how many atheists don&#39;t think humans are just robots?

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,008

3

2

07.18.2019 07:50PM

3

2

07.18.2019 07:50PM

-->

@RoderickSpode

My opinion is that Jane is correct. A robot will never be in the same sentient category as a human. AI, and nothing more than AI.

How do you form this opinion, like what's it based on? For example, IBM's Watson is an insanely intelligent (yet still imperfect) AI. There's so many chess playing AI's that are better than humans it's not even worth listing them. There are robotic limbs, as keith points out, that react to the electric stimuli produced by the brain and act as our own bodies. Robotic eyes make judgement all the time. Define the sentient category in which a human is contained and a theoretically super-advanced AI could NOT be contained. I'm not disagreeing with you necessarily, I'd just like to hear you flesh this out more.

#32

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,044

2

07.18.2019 07:59PM

2

07.18.2019 07:59PM

-->

@ludofl3x

How do you form this opinion, like what's it based on? For example, IBM's Watson is an insanely intelligent (yet still imperfect) AI. There's so many chess playing AI's that are better than humans it's not even worth listing them. There are robotic limbs, as keith points out, that react to the electric stimuli produced by the brain and act as our own bodies. Robotic eyes make judgement all the time. Define the sentient category in which a human is contained and a theoretically super-advanced AI could NOT be contained. I'm not disagreeing with you necessarily, I'd just like to hear you flesh this out more.

I don't see IBM's Watson as being particularly different than any computer that has more information stored than I have in my brain. Or book, like Webster's dictionary. I don't think a book is more intelligent than myself because it has information stored in it's pages that I don't.

Is Watson's chess playing ability unbeatable?

Topic's author

#33

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,499

3

2

3

07.18.2019 08:22PM

3

2

3

07.18.2019 08:22PM

-->

@Ramshutu

so you honestly think humans are just advanced robots? doesn't that rub against your common sense, or intuition? do you have intuition that says humans might more than just robots but you trump it with your (poorly formed) logic?

how do you view NDEs? hallucinations? if they're hallucinations why aren't the experiences just random like a drug trip? how can there be such consistency with them with common elements such as meeting dead relatives, going through a tunnel, meeting a being of light, having a life review etc? you seriously think there's a death story embedded in our brain or in our genes? how far fetched is that? how do you explain it happening the in the same way to kids and people who've never heard of them? that's not even getting into the out of body experience evidence out there.

Topic's author

#34

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,499

3

2

3

07.18.2019 08:25PM

3

2

3

07.18.2019 08:25PM

i can't prove it, but i suspect humans will never create consciousness. they may mimic it with AI, but it won't be self aware and free thinking and philosophical.

#35

Debates: 0

Posts: 3,052

3

https://www.epfl.ch/research/domains/bluebrain/

07.20.2019 12:05AM

3

07.20.2019 12:05AM

-->

@n8nrgmi

i can't prove it, but i suspect humans will never create consciousness

Female humans can create a consciousness in 9 months.

Brains are a collection of atoms, arranged in a particular structure. That would seem to imply an artificial brain is at least a theoretical possibility.

The 'Blue Brain' project has the aim "to build accurate, biologically detailed, digital reconstructions and simulations of the rodent brain and, ultimately the human brain."

It's not clear if you "suspect humans will never create consciousness" because brains are too complicated or because there is somthing beyond 'structured ordinary matter' involved - ie there is some 'ingredient X' that human brain possess which is beyond matter and structure.

If it's the former then Blue Brain might become conscious (making it as complex as a real brain is hard but not impossible). But if it's the latter then presumably Blue Brain must fail.

#36

Debates: 0

Posts: 4,959

2

3

07.22.2019 05:53PM

2

3

07.22.2019 05:53PM

-->

@keithprosser

But as we've seen, brains are not a prerequisite for godists.

#37

Debates: 0

Posts: 4,959

2

3

07.22.2019 05:56PM

2

3

07.22.2019 05:56PM

-->

@n8nrgmi

All of these things are so scary because it makes your god unnecessary, which makes your afterlife non existent. Scary as all fuck and you have to accept your own mortality.

#38

amandragon01

Debates: 0

Posts: 101

1

2

amandragon01

07.23.2019 03:22AM

1

2

07.23.2019 03:22AM

-->

@n8nrgmi

From what I've read on the matter, it seems there are a lot of cultural elements in NDE's? If so this explains at least some aspects of them. Let's assume for a moment that the process the brain goes through when it shuts down causes NDE's, wouldn't the fact that each brain is somewhat similar and often goes through a similar process during an NDE account for much of the similarity between the experiences, with cultural input and perspective doing the rest? The mind trying to process the information it's getting filters the information through a cultural lens drawing on symbology and cultural expectations? Where is the issue with this as a possible explanation?

As for your argument of intuition and common sense how exactly to do suppose either tells us we're more than a collection of processes? As far as I can see there's no reason to assume either way.

The most valid question is: What would be different if we were just a collection of processes compared to if we had a soul/'free will'? If there's no way to know what if anything would be different then how can we assume either way?

#39

Deb-8-a-bull

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,949

3

2

3

Deb-8-a-bull

07.23.2019 07:39AM

3

2

3

07.23.2019 07:39AM

Do theists / Christians look at Muslims and know they are truly Christians?

Wow im off to the think bank, good day.

#40

Polytheist-Witch

Debates: 1

Posts: 4,188

3

6

Polytheist-Witch

07.23.2019 01:30PM

3

6

07.23.2019 01:30PM

Atheists wish we were robots then they could program away theism and everything else they can't live with

#41

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,008

3

2

07.23.2019 02:02PM

3

2

07.23.2019 02:02PM

-->

@RoderickSpode

How do you form this opinion, like what's it based on? For example, IBM's Watson is an insanely intelligent (yet still imperfect) AI. There's so many chess playing AI's that are better than humans it's not even worth listing them. There are robotic limbs, as keith points out, that react to the electric stimuli produced by the brain and act as our own bodies. Robotic eyes make judgement all the time. Define the sentient category in which a human is contained and a theoretically super-advanced AI could NOT be contained. I'm not disagreeing with you necessarily, I'd just like to hear you flesh this out more.
I don't see IBM's Watson as being particularly different than any computer that has more information stored than I have in my brain. Or book, like Webster's dictionary. I don't think a book is more intelligent than myself because it has information stored in it's pages that I don't.

Is Watson's chess playing ability unbeatable?

I don't know about Watson's chess playing ability, I don't believe that's what it's for, but what difference would it make? My question was can you explain a little more about your statement, "A robot will never be in the same sentient category as a human." I pointed out that machines can already do most of what people can do in practical terms. My question is more along the lines of "what in your opinion will delineate human sentience from super-advanced AI." You responded with can watson play chess and a dictionary isn't intelligent, I am not sure how those are relevant.

#42

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,282

3

4

9

07.23.2019 02:04PM

3

4

9

07.23.2019 02:04PM

-->

@Ramshutu

You are basically dismissing an avenue as irrelevant -

Souls and Consciousness are irrelevant.

based on two things that you state are true,

(1) Souls do not properly "exist" (as Quantifiable phenomena) and

(2) Consciousness does not properly "exist" (as Quantifiable phenomena).

you have no evidence for,

You cannot "disprove" Souls or Consciousness (because they are unfalsifiable ontologically Qualitative personal experiences).

and have as much inherent factual validity as something you just decided to make up.

Well, they have as much inherent (non-factual) validity as a persistent cultural myth normally does.

#43

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,282

3

4

9

07.23.2019 02:22PM

3

4

9

07.23.2019 02:22PM

-->

@keithprosser

If it's the former then Blue Brain might become conscious (making it as complex as a real brain is hard but not impossible). But if it's the latter then presumably Blue Brain must fail.

HowEVer, if Blue Brain (or any other "Avatar" project) can seamlessly imitate the input and output of a "normal human brain" to such a degree that it is indistinguishable from a human brain (passes Turing/Voight-Kampff Test) how would anyone know if "element-x" is missing? [LINK]

#44

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,282

3

4

9

07.23.2019 02:27PM

3

4

9

07.23.2019 02:27PM

-->

@n8nrgmi

i can't prove it, but i suspect humans will never create consciousness. they may mimic it with AI, but it won't be self aware and free thinking and philosophical.

How do you clearly and unambiguously distinguish "real" consciousness from "fake" consciousness?

#45

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,282

3

4

9

07.23.2019 02:31PM

3

4

9

07.23.2019 02:31PM

-->

@n8nrgmi

it's not exhaustive proof of God, and is sort of like the complexity argument for God.

An appeal to complexity is also known as an appeal to ignorance.

#46

Debates: 0

Posts: 3,052

3

07.23.2019 02:42PM

3

07.23.2019 02:42PM

-->

@3RU7AL

If blue brain achieves human-like consciousness it would go a long way towards showing 'element-x' is not necessary.

Mathematicians, philososphers and theologians are obsessed with certainty, but science has to make do with getting closer to the truth with baby steps.

#47

Stronn

Debates: 0

Posts: 511

2

4

Stronn

07.23.2019 03:12PM

2

4

07.23.2019 03:12PM

-->

@n8nrgmi

i can't prove it, but i suspect humans will never create consciousness. they may mimic it with AI, but it won't be self aware and free thinking and philosophical.

How could you tell the difference between a very good mimic and actual consciousness?

Topic's author

#48

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,499

3

2

3

07.23.2019 03:13PM

3

2

3

07.23.2019 03:13PM

-->

@amandragon01

so you think there's an elaborate story embedded in our brain or genes when we are at death's door? how does that not seem far fetched to you? what's your theory as to why the brain would hallucinate in that way, so consistently?

even if NDEs were based on culture, it doesn't mean they aren't still authentic experiences of the afterlife.

Topic's author

#49

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,499

3

2

3

07.23.2019 03:17PM

3

2

3

07.23.2019 03:17PM

-->

@amandragon01

you said our brains are similar so we would have similar NDEs, but why would they be so vivid and more real than real and with such common elements that are more like a story and less like a random hallucination?

#50

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,282

3

4

9

07.23.2019 03:25PM

3

4

9

07.23.2019 03:25PM

-->

@n8nrgmi

you said our brains are similar so we would have similar NDEs, but why would they be so vivid and more real than real and with such common elements that are more like a story and less like a random hallucination?

In the same way that dreams can seem "more real than real".

In the same way that psychedelic experiences can seem "more real than real".

For example, [LINK]

Topic's author

#51

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,499

3

2

3

https://www.quora.com/How-do-you-define-the-difference-between-consciousness-and-intelligence-in-AI-developments

07.23.2019 03:27PM

3

2

3

07.23.2019 03:27PM

this link has some smart people explaining the difference in consciousness and AI

Topic's author

#52

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,499

3

2

3

07.23.2019 03:30PM

3

2

3

07.23.2019 03:30PM

-->

@3RU7AL

if you think there's an elaborate story embedded in our brain when we are dying, and you can't tell if AI has consciousness, i also might have a bridge to nowhere that you might be interested in purchasing.

#53

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,044

2

07.23.2019 03:31PM

2

07.23.2019 03:31PM

-->

@ludofl3x

yet still imperfect) AI. There's so many chess playing AI's that are better than humans it's not even worth listing them. There are robotic limbs, as keith points out, that react to the electric stimuli produced by the brain and act as our own bodies. Robotic eyes make judgement all the time. Define the sentient category in which a human is contained and a theoretically super-advanced AI could NOT be contained. I'm not disagreeing with you necessarily, I'd just like to hear you flesh this out more.
I don't see IBM's Watson as being particularly different than any computer that has more information stored than I have in my brain. Or book, like Webster's dictionary. I don't think a book is more intelligent than myself because it has information stored in it's pages that I don't.

Is Watson's chess playing ability unbeatable?
I don't know about Watson's chess playing ability, I don't believe that's what it's for, but what difference would it make? My question was can you explain a little more about your statement, "A robot will never be in the same sentient category as a human." I pointed out that machines can already do most of what people can do in practical terms. My question is more along the lines of "what in your opinion will delineate human sentience from super-advanced AI." You responded with can watson play chess and a dictionary isn't intelligent, I am not sure how those are relevant.

No, I didn't ask if if Watson can play chess. I responded to your underlined quote.

I'm pressed for time here, so I have to be brief. I'll pose another question.

Which holds more knowledge in terms of number of words, and definitions? You, or Webster's dictionary?

Very simple question.

#54

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,282

3

4

9

07.23.2019 03:32PM

3

4

9

07.23.2019 03:32PM

-->

@n8nrgmi

even if NDEs were based on culture, it doesn't mean they aren't still authentic experiences of the afterlife.

So you're basically saying your hypothesis is unfalsifiable.

#55

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,282

3

4

9

07.23.2019 03:49PM

3

4

9

07.23.2019 03:49PM

-->

@n8nrgmi

if you think there's an elaborate story embedded in our brain when we are dying,

Oh, you mean like a dream? Have you ever had a dream? Do you think all your dreams are "real"?

Can you tell the difference between a dream and (Quantifiable scientific) reality?

and you can't tell if AI has consciousness,

Can you tell if your favorite pet has consciousness? [LINK]

Does your dog love you?

Does your neighbor's dog love you too?

i also might have a bridge to nowhere that you might be interested in purchasing.

I also might have a beautiful eternal reward waiting for you after you die, if you swear to follow my book-of-ancient-rules.

#56

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,008

3

2

07.23.2019 04:15PM

3

2

07.23.2019 04:15PM

-->

@RoderickSpode

I didn't ask if if Watson can play chess. I responded to your underlined quote.

But you did in fact say "Is Watson's chess playing ability unbeatable", right? I mean if you're trying to be pedantic, good game, but that would certainly seem to be in some way related to "can watson play chess." Either way, I am still unsure how that response is to my quote about how many chess playing AI's there are. You know, doing things that people do: making strategic decisions in a game. It's not the be all end all, but chess simulators are one of the earliest examples of people starting out thinking "computers can't do X, only people can do X" only to find out that with enough work, computers can do X.

Which holds more knowledge in terms of number of words, and definitions? You, or Webster's dictionary?

This is a distraction and a straw man disguised as a simple question. Of course the dictionary contains more words and definitions than I know, but I'm not saying books are or will be or can't be sentient or in the same level of sentience as a human. I asked you simply to define the 'level of sentience' in some way that is conducive to examination, because advancement in the nuances of AI are accelerating all the time.

#57

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,282

3

4

9

07.23.2019 05:39PM

3

4

9

07.23.2019 05:39PM

-->

@ludofl3x

AI destroys world poker champions. [LINK]

The bot bested 15 human professionals, all of whom have won at least $1 million playing poker, such as 2000 World Series of Poker champion Chris “Jesus” Ferguson and 4-time World Poker Tour champion Darren Elias. [LINK]

#58

Debates: 0

Posts: 3,052

3

07.23.2019 05:50PM

3

07.23.2019 05:50PM

-->

@ludofl3x

It's not the be all end all, but chess simulators are one of the earliest examples of people starting out thinking "computers can't do X, only people can do X" only to find out that with enough work, computers can do X.

It's arguable chess programs are really dumb as they work by trial-and-error and rely on raw speed. It turns out to be fairly easy to make a chess playing robot. What is hard is making a robot that can make a cup of tea in someone else's kitchen. That said, I'm very impressed by the progress in automated cars, but I think the real inteligence is in the design of the algoritms rather than in the algorithms themselves.

#59

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,008

3

2

07.23.2019 05:58PM

3

2

07.23.2019 05:58PM

-->

@keithprosser

What is hard is making a robot that can make a cup of tea in someone else's kitchen.

I guess it depends on how 'hard' you think it is. I'm not an expert, but I'm pretty sure that conquering the "timed machine that is programmed to heat water, steep tea for X number of seconds" is not exactly the same as putting a man on the moon. I mean yeah, I can't do it, but I know it's doable. The question I have is for 'categories of sentience,' per Rod's remark. When does something go from 'smart' like a TV to 'sentient' like a human? No answer yet. Are dogs sentient? Are they on the same level of sentience as a human? If not, what's the quantifiable difference? We're not going to get answers because there aren't any, at least none that cannot be rephrased as "Well I'm a special human, and that's just a plain old cat."

#60

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,282

3

4

9