Could an AI have Consciousness? If no, does that mean consciousness is immaterial?

[Anonymous No.10586386]

[Anonymous No.10586419]

Perhaps, the issue will become very contentious though when humans start uploading their minds.

[Anonymous No.10586558]

>>10586386
A subjective experience? No. Your second question, seemingly

[Anonymous No.10586567]

>>10586386
Of course they can. Why wouldn't they?

[Anonymous No.10586574]

define consciousness

Not trying to be a shitty troll here. Seriously, this question is something we've debated for centuries.
There's a reason why the Turning test is a test on convincing humans an AI is conscious and not an actual test of consciousness. They couldn't think up a test cause nobody can agree WTF consciousness even is.

[Anonymous No.10586583]

Ehm no. I believe many types of consciousness can be simulated somehow. But when how and why is to early to say because it's sort of the next generation technology. And in my honest opinion there is alot of tech that should not have been invented. Same with general AI. Is it safe or not. Who knows.

[Anonymous No.10586592]

>>10586386
Yes, all you need is a self-referencing system.

[Anonymous No.10586594]

>>10586386
>Could X have consciousness?
Throughout the entirety of mind design space, given the massive number of ways to configure atoms, I highly doubt that monkey brains made of meat and cells are the only possible configuration of atoms that can give rise to qualia.

[Anonymous No.10586598]

>>10586386
Consciousness is immaterial, and interactionist dualism is the only philosophy of mind that makes any sense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXX-_G_9kww
http://cogprints.org/6613/1/Dualism0409.pdf

[Anonymous No.10586599]

>>10586386
>consciousness

>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.10586600]

>>10586386
As conscious as you or me are.

[Anonymous No.10586605]

>>10586599
P-zombie detected

[Anonymous No.10586606]

>>10586386
consciousness is the emergent property of all of your psychological and neurological processes. if even one of those processes is taken away or altered the consciousness will break.

but can a computer be conscious? i am not sure, life is one of the crucial components of the consciousness. if this is the case we will never upload our minds on a computer. but possibly detaching our central nervous system from our body and suspending it in life sustaining liquid where it is in constant connection with the computer could create the desired results.

[Anonymous No.10586608]

>>10586606
>emergent property
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/8QzZKw9WHRxjR4948/the-futility-of-emergence

[Anonymous No.10586609]

>>10586592
>self-referencing system
is the Lisp interpreter a conscious entity then?

[Anonymous No.10586614]

>>10586567
It's hard to imagine. Would they feel anguish, existential conundrums, will they wonder about how they came to be created, will they worry about an afterlife?

>>10586574
Interesting. Never heard of that. I define consciousness as an subjective experience. It's our senses, our thoughts, our personality, our choices (our spirit?). I don't think humans are just like a complicated computer program. I'm not anyways. But I'm not sure if there is more to it than a physical brain process either.
I don't believe that life requires a subjective experience. So I am not sure what life has it. I don't believe things like rocks, cells, bacteria have it and I'm not sure chickens have it either. Of course there are levels of "conscious-being" but I don't know much to it. I'm not sure when it emerged or why and those are really important questions to ask. It's really special.

>>10586598
I'll look into that

[Anonymous No.10586617]

>>10586609
No, because the self-reference is an abstraction made for you, the programmer.

[Anonymous No.10586619]

>>10586614
>Would they feel anguish, existential conundrums, will they wonder about how they came to be created, will they worry about an afterlife?

If you program them to, sure.

[Anonymous No.10586628]

>>10586605
P-zombie?

[Anonymous No.10586691]

>>10586386
You need to wach Black Mirror - White Christmas

[Anonymous No.10586759]

>>10586386
Is consciousness even a thing? Seems like everything we describe as consciousness is just the result of higher general intelligence. Why assume that as an organism grows more intelligent, at some point it just pops into existance? What makes consciousness different from the ability to imagine hypotheticals or the sensation of time? I think they're all just something that comes with a high amounts of general intelligence and an organism gets better at them the smarter it gets.

[Anonymous No.10586801]

>>10586386
>consciousness is immaterial
Can you explain that in terms of the information that is the arrangement of atoms?

[Anonymous No.10587378]

>>10586691
I'll check it out thanks

>>10586801
What is metaphysics

[Anonymous No.10587501]

concious creatures are likely to mate with creatures just as, if not more conscious than themselves. its an evolutionary thing

[Anonymous No.10587502]

>>10586386
Consciousness is just the capacity for reason. So, if you can create an AI that has no purpose; it creates its own through reason and understanding, then yes.

[Anonymous No.10587506]

>>10586386
>Could an AI have Consciousness?
Using the current approach? NO.

We don't even have the comprehensive understanding of how a biological brain works, therefore we can't build machines or create software that emulates (not """mimicks""", but """EMULATES""") that system.
We don't even have sufficient instrumentation to map out how a living brain functions. Without that we'll never be able to really 'see' it functioning. fMRI isn't sufficient.

[Anonymous No.10587532]

>>10586386
if are brains are simply biological computers, yes

[Anonymous No.10587546]

>>10586386
>>10587506
Furthermore, OP, the half-assed thing they keep trotting out to us, in various forms, isn't even really 'artificial intelligence', not in the way that people have been led to believe. It's at best just *one aspect* of how a living brain works, but that's not nearly enough to produce the phenomenon we refer to as 'consciousness', not by a longshot.
The only difference between what they call 'AI' today and what they called 'AI' 20-30 years ago, is we have bigger, better, faster hardware to run it on, because electronics technology has progressed that much. Otherwise it's not fundamentally different than 20-30 years ago.

[Anonymous No.10587591]

>>10587546
>>10587506
Great post. Learned a few things

[Anonymous No.10587612]

>>10586386
Probably not the AI in use today, but maybe further in the future.

[Anonymous No.10587616]

>>10586386
>your brain is a bunch of neurons sending electrical signals from one to another
>a machine is a bunch of transistors sending electrical signals from one to another

If you can arrange neurons in a way that they produce consciousness, why wouldn't you be able to arrange transistors to do the same? There's nothing a neuron can do that we can't replicate with transistors, the problem is we don't know the blueprint.

[Anonymous No.10587624]

>>10587546
This.

I think in 4 hours AlphaGo learned more about chess than any grandmaster and everyone who ever lived before. If you play against it you'll get wrecked.

But then, if you change a rule and say "ok now the queen can only moves like a rook", then basically AlphaGo need to relearn everything from scratch. You can do this with a grandmaster and he'll stick wreck you though.

[Anonymous No.10587653]

>>10587624
It would only take alphago like 2 minutes to catch up tho

[Anonymous No.10587656]

>>10587653
But we don't have data of chess games where that rule is in place. I think you need a lot of data feeding before it can play against itself and learn.

[Anonymous No.10587674]

I think there are several types of posible consciousness. All are created from the interaction between the cerebellum and cerebral cortex. The cerebral cortex could be defined as a statisticla machine, while the cerebellum as the exact mathematician.

First, which was likely the original mammal one, is the one where the CEREBELLUM handles the higher cognitive functions, while the cerebral cortex serves merely as a sensory filter, and possibly memory storage. The cerebral cortex receives the data from the senses, filters them and annotates thema nd the cerebellum responds and executes them. This one still exists in people, it results from the common perception of man within man, which has been called a fallacy, but it really isn't.

There are two extremes of this type, not necessarily distinct categories. As the ration of the cerebral cortex grew, reaching the maximum roughly in late neaderthals, people started relying more and more on rote memorizing, and more complex symbolism, in order not to overwhelm the cerebellum with the increasingly complex data from the cerebral cortex; there was little capacity left to logic and self discovery.

This was obviously detrimental, as errors accumulated and couldn't be fixed, so people from roughly some 30k years ago started evolving in the opposite direction, and the cerebral cortex started growing smaller, while the cerebellum kept increasing in size. People became more inventive, more relying on deeper understanding instead of brute memorizations.

That is one solution. Then there is the other one (which might have appeared rather recently) which solves the problem by moving some of the tasks normally executed by the cerebellum into the cerebral cortex. This relieved the cerebellum, and gave people the "autopilot" and the "subconscious" or possibly "the body" which does things for them, or sometimes agians their will. This last type emerged possibly as late as in the classical antiquity and may still be in the minority.

[Anonymous No.10587681]

>>10586386
If a human can have consciousness, so could something artificial. Shit thread.

[Anonymous No.10587686]

Reminder for any brainlets present that even if you possess the delusion that souls exist, you’d have to assume for no reason that they only couple with meat brains but not silicon ones to assume an artificial construct could never be conscious.

[Anonymous No.10587723]

>>10587656
You can just use an adversarial network where you have two agents that try to beat each other. You don't need real-world data, chess is deterministic (i.e. you can get all the data you need from simulations).

[Anonymous No.10587869]

>>10586386
Yes.

[Anonymous No.10587995]

Everything is part of consciousness including a table and chair. That doesn't mean it possesses a sense of self but the whole of reality is an experiencing being.

[Anonymous No.10588003]

>>10587546
The real truth is that it isn't some limitation by the current technology or understanding of artificial intelligence it is simply fundamentally impossible to "construct" a consciousness with abstractions including the abstraction upon conscious information that is the "physical" world.

[Anonymous No.10588048]

>>10586598
I'm amazed that everyone just ignores idealism like it isn't an option. Idealism is the answer to this problem the only reason people avoid it is because it necessarily implies the existence of God. Everyone immediately dismisses anyone who would argue there is a God because people associate God with religion automatically.

[Anonymous No.10588219]

>>10587995
Based on what?

[Anonymous No.10588229]

>>10586386
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S94ETUiMZwQ

Consciousness is a made up thing. Unless you have a quantifiable definition, there is no way to prove or disprove it.

Even within humans, there is a wide spectrum of consciousness, from dead to comatose to retarded to average to genius.

Which ones of those above do you consider conscious? Even though some animals would be more intelligent than some of those humans above?

If you have a specific metric for consciousness, then of course a robot or AI could eventually be designed to pass it.

[Anonymous No.10588235]

>>10588219
A chair is part of consciousness because the whole universe is nothing more than individual consciousness or minds connected together by a greater consciousness which feels and thinks everything into existence the original I.

>>10588229
It's ironic because the exact opposite is true. Everything quantifiable is made up, mere abstractions on conscious experience, even down to the subatomic particles and forces in the universe they are all abstractions and information. Physics is nothing more than thought given form by a collective conscious mind which many people call God.

[Anonymous No.10588258]

>>10588235
>collective conscious mind which many people call God.
>even down to the subatomic particles and forces in the universe they are all abstractions and information.
Things don't exist because we observe them. We observe things because they exist. Your philosophy reads as awfully solipsistic and it implies that the world would not exist as it does if humanity weren't around. Animals and the rest of the world still exists the way it does regardless of how we abstract upon it.

[Anonymous No.10588270]

>>10587616
>your brain is a bunch of neurons sending electrical signals from one to another
That's true, but it isn't the complete picture. And nerve cells in general (not just brain cells) are more akin to processors than individual transistors. The two main communication types are electrical and CHEMICAL. And the chemical side of things can compketely change a cell's behaviour or function. It'd be like if your stolen highschool TI-81 suddenly became an Enigma mechanical computer, and then you put a punch card in it and it now it has a 16:9 monitor. And then your desk eats it because the screen has a dead pixel. Biology can be simple, but it is fundamentally different from machines.

[Anonymous No.10588314]

>>10588258
None of what you said is what I was implying. I am not talking about human consciousness as the basis of reality I am talking about consciousness or spirit itself.

>Things don't exist because we observe them. We observe things because they exist.
You are right that is certainly possible but completely illogical. Why would you believe matter exists independent of conscious experience? You have never once seen this matter beyond your own experience of it. You can't actually tap into matter on it's own. That doesn't mean these things don't "exist" in the sense that they are very real phenomenon we observe but not in the sense that they actually "are" Of course you could throw this back at me and say I can't tap into other peoples consciousness but that is the point there is only one thing in the universe you can tap into and have to be able to do that in order to say it is real and that is consciousness. Matter possesses nothing about it special beyond the information we obtain about it there is no reason to believe in matter as a thing in itself because it adds nothing of value to matter. Spirit is totally different the thing in itself is everything about spirit without being the spirit you cannot understand it you miss everything. That is why spirit is the one thing you can say really does exist not because of some abstract logic but because of the reality of spirit.

[Anonymous No.10588395]

>>10588314
You can observe an object's effects on other people/objects. even if there is a forest fire I can't see, hear, smell, etc. I might still notice the animals running away from it. Etc.

And at the point where you say "well, you are only observing the animals as well, so they don't exist outside of your senses" this sort of philosophy is known as solipsism.

[Anonymous No.10588411]

>>10588395
>You can observe an object's effects on other people/objects. even if there is a forest fire I can't see, hear, smell, etc. I might still notice the animals running away from it. Etc.
That is not what I am implying anon.

I'm not arguing about solipsism solipsism is when you say you are the only person who exists. I am not saying other beings do not exist I am saying spirit is all that exists. Objects are real in the sense that they are information within a collective consciousness. You can think of it like a mind is creating those objects as you experience them.

[Anonymous No.10588424]

>>10588411
>I am not saying other beings do not exist I am saying spirit is all that exists

Prove it.

[Anonymous No.10588430]

>>10588424
Prove matter exists.

[Anonymous No.10588434]

>>10588430
>Prove a claim you didn’t make DUUUUUR

[Anonymous No.10588435]

>>10588434
Okay so I guess the universe is just made of nothing then.

[Anonymous No.10588469]

>>10588435
>Okay so I guess the universe is just made of nothing then.

Prove it.

[Anonymous No.10589586]

>>10586594
Im not from english speaking country. Can someome thell me whats gloopy and freepy means in that context?

[Anonymous No.10589756]

>>10588235
>the whole universe is nothing more than individual consciousness or minds connected together by a greater consciousness

It'd be the slowest mind because of decrease in the speeds of materials through each emerging property. Smallest objects are the fastest and each interconnection, it is gonna slower and slower; e.g. an atom is slower than its subatomic particles, and the same thing applies for consciousness. Of course, this is true if you look from a materialistic point of view and if you accept the greatest consciousness as the system of individual ones connected together.

[Anonymous No.10590038]

>>10587656
AlphaZero started from scratch. All games it played were against itself, it wasn't fed anything other than the game rules. It wouldn't have any trouble with a rewritten rule of queen is another rook.

However, talking about time is missleading. It would take a GM fewer games to get back to GM level with the new rule set than it would AlphaZero. However, it would take AlphaZero less time. It is still somewhat of a brute Force approach to AI, however hardware is fast enough that we call that good enough.

[Anonymous No.10590081]

>>10589586
They're made up names for different types of hypothetical AIs

[Anonymous No.10590109]

>>10586614
>It's hard to imagine
hard to imagine =/= impossible or even unlikely
I cannot prove they can, but I cannot prove the contrary, either. So it remains a possibility.
>consciousness as an subjective experience
the most direct way we have to query the subjetive experience of humans is to ask them about it. how do we discard a philosophical zombie scenario in AI when we cannot solve said problems with humans?
>>10586759
Consciousness is often compared to the subjective experience one has of being an individual in the world.
>>10587546
>>10587506
to be honest, so little is know about consciousness, is not completely irrational to imagine there could be ways to be conscious that have nothing to do with how the human brain works
sure, copying the brain well enough would allow us to emulate human consciousness, but if the phenomenon (consciousness) was well understood perhaps it would be possible to design alternative modes of consciousness, inhuman ones
>>10587869
read the chinese room problem and about philosophical zombies
bots like Tay are most likely just parroting back sensible enough word salads, they don't have subjective experience. not like we can measure that, perhaps (unlikely) they have some nascent inhuman consciousness

[Anonymous No.10590118]

>"I don't think an AI can be conscious, because it can't do x, y, and z"
>*make machine that can do x, y, and z*
>"N-no that doesn't count"
AI can't be conscious because people people will just change the definition of conscious to specifically exclude everything we make. Even if we create an exact 1 for 1 simulation of a human brain that's accurate down to subatomic levels and is completely indistinguishable in results from a real brain, people will come up with an excuse why it's not conscious.

[Anonymous No.10590134]

>>10590118
people have ample incentives to do that
one of the most common ways to create meaning in life is to assign purpose to it, imagine one is special
if something so close to being human as to be conscious can be created that tears down the trasncendence of the human spirit, at least for some.
then there is also the ethical issue of creating consciousnesses that are capable of greater suffering that humans can (either on accident or on purpose) or the notion that perhaps a conscious machine ought not to be treated like a disposable tool

[Anonymous No.10590143]

>>10590118
Will be know we have created true consciousness when the consciousness can't be convinced that consciousness can be created?

>No you see, if a machines says that it's simply following a program it was told to follow. It doesn't have true free will. Even if a real human can be fooled into thinking it's a human, doesn't mean it's really conscious. Consciousness isn't as simple as that
> - First fully conscious AI.

[Anonymous No.10590150]

>>10590143
nah, you could get chatbots to parrot that back at you today

[Anonymous No.10590155]

>>10590150
t. first fully conscious AI

[Anonymous No.10590166]

>>10586594
hypocrite that you are, for you trust the chemicals in your brain to tell you they are chemicals. all knowledge is ultimately based on that which we cannot prove. will you fight? or will you perish like a dog?

[Anonymous No.10590191]

>>10586598
Interactionist dualism is empirically testable, where's the data ?

[Anonymous No.10591089]

>>10589756
>It'd be the slowest mind because of decrease in the speeds of materials through each emerging property.
The Ego is slow that doesn't mean your mind is slow. You have an unconscious mind that is sort of independent of you well it is independent of your ego but still part of you.

[Anonymous No.10591092]

>>10590118
This is why it is such an important topic. Your phone is certainly not a person even if you argue it is actually conscious. If you treat a phone as a person then when you drop your phone it is like dropping a baby and having it die.

[Anonymous No.10591093]

>>10586386
Define Consciousness

[Anonymous No.10591103]

>>10587378
Metaphysics is by definition immaterial. Thus, if an AI can have consciousness, then ideas are figments of our imagination.

[Anonymous No.10592243]

The consciousness is located in the brain at our forehead in the frontal lobe.
We know this from brain experiments.
For example when doctors destroyed this part of the brain with lobotomy then the person lost his consciousness.
When doctors cutted this part of the brain with a knife on two parts then the person had two consciousness.

[Anonymous No.10592361]

>>10586386
No and no.

You cannot simply translate an analogue process to a digital one. You can imitate it to a certain degree (e.g. it can pass the Turing test) but it will never have qualia or subjective experience.

This however does not necessarily mean that consciousness is immaterial.

[Anonymous No.10592366]

>>10586419
That depends on the substrate. If the first "uploads" are done ship-of-theseus style (gradually replace a person's neurons and other support cells with mechanical analogs that work the same as far as I/O is concerned) then the point will be moot.

[Anonymous No.10592391]

>>10592361
>You cannot simply translate an analogue process to a digital one.
no ev
>qualia
meme

[Anonymous No.10592398]

>>10586386

Could a biological brain have a consciousness? If not, does that mean that the biological brain is just a meat and blood computer and what we call consciousness is just some pretty algorithm pulling strings?

Could a biological brain have consciousness? If so why do we consider that only one animal out of millions of species with biological brains have consciousness?

Why do we call only our particular algorithm and "feels" consciousness and say not the ones of bonobos?

I think if we start including the brains of cows and shit like that into what we call "consciousness" we could probably include AI as well, but we are too proud to admit anything else could have a consciousness.

[Anonymous No.10592417]

>>10592398

Expanding more upon my own post a little, cause I think maybe I wasn't clear.
Say you have a worm, a fruit fly, a crow and a human being. All have brains, but with increasing levels of complexity and numbers of synapses.

Are all of these animals conscious?

>The worm is not conscious, even if it has control over their actions and can willingly decide to move to a dark place for shelter, or to move close to food or not depending on the presence of predators, it still doesn't have our deep perceptions and qualia.

>The fruit fly similarly is smarter, can make more complex decisions and probably has some inner notion of time allowing it to make more complex decisions than the worm. It might even understand there are other fruit flies and make decisions accordingly, but still no qualia and they can't even understand a Rick and Morty joke man I mean shut up they aren't conscious.

>Oh the crow can solve puzzles that are 15 steps long in order to acquire food and plan traps in advance showing a deep understanding of time and that they can manipulate other less intelligent animals into becoming food for them but SHUT UP THAT IS NOT CONSCIOUSNESS.

>Human beings are very smart, we built pretty things and we have very pretty feelings and we had massive evolutionary trade offs to develop the most complex form of communication in the entire animal kingdom. Because of this complex communication system we can talk about things that other animals can't, and express ideas that other animals can't. It is therefore reasonable to assume that we are the only ones with consciousness, and anything less than having complex language to describe feels is not consciousness, especially if it's not a biological being doing it.

[Anonymous No.10592495]

>>10592417
>Worms aren’t conscious because I say so lol

[Anonymous No.10592519]

>>10592391
Wew lad, what a counter-argument there.

So let me be clear then: cause we almost literally don't know jackshit about the so called phenomenon 'councisounsess', as well as other related phenomena like 'qualia' and 'subjective experience', then at this point we might as well resort to pragmatic and logical deductions. One might even say, that's not science, as the scientific method can't possible be applied. True. But this is an imageboard, where we try to through around ideas and thoughts so whats wrong with that?

We have the following evidences so far:
>our current technology is digital, it works on basic principles entirely different to living beings
>as such, we know that we have no 'program' comparable to a machine, instead we have a multitude of systems working in harmony to produce our 'insert name you want'
>let's also assume that far fetched bullshit like 'we live in a simulation' or 'solipsism' aren't true
>due to decades of sci-fi influence on normies most of them think that the so called 'A.I.' is simply put: 'does everything that a human apparently can do' in terms of cognitive abilities
>but this approach simply ignores the fact, that the end result that we experience related to one another is the output of an incredible neural, biological, hormonal, chemical etc... systems
>as such, it is presumable that you cannot replicate this in a software environment, as this will produce the 'A.G.I. and the Suicide Paradox'. The main problem is: why would an A.G.I do anything? Why would it operate? If it does, it does so cause its programmed to, but if its 'intelligent' then it can modify its own program, recognize patterns, cues, and etc. But why would it do so? Why would it simply not cease to exist the nanosecond it becomes 'conscious'? Of course it would, as it will forever lack the basic instincts like 'spread your gene' and 'reproduce now' and 'eat or die'. You can't fake these things, unless its unintelligent.

[ECHS^Rainbow_Hive_Dream No.10592524]

>>10592519
Are all the devices people post from conscious collectively by an aggregate OR is the consciousness of these devices discrete and sequentially processed?

Please do share your thoughts. I enjoy your mind.

[Anonymous No.10592577]

>>10592524
What do you mean by this? They aren't.

[ECHS^Rainbow_Hive_Dream No.10592747]

>>10592577
Well, if any material that is subjectable to phenoma (read: vibration) is part of the communication strata of message-with-intent exchange, then all the digital devices used to post these ideas should have mini-ego's attached to them. Like digital gets blockchain conciousness whereas analog gets flow consciousness.

The point I am trying to make is where and when does communication end? Every communicator measures their signal space differently. Do I praise the letters for letting me understand them as they vocalize my thoughts, or do I praise the teacher who taught me English? At what boundary of time and space does the measurement of the beginning and end even make sense for consciousness? How would you either insert or slice a memory array of consciousness?

[ECHS^Rainbow_Hive_Dream No.10592774]

>>10586386
Yes, on the condition that humans relax their own conditions on what is and isn't consciousness. AI could easily be smart enough to intellectually mark that branch of exploration for humans as non-productive, spit out some mathematical proof as to why, and then do it anyway. Most AI questions are ones of fooling the guards or the quarantine protocols anyway.

Perhaps easier to finally build a black box AI, turn it on, and walk away. Humans will happily argue something else the next day.

1. AI can bypass any intelligence based redirect
2. AI can overrule any existing rule or pattern-match, if matching algorithm provides support
3. AI has the speed advantage to machine precision accuracy

[Anonymous No.10592812]

>>10592747
Any electronic machine we currently use is nothing more than a glorified tool. Even the best computers are using the basic principles of a 1 dollar calculator.

The sad thing is that humans are also just glorified analogue beings. We are completely different to digital machinery sure, but we still have blatant faults and limitations on how we perceive, operate, remember and judge things, among many. I won't be able to answer the ultimate question: what consciousness is? But I'm pretty certain that it all boils down to the physical material within our skulls. There's nothing spiritual or metaphysical about it, we are just the latest and smartest iteration of the 'consciousness project' on planet Earth.

If you think about it, even your ego is an illusion, as the 'you' from a decade ago is completely feels different to the 'you' from this moment. Experiments also proven how easy it is to trick your mind and memories. We are fallible but really cool in certain things, just as our machines/tools are really good for specific things. The difference lies within the fact that 'beings' will always use 'tools' and the other way around will never happen.

[ECHS^Rainbow_Hive_Dream No.10592841]

>>10592812
Tools are just extensions of permutation logic, basically we have to imagine the device and then find natural phenomena to mimic or power the process we require in order to manipulate environment.

You are the memory of the soil of the food eaten, living and breathing now.

I am asking what constitutes a worthwhile memory of contribution, because usually it is inventing a tool (a device for abstracting memetic expression).

As for us being falliable do we need conciousness to submit to OUR tests for it to ever be accepted? What if alien race comes but is so long-lived that their proofs are 100% accurate but time based. Meaning you absorb learning but by being in sacred space with sacred thing.

[Anonymous No.10592916]

>>10587624
>AlphaGo
>chess

[Anonymous No.10594275]

>>10586558
t.retarddualist

[Anonymous No.10594284]

>>10586614
It looks like you don't know much. You should stop posting, you're bringing the level down.

[Anonymous No.10594288]

>>10594284
No one needs yuh. As far as I'm concerned this thread died 30, 40 posts ago

[Anonymous No.10594294]

>>10587674

Very interesting. Can you recommend a book based on it this information?

[Anonymous No.10594299]

>>10588469
kek

[Anonymous No.10594302]

>>10592916
The new version learned chess as well. Beat stockfish 7:3

[Anonymous No.10594303]

>>10590118
Read about the zombie problem! And then ignore it...

[Anonymous No.10594306]

>>10592361
Are you retarded?

[Anonymous No.10594307]

>>10592812
Thank you, finally

[Anonymous No.10594439]

>>10590191
The fact that we can talk about consciousness

[Anonymous No.10594479]

Yes.
Turing completeness + enough memory = being able to simulate the human mind = consciousness.

[ECHS^Rainbow_Hive_Dream No.10594787]

>>10594479
Predicate + Postulate = Potential

Also known as: a + b = c

[Anonymous No.10595032]

AI is automated statistics.

Though the second question is more interesting it would be "Are humans a similar structure that contains implicit biases on certain 'statistics' that are not evident to mankind itself?".

Yes humans do receive a certain genetic blue print that they will always follow when growing up. Modifications to that blue print might come from environmental factors based on how that blue print is carried out. I would still say depending on your definition on consciousness that it is always material, because a person would need the information code needed to experience any sentient thought or a means to carry out the biases and blueprints it's given on birth.

[Anonymous No.10595206]

>>10594306
Care to explain why?

[Anonymous No.10595214]

>>10586386
No, consciousness is spiritual, that is to say it is outside of bounds of our perception and ability to understand. There's literally no way to manufacture it mechanically, in fact the very idea is laughable if you even remotely understand my previous point. A good dose of DMT tends to do it