>6671819
>The computer doesn't think about or "perceive" what it's doing, it just does.
You really need to define "thinking" and "perceiving" before you can say that. Computers are fully capable of allowing programs to read their own code, make decisions based on that information, and modify the code if necessary.

I would totally argue that some programs "think" or "perceive" in the sense that they receive information and make a decision based on that information + other factors. Doesn't mean they have a mind or any of that fancy stuff, but surely they can think at least as well as some lowly insect?

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 22:16:08 2015 No.6671870
File: 62 KB, 334x333, 1414885760771.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

No.
Mechatronic Engineer here. Considering robots are very similar to computers, I'd say it's impossible.
The machine is nothing. Its logic is purely binary, human-programmed.
It doesn't think, therefore it doesn't hold consciousness.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 22:17:48 2015 No.6671882 >>6671870 How naive.

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 22:19:15 2015 No.6671889

>>6671863
>You really need to define "thinking" and "perceiving" before you can say that.
Yet you can say
>The computer can also perceive when it is receiving sensory date through a connected device.

How about before you criticize me for using a word, you use it correctly in the first place. Sound good? Did you mean recognize? Perception is a term limited to the human brain. Try googling it

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 22:19:56 2015 No.6671893

>>6671819
Do we perceive what we are doing? Are we conscious because of our ability to analyze ourselves and our mental activity? One could say a computer is conscious if it is able to analyze its electrical signals. The argument against that is that it does not "truly" understand its electrical signals, and simply does what it's OS tells it to do. You could argue humans are the same, where we do not truly understand our experiences. Our perception is nothing more than chemical signals in the brain and neurons communicating according to input. The brain's ability to think about how it is angry can only occur when one understands the notion of anger and applies it to the input they receive from their brain's sensory data. It's simply the brain recognizing a pattern and acknowledging it. I think more meaningful research on consciousness can be done when we ignore the value we place on human life. If we can raise a human that has an inherent lack of stimuli from their senses, but are intravenously supplemented with nutrients and the necessary substances for life, what happens? That would be an interesting experiment.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 22:20:16 2015 No.6671895 >>6671882 >how naive Says the guy with no experience in computers

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 22:22:34 2015 No.6671903

>>6671893
>you could argue that humans are the same

You cannot do this. Please stop pretending we know more of the brain than we do and please stop pretending determinism is more than a theory. I hate simplifying arguments to the point of "ehhh computers process electrically and so do we so basically it's the same"

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 22:23:40 2015 No.6671908

>>6671860
It's true that I'm only imagining a subset of the properties - "history" being the first one that comes to mind as one I'm not considering - but I also can't imagine that consciousness arises from any of those factors. What would it even mean for consciousness to depend on non-material human-assigned factors?

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 22:24:04 2015 No.6671910

>>6671832
When one feels the air against their skin, a signal from the nerves in the skin send their data to the brain, which produces the sensation. When someone types on a keyboard attached to a computer, the keyboard sends the input back to the motherboard, which carries out the necessary and defined operations for that input defined by the OS. Tell me how that is not the same concept? I understand they are different mediums, but they are both communication networks, no?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 22:24:47 2015 No.6671914 >>6671903 What does determinism have to do with any of this? Any non-deterministic system can still be described by an algorithm that can call a random-number generator.

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 22:26:25 2015 No.6671921

>>6671882
It's simple, logical reasoning. I've studied computer programming and architecture for years. As computers are made now, they cannot hold consciousness. It's programmed to do most of things automatically after an input. Therefore, you can compare it to almost any mechanical system, besides having electronic foundation.

I'm going to sleep now, but try to thing about it.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 22:28:27 2015 No.6671928 >>6671914 You compared humans to an operating system which would seem to strip free will from the equation, no?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 22:30:00 2015 No.6671935 File: 274 KB, 912x956, 1431791987240.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6669080 No, because they're not human. And I decide what's human or not, so don't even start that with me, /lit/. Checkmate.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 22:30:10 2015 No.6671937 >>6669929 >Human DNA leads to humans. Humans have consciousness. Carbon leads to humans. Humans have consciousness. Carbon leads to computers. Ergo, computers may have consciousness.

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 22:31:03 2015 No.6671939

>>6671903
Both are systems with input-output capabilities. Where did I claim we know more of the brain than we actually do? Am I wrong? Does the brain not process chemical signals from biological sensors and carry out actions as a result? Determinism is no more of a theory than the theory of gravity. They are both theories that can adapt based on new observations. Determinism is certainly not some governing laws of all humans, particularly because we have yet to understand the depth of ourselves, so we could not have possibly developed a theory that models our depth and complexity correct. Also, you don't have to simplify my argument. It would be better to expand on it until conflicts that would disprove it arise.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 22:31:17 2015 No.6671940 File: 889 KB, 756x715, 1413765714688.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] What is it like to be a bat?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 22:33:31 2015 No.6671955 >>6670920 >We model computers after brains, eventually we'll model it down to conscious actions. That's assuming hard materialism, which is kind of a big fucking leap.

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 22:36:41 2015 No.6671968

>>6671908
I'm not talking about non-material things. Is having mass, the example I used, non-material? There are many properties the simulation will not have other than in respect to other, virtual, simulated objects, such as the properties of exerting gravitation force, reacting with various chemicals, reacting to being hit with a sledgehammer, etc.

I think what you are claiming is akin to saying that having an apple perfectly described, with absolute perfect understanding of all the laws and measurements and particles and such, leaves you with an apple indistinguishable from the apple you initially measured. And yet, I can't eat the virtual apple, because it only exists inside a computer that is made of--well, I don't know, it's probably a fantastic future computer, but it's not apple stuff.

I am suggesting (not attempting to prove) that consciousness might be like that. The physical substrate matters, and even if you perfectly DESCRIBE the substrate inside a computer, the ACTUAL substrate is still, in the end, whatever the computer is made of, and is no more conscious than the apple is edible.

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 22:37:04 2015 No.6671971

>>6671895
Oh! I am pierced to the core, what keen wit!

>>6671903
>please stop pretending determinism is more than a theory.
Yes, let's stop pretending that magic doesn't exist. I just finished my 5th year at Hogwart's, and boy! What a blast!

>>6671921
> As computers are made now, they cannot hold consciousness.
o well ok den I didnt no u had measured the computer to see if consciousness culd fit.

> It's programmed to do most of things automatically after an input. Therefore, you can compare it to almost any mechanical system
Oh, like the human body?

>I'm going to sleep now, but try to thing about it.
I wil do dis, thanks, u r so smrt

Not The Guy You Were Previousl(...) Wed Jun 10 22:37:39 2015 No.6671976

>>6671928
Sorry, forgot the name I try to use when I jump into discussions. This should clear things up. I have not, personally, compared a human to an operating system.

But let's look into that - what, exactly, makes you think determinism and free will are incompatible?

Obviously a deterministic world could never have "truly" free will, because you could never do something that you weren't, in some sense, always going to do. But since the only difference between a deterministic world and a non-deterministic one is the introduction of random noise, why would adding random noise to my decisions make them more "free?" Certainly it seems absurd that a man with a random die roller in his head would have ultimately, purely free will - and if neither pure determinism or pure nondeterminism allows "free will", does that mean there's a magic sweet spot of random noise at which the output of our minds would be elevated from rigid choicelessness to free will?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 22:40:48 2015 No.6671991 As long as a computer operates on Binary- no it cannot be conscious. Real thoughts are not 1s and 0s.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 22:45:40 2015 No.6672012 >>6671971 Yes, let's stop pretending that magic doesn't exist. I just finished my 5th year at Hogwart's, and boy! What a blast! These people think they contribute anything to earth.

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 22:46:45 2015 No.6672019

>>6671976
And here's the thing about a deterministic world. It doesn't mean it's running on some kind of pre-determined script - what it means, specifically, is that you can find out exactly what happens at any point in the future by having complete knowledge of the present and computing forwards.

But it does not require there to be any patterns that the world can be simplified down to - any scripts and hidden tracks on which the world runs.

For a world like ours, for instance (or like ours would be if it turned out quantum mechanics were deterministic), there would indeed be an exact computation to work out what would happen in the future - but that computation would be exactly equivalent to simulating, step-by-step, the universe!

And if you believe, as I do, that in a materialistic, reductionist, mathematically-describable world that any perfect simulation of a thing should be considered, within the simulation, to be that thing ... then there's exactly no difference between this simulated world and the real one. Your choices may be "pre-determined" - but the only way to determine it is exactly equivalent to yourself making your choices!

And I have absolutely no problem saying that "If I would make a certain choice in a certain position given the exact same experiences and internal state, then I would make that choice if placed in that position with those experiences and that state." I do not feel that this invalidates my choices in any way.

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 22:48:52 2015 No.6672030

>>6672019
(Technically, the "pre-determined script" and "find out the future from the present" are just different interpretations of the same thing given certain assumptions, but I happen to subscribe to those assumptions and view any philosophical problem that goes away when you change interpretation to simply be a flaw of the interpretation.)

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 22:49:58 2015 No.6672035

>>6671976
>But let's look into that - what, exactly, makes you think determinism and free will are incompatible?

Well, to be fair, I don't think that personally, it's just that hard determinism is incompatible with free will.

Why does free will necessarily need to be random noise? The decisions are free in the sense that they are not rigidly defined. A human may choose to select A or select B in a world in a nondeterministic world, no? Or is this the random noise? I actually don't know. So you mean to equate random noise with random decision making that isn't based on previous causes? Which is fine, I'm just making sure that's where we are at

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 22:50:33 2015 No.6672039 >>6671991 What is a "real" thought?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 22:51:34 2015 No.6672044 >>6671991 >As long as a human operates on chemical signals- no it cannot be conscious. Real thoughts are not chemical interactions.

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 22:54:46 2015 No.6672057

>>6672019
Very intriguing post and I will continue mulling it over for a bit. Let me ask you: do you believe that you would make the exact same Decision every time given that all past events and experiences are the same?

Also I love the inclusion of the quantum mechanics argument because my friend recently barged into my apartment ranting about some argument she had in class and how she believes determinism to be impossible for everything is chaotic at the quantum level (or is so theorized).

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 22:55:47 2015 No.6672059 >>6672044 Chemical interactions =\= 1s and 0

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 23:00:15 2015 No.6672080 >>6672059 The data format is irrelevant. The communication of many parts to make a whole I/O system is the important part. Why don't you start by defining real thought so that I may understand your argument?

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 23:01:01 2015 No.6672083

>>6672035
>A human may choose to select A or select B in a world in a nondeterministic world, no?

Yes, but he may also choose to do so in a deterministic world.

What I'm saying is that there's no way to construct any non-deterministic system that isn't equivalent to a deterministic system plus noise.

By "free will necessarily must be random noise", I just meant that since the only difference between a deterministic world and a non-deterministic world is that one has an element of random noise in it, then claiming determinism kills free will and nondeterminism doesn't necessarily implies that adding random noise makes free will possible.

"not based on previous causes" is a good way to describe it, although there's important subtleties that misses.

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 23:03:52 2015 No.6672098

>>6672057
Well, not quite - in actual fact you'd have to make sure the entire arrangement of my brain was the same, because the human neuron is a very noisy and messy instrument and so there's a high element of random* noise there.

But generally, yes, I believe that if I had the *exact* same past events and experiences, I would make the same decision.

*or at least very chaotic, depending on your philosophical views

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 23:06:02 2015 No.6672103

daily reminder that determinism in the sense of "what happens at this moment is a function of the past" is actually anti-science nonsense.

no, this doesn't not imply free will
no the pop-scientists that you are about to reach for that claims local realism in QM is possible is incorrect

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 23:08:57 2015 No.6672119

>>6669080
Computers can become syntactically complex enough to accurately mimic conciousness but they can never genuinely become semantically concious.
You could create a highly complex and realistic simulation of a body of water on a computer but you wouldn't call it wet.
The computer/robot will never be more than a fancy adding sorry.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 23:09:20 2015 No.6672121 >>6672103 >is actually anti-science nonsense. How so?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 23:09:42 2015 No.6672122 >>6672119 As a highly complex and realistic simulation of a human that happens to be made of out meat, I find that extremely offensive.

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 23:12:26 2015 No.6672130

>>6672083
>>6672098

Hmm. Certainly food for thought. I'll admit that I'm still a little shaky on grasping the idea that a nondeterministic world is merely a deterministic world with noise added, this noise being, as I understand it, a degree of randomness in our actions?

And of course I would agree that, given the same exact circumstances, the same result would occur. But I suppose I just find it difficult to grasp that something more chaotic isn't happening here. If presented with a choice that seems to be unaffected by previous events, say, given the choice to arbitrarily pick A or pick B, why would you always pick B? I find this difficult to grasp. Or am I misunderstanding?

Side note: any reading on the subject? I've done a fair share of intro readings, your standard Hegel, Kant, and Fichte, but I'm apparently lacking in sufficient knowledge. Given, I didn't read their works in their entirety. Suppose I should.

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 23:15:28 2015 No.6672144

>>6672121

if you allow, within out current model of physics, that the future be determined with 100% certainty, one violates something known as Bell's inequality, and implies that information can travel backwards in time, violating the relativistic invariance of our laws of physics. Moreover, one violates a whole host of similarly oriented physics and mathematical pseudo-theorems, such as John Conway's "free will theorem" and other similar results (they are not "theorems" about nature in the hard sense, or course), that suggest to us that nature cannot, indeed, be determined.

Various intro-level /sci/-atheists will deny this, as will a lot of ideologically inclined pop-sci figures (einstein himself was bothered by this), and try to recover deterministic QM, but no acceptable "locally real" theory has been found, and continuing to believe that one exists is just pure anti-scientific speculation. Again, it may exist, but it is usually just bullshit ideology of those who want to establish determinism in order to disprove free-will.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 23:16:50 2015 No.6672153 >>6672130 >arbitrarily that would probably count as noise. Usually people have reasons behind their decisions, and reasoning is deterministic. Picking at random is by definition random.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 23:18:21 2015 No.6672160 >>6672144 Nonlocal realism still cool tho

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 23:21:18 2015 No.6672173 >>6669080 Probably not.

The same guy you were respondi(...) Wed Jun 10 23:21:53 2015 No.6672174

>>6672130
Again, I'm approaching this from an algorithmic point of view - just as any deterministic algorithm can be encoded into a Turing machine program, any non-deterministic algorithm can be encoded into a Non-Deterministic Turing Machine program - which is just a Turing machine with the ability to call a random number generator, AKA a regular deterministic Turing machine plus noise.

As for the "arbitrary" choice, it will always have *something* different between the two - one might be at my right hand and the other at the left, for instance - that will slightly bias me.

(However, the reason your intuition is telling you otherwise is that brains are incredibly complex - like I said, you'd pretty much have to make sure every atom in by brain was the same. The neural network of the brain is a giant chaotic feedback network of noisy amplifiers - even if the world turned out to be fundamentally deterministic at the very bottom, the brain would still be extremely chaotic and hard to predict. In the real world, if I "merely" had exactly the same memories, experiences, etc there's no guarantee I'd make the same decision - the tiny, tiny bias caused by being right-handed or whatever would probably be swamped by the chaos.)

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 23:24:22 2015 No.6672184 >>6672144 Well, technically, Bell's inequality could also be satisfied if the world was "superdeterministic." But nobody likes superdeterminism.

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 23:29:30 2015 No.6672217

>>6672144
Well, technically, the Bell inequality just rules out any theory that is all three of deterministic, local, and real. Nonlocal determinism or non-real determinism still work

For instance, Bohmian mechanics is a deterministic hidden-variable theory that's non-local. (Nobody likes it much, though.). Many-worlds is quite mainstream and is actually both deterministic and local, but not "real" - it claims that the collapse of the wavefunction and apparent randomness are illusory, caused by the branching of the world into many possible ones.*

*although many-worlds is deterministic, only the way the wavefunction evolves is deterministic - any individual person's experience is random, due to the effect of the ensemble.

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 23:30:12 2015 No.6672218

>>6672184
Let me just say that there's a reason why there are no serious physics papers on superdeterminism, and there's a reason competent physicists don't like it. It's just sci-fi speculation in the hopes that Nature is participating in a massive conspiracy to be, in the end psychologically pleasing to our untrained intuitions. Superdet. manages so artificially solve on problem, but fails to reproduce the predictions of QM that we already know, it's as you /lit/ people say, pure ideology.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 23:30:30 2015 No.6672219 >>6672217 Also, "superdeterminism" is a loophole that is technically still valid, but everybody hates it AND it's philosophically unsatisfying.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 23:32:27 2015 No.6672226 >>6669080 Why would a computer have consciousness?

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 23:33:55 2015 No.6672232 >>6672218 I know; nobody likes superdeterminism for many very good reasons. I don't like superdeterminism either. I just thought I should point it out. I was just pointing it out.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 23:34:55 2015 No.6672236 >>6672232 Shit, I keep forgetting to check what I've already typed. Damn tiny text windows.

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 23:36:06 2015 No.6672245 >>6672130 >this noise being, as I understand it, a degree of randomness in our actions? Yep.

Anonymous Wed Jun 10 23:37:59 2015 No.6672253

>>6672217
they "work" to artificially circumvent Bell's inequality, but fail to reproduce QM as we know it and hence must work circuitously to ad-hoc justify shit we can understand simply by taking the experiements of QM at face value.

Bohmian mech. postulates the very same Shrodinger wave eqn, but assumes that it is an observable despite every the fact that every single expiriment suggests that it isn't. Hence they must invent ways to make the case for why the wave seems unmeasurable when it fundamentally is.

Obviously I would have to make a better case against these theories, but fuck do I hate them and fuck do I hate modern pop-sci

>>	Anonymous Wed Jun 10 23:42:21 2015 No.6672268 >>6672253 Hey, I'm a many-worlds guy myself, not a Bohmist. (I also recognize that Many-Worlds has serious problems in and of itself, like an inability to derive the Born rule or the basis problem) I just thought it was worth pointing out.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 11 00:13:26 2015 No.6672409 File: 256 KB, 500x500, 1394035772279.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6672268 >>6672253 >>6672232 >>6672219 >>6672218 >>6672217 >>6672184 >>6672144

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 11 00:17:13 2015 No.6672429 >>6672409 I have no idea what you're trying to communicate.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 11 00:19:59 2015 No.6672443 Yes

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 11 00:22:53 2015 No.6672458 >>6672409 I have no idea why, maybe it's because im sleep-deprived, but this is probably the hardest I've ever laughed at a 4chan post. This bear's reaction was my exact reaction to reading that sequence.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 11 00:26:10 2015 No.6672478 >>6672458 fucking arts majors

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 11 00:30:27 2015 No.6672496 >>6672429 It goes both ways.

Anonymous Thu Jun 11 00:38:58 2015 No.6672523

>>6672496
Translation:

"It turns out there is a special experiment you can do that actually rules out whether quantum mechanics has some nice properties."

"As it turns out, this experiment says that, on order to square a theory of quantum shit with the real world, you have to give up at least one of these three important assumptions - determinism, locality, and realism."

"In other words, if you want to keep the really nice assumptions that "shit can only affect the stuff next to it instead of magically reaching out and being instantly affected by stuff miles away", and "the stuff we're seeing is actually real and not some illusory reflection of something else", you have to ditch determinism. Since we quite like locality and realism, determinism went and quantum mechanics is considered to be inherently random."

"However, there are some alternative interpretations that ditch locality or realism instead, or exploit loopholes. However, they've all got problems and most people don't like them very much."

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 11 00:43:23 2015 No.6672535 File: 88 KB, 301x289, 1363842513503.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6672523 That's very interesting. Thanking you for breaking it down for me. I'm just gonna go ahead and stop talking about hard determinism from now on.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 11 00:49:15 2015 No.6672550 >>6672535 oh god thank you, that was my only mission in this thread

Anonymous Thu Jun 11 07:49:09 2015 No.6673714
File: 17 KB, 500x500, 1380130008287.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

mfw when /lit/ hasnt read anything written by neuroscientists
mfw /lit/ is full of christposters
mfw /lit/ cannot acknowledge the fact that conciousness as a phenomena will be explained in a decade
mfw /lit/ is so retarded that they think that entire judiciary system will collapse if conciousness is explained
mfw people cling so hard on their beliefs
Have any of you fags heard of depersonalization disorder or even bothered to read any recent neuroscience/computational geometry/AI articles?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 11 07:53:01 2015 No.6673731 >>6673714 >conciousness as a phenomena That is not only grammatically incorrect, that is also nonsense. Consciousness is not a phenomenon, it is that in which phenomena appear.

Anonymous Thu Jun 11 07:58:00 2015 No.6673744

>>6673731
English is not my native language, sorry for the error. Also, you know what I am talking about, I was not thinking about the philosophical definiton of phenomenon.
Your statement is analogous to saying that the universe is not a phenomenon it is that in which phenomena appear. Quit bitching about semantics and contribute to thread.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 11 08:04:23 2015 No.6673753 >>6673744 This is a hard problem, though. You cannot explain the very foundation of phenomena as if it was just another phenomenon

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 11 08:12:21 2015 No.6673773 >>6673753 Again with anthropocentrism. You and I are not the reason why the universe is here and we can state this with great certainty. Give me one reason why science couldnt explain conciousness.

Anonymous Thu Jun 11 08:16:18 2015 No.6673785

>>6673773
Because science is just a tool of consciousness to explain phenomena which appear to consciousness. Consciousness itself is no such phenomenon, it cannot be observed.
This doesn't mean we won't be able to build conscious machines, but that we'll never have certainty wether or not they're actually conscious, just like, prepare your mind to be blown, we can't be certain of this with people other than ourselves.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 11 08:17:07 2015 No.6673787 >Ctrl+f >Computational theory of mind >0 results In short OP, computational systems are not analogous to human minds. So no.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 11 08:19:24 2015 No.6673799 >>6673787 >computational systems are not analogous to human minds How do you know this?

Anonymous Thu Jun 11 08:22:21 2015 No.6673807
File: 42 KB, 500x501, bait.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6673785
>science is just a tool of consciousness
>consciousness cannot be observed
>we'll never have certainty wether or not they're actually conscious
I am out of this thread, 3/10 made me reply.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 11 08:23:22 2015 No.6673808 >>6673807 Can you point out which of these statements is mistaken, and why? I'm genuinely curious.

Anonymous Thu Jun 11 08:28:57 2015 No.6673823

>>6673807
http://www.coma.ulg.ac.be/papers/consciousness/baars_ramsoy_laureys_TINS_2003.pdf
Not going to bother with explanations, there are literally thousands of research papers, not only on this, but on AI, augumented intelligence, superintelligence, anthropic principle etc.
Come back when you study the science, if you are going to flame about it and not bother looking into it before you do that, there is no point in talking to you ( intellectual laziness ).

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 11 08:29:57 2015 No.6673825 >>6673823 >>6673808 Shit, mixed posts.

Anonymous Thu Jun 11 08:34:26 2015 No.6673836

>>6673823
>research papers
Research can only deal with phenomena, all of this is pointless. At best, such research will find conditions of behaviour normally associated with consciousness. This will help, certainly, but can it eliminate skepticism towards other minds? No. We already know that this is by definition impossible. For clarification, just try to explain why you're certain that anyone but yourself has consciousness.

Anonymous Thu Jun 11 08:41:56 2015 No.6673850
File: 156 KB, 560x461, Never-Go-Full-Retard.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6673836
mfw you are talking about philosophical zombie as something that represents real world
mfw when you didnt even read the pdf I posted.
Prime class bait, I give you that, your score has risen to 5/10.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 11 08:42:43 2015 No.6673853 >>6673823 >conscious events can be defined as those brain activities that can report with high accuracy In other words, consciousness is the ability to supply information about physical states. My computer can do that quite well.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 11 08:44:09 2015 No.6673863 >>6673850 >philosophical zombie as something that represents real world Ok, what kind of science can disprove philosophical zombies? Give me an experiment that can do this.

Anonymous Thu Jun 11 08:47:19 2015 No.6673869

>>6673853
Bravo, now you have learned that "consciousness" differs in levels and is not reserved only for humans. Consciousness is a term that was coined by humans to explain our thought processing, but if we percieve consciousness at its fundamental level ( its evolutionary purpose ) it is just information gathering / interpreting. The reason we think we are special is the size of our frontal lobes,.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_consciousness

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 11 08:49:29 2015 No.6673875 >>6673863 "A philosophical zombie or p-zombie in the philosophy of mind and perception is a hypothetical being." Hypothetical is the key word. Also, look up the Chalmers-Dennet debate about logical consistency of the term.

Anonymous Thu Jun 11 08:52:49 2015 No.6673888

>>6673869
>is not reserved only for humans
I never claimed it was in the first place.
>its fundamental level ( its evolutionary purpose )
This is nonsense, evolutionary purposes are concepts of consciousness that explain phenomena, such as observable traits of animals. Since we cannot directly observe consciousness, only traits indirectly linked to it (such as speech, e.g. about inner states), we can only speculate about the evolutionary purpose of such traits.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 11 08:55:01 2015 No.6673894 >>6673875 >Hypothetical is the key word. Other minds are just as hypothetical, prove me wrong. Dennett has shown that a Zombie is unlikely, not that it is impossiblee

Anonymous Thu Jun 11 08:58:02 2015 No.6673900
File: 644 KB, 804x711, 1424244147123.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6673888
>evolutionary purposes are concepts of consciousness that explain phenomena, such as observable traits of animals. Since we cannot directly observe consciousness, only traits indirectly linked to it
Your logic is incredible. I am literally amazed.
Also, WHY ARE YOU REPEATING THAT WE CANNOT OBSERVE CONSCIOUSNESS ?
Read the pdf I posted. Is it so hard?
mfw I am dumbeer than you for choking on the bait.
Goodbye my intellectualy challenged friend.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 11 09:00:46 2015 No.6673905 >>6673900 I read that thing. It reduced consciousness to the ability to produce accurate speech acts. I can construct a lever that, when being pulled, holds up a sign that says "I am being pulled". Behold, a conscious being!

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 11 10:43:52 2015 No.6674174 >>6669080 I'd probably ask /sci/

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 11 11:21:03 2015 No.6674311 >>6673905 I have read the .pdf, mind me asking what the fuck are you talking about?

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 11 12:23:19 2015 No.6674533 Can? No. Will? Some.

>>	Anonymous Thu Jun 11 13:21:35 2015 No.6674704 >>6674311 Talking about this quote: >>6673853

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 ]

/lit/ - Literature