Total posts: 27
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
thank you I will look into it
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
My sources are as worthless as yours
that could be true, but it would be easier to see your side with them. such as a doctor that agrees with you, and articles or videos of the government attempting a character assassination on them.
I am not trying to force anything on anyone nor am I trying to curtail anyone's personal freedoms.
that is a great intention to have
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
can you give be examples and/or sources of this happening?
the only times I can think of the government lying is about money (and taxes, or maybe voting), not science.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
who disagrees?
like stated above, I had very bad wording for the title, and I would say that it is beneficial that everyone get the vaccine, not that you are forced to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
The way I worded it was really bad, I was not trying to defend mandatory vaccines, but instead that it's better for everyone if we all get vaccinated.
Created:
Posted in:
I understand that the vast majority, if not all, of this website would agree with the title of this forum. However, in case that there are those who believe that we shouldn't get vaccinated I have made the forum.
there are two reasons we must all get the vaccine for COVID-19:
- vaccines, historically, have helped to eradicate diseases. for example, both smallpox and polio have been completely eradicated[1] and diseases like the measles and the mumps have been reduced by over 99 percent and 97 percent respectively.[1]
- in 2019, COVID-19 killed more Americans than Stroke, Alzheimer, and Diabetes, (over 400,000)[2] (which is a lot more than the flu, so those who like to refer to COVID-19 as 'just like the flu" are clearly wrong)
[1]
[2]
https://khn.org/news/article/pandemic-first-year-how-covid-toll-compares-with-other-causes-of-death/
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
war is a necessary evil.
it's bloody, destroys infrastructure, and costs people limbs and livelihoods. But sometimes it is necessary for freedom.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Arbitrary rules.
This is completely irrelevant to the discussion, it's either you have a good counter argument to the Chinese room and Mary's room, or you do not.
Created:
Posted in:
You gave Mary the ability to describe and learn the process of seeing colour.Can’t you give the man the ability to describe and learn what the symbols mean?
These are two separate thought experiments, therefore they abide by different rules.
It would be interesting to see what would happen when you create cultures with artificial neural networks.
This is simply not an argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I will take your arguments into consideration.
However, I really don't think robots will ever "raise up" against us in the way you are saying.
Thank you
Created:
Posted in:
If you Understand the way a program can have random variables, you will then see how evolution and genuine sentience is possible to be displayed.
I accept the Theory of Evolution, if that's what your getting at. However, how can the randomness of the computer system produce consciousness? it's not like the computer system can evolve, like species do.
notice that our brains run on electric impulses and combine a brain of sort via microchips and you can have a real sentient AI.
are you saying that we are robots? If so, on your view, are we literally or metaphorically computers?
Also, I think you are not understanding my position when you say that:
You seem to think consciousness needs to be directly coded in,
I believe that Artificial intelligence's consciousness needs to be programed in, however human consciousness can come from natural processes. (however, I am still a dualist, the view that mental phenomena are non-physical, or that the mind and body are distinct and separable, but that's off topic)
Anyways, the point is that while human consciousness might not need to be programed in, the computer's consciousness needs to be. Since we cannot describe much of our experience, we cannot program it into the computer, however, that does not mean we have been "programed" ourselves.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
You're missing the point. You have not refuted either argument, nor have you proven that strong AI can exist, outside of saying "it will exist in the future" but that is just a bold assertion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
It's important to note that you did not refute either argument.
Also, you committed the wishful thinking fallacy, because you are simply hoping that in the future that we will create strong AI, but not actually proving that we can.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Obviously there’s something going on if the responses are indistinguishable from a native speaker.
But that’s just a simulation. In the Chinese room,(or, since your going to nick-pic, the Mandarin Chinese room) the speaker is just giving certain symbols when other certain symbols are given. He does not know the meaning of the symbols, it is just that he seems like he does.
When these symbols are given:
你今天好吗 (which means are you good today) he knows to give these symbols: 我是 (which means yes, I am). The man doesn't know what the symbols mean, just what symbols to write when some symbols come in through the door.
He doesn’t know the word for “food” or “house” (he does not understand Mandarin Chinese )
Light waves appear differently depending on what medium(s) they travel through. For humans it’s our eyes and brain.
You still cannot program a robot to feel emotions, like sadness, because they are subjective qualia, that means we cannot explain them, and cannot program them into a computer. More examples of subjective qualia are I run my fingers over sandpaper, smell a skunk, feel a sharp pain in my finger. You cannot describe these experiences to anyone, they only why I know what you're talking about is that I have the same experiences. This mean we cannot program them into a computer
if we cannot give AI the ability to experience subjective qualia, then we cannot have truly strong AI
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
honestly, you cannot just say "forget Mary's Room", to prove that strong AI can exist, then you would have to debunk both arguments, not just one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
this is the "other minds" reply,
as for the "other minds" reply, we can know we understand things and have consciousness, because we understand things because we would understand the character’s meaning, the room does not, it only knows what answers to give to which questions, not the actual meaning of the questions themselves. So, we would be able to understand the actual meaning of the questions, because we would "know Chinese" as the analogy goes. However, the machine doesn't know, and is just doing as it is told.
as for the "other minds" reply, we can know we understand things and have consciousness, because we understand things because we would understand the character’s meaning, the room does not, it only knows what answers to give to which questions, not the actual meaning of the questions themselves. So, we would be able to understand the actual meaning of the questions, because we would "know Chinese" as the analogy goes. However, the machine doesn't know, and is just doing as it is told.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
what is the FUNCTIONAL and PRACTICAL difference between "strong AI" and apparently strong AI?
I never claimed that there was a practical difference between strong AI and apparently strong AI. however, I disputed the fact that the AI actually understands what's it's doing. For example, a chess computer is good at chess, however, it has no real understanding of chess, because it's just doing a "if this" then "do this" programing. it doesn't actually understand it's playing a person. similarly, the man in the Chinese room has not understanding what the Chinese word for dog is, he is just operating on a "if this" then "do this" programing.
So yes, functionally and practically, there is no difference. However, a façade of consciousness is still just that, a façade.
(and you still haven't refuted Mary's Room).
Created:
Posted in:
Strong AI is artificial intelligence that can think like a person can, they have free will, and can plan out their own means. (no piece of strong AI have been created yet)
I will assert that this cannot exist, because of the following arguments:
- The Chinese Room. Imagine an English speaking human-being who knows noChinese is put in a room and asked to simulate theexecution of a computer program operating on Chinesecharacters which he/she does not understand. Imagine the program the person is executing is an AIprogram which is receiving natural language stories andquestions in Chinese and responds appropriately withwritten Chinese sentences.
The claim is that even if reasonable natural languageresponses are being generated that are indistinguishablefrom ones a native Chinese speaker would generate, there is no “understanding” since only meaningless symbols arebeing manipulated. the human seems to understand Chinese, however, they do not, and the same is true of AI.
- Mary's Room. imagine Mary is an expert on color, and she can describe the process of the human eye seeing color. however, Mary works in a completely black and white room, and she has never seen color. one day, a red apple appears on her computer screen, Mary has seen color for the first time. the question is: does she learn something new when she sees the red apple? is the answer is yes, she does, then there is more to color then what we can program into a computer, and color is a qualia (or subjective experience) in which humans have, that cannot be put into a computer. more examples of qualia are joy, or anger, because we cannot describe these experiences to someone who has not felt them, therefore, we cannot program them into a computer, and we cannot have true strong AI.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
so is the mind grounded in physical realty, or is it part of something higher (like the supernatural), on your view?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
it seems like Rene Descartes's argument applies to both the brain and a mind.
also, it seems very strange (and unnecessary) to concede that the brain exists, and the mind doesn't. Are you saying that you not aware of the world and your experiences, or think, and feel; and have the faculty of consciousness and thought?
are you saying you don't think? but if you think, therefore, you are.
Also, it seems like the "brain" definition and the "mind" definition are saying the same thing, but with different words, therefore, the brain is the mind.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Amoranemix
The only way I can think of to get it to you is through a email, because it's too long to post here.
You can either give me your email (or just create a temporary g-mail account so I can send you the document, and you can delete that g-mail account when you finished, if you don't want to give me your email)
Or you can suggest another way to get the document from me.
Sorry this is inconvenient
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Amoranemix
hello. sorry it took so long to get my rebuttal done, but it took a lot of re-watching the video, and doing my own research.
because my rebuttal is 11 pages long, I have not posted it on this website, but on a google doc that can be found here:
I will address every one of the points, and add in some evidence for a 4.6 billion year old Earth for good measure.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Soluminsanis
thank you for your post.
If I am correct, the main arguments are:
- soft tissue have been found in "ancient" fossils, therefore these fossils are not ancient
- Carbon-14 has been found in "ancient" fossils, therefore these fossils are not ancient
- Bacteria have been found in "ancient" salt crystal, therefore the salt crystal is not ancient
Frankly, I have heard these before. Young-Earth Creationists seem to use the 20 or so arguments, which all have been refuted by a paper written by [1]
Rebuttal:
- Yes, it is true that soft protein tissue has been found in dinosaur bones. But it is fiction that such protein will decay with time. If that were possible, we as humans would be having trouble with our own bodily proteins decaying, and we could not survive. The proteins can last a long time where the bones have not been "cracked open" to allow water, oxygen, or bacteria to enter that would destroy the proteins by common chemical processes. In many places the bones are mineralized so that they are sealed and pores are closed through which any fluids, oxygen, or bacteria could migrate, and, therefore, the proteins can last for an extremely long time. The breakdown of tissue from animals is not even a dating method. the protein survives because it was sealed in an air-tight, water-tight seal. it is water and oxygen that breaks down proteins, without exposure to this, the proteins can survive for millions of years.
- presence of C-14in trace amounts in ancient fossils, coal, and diamonds is not because of the real existence of this radioactive isotope in ancient fossils, that was produced from N-14 in an ancient atmosphere but because of the impossibility of eliminating trace contamination of modern C-14 in the laboratories where the analyses are made. Contamination is the most likely explanation.
- Again, the bacteria were in a found in rock, which would have protected it form the air, and water. the oxygen and water would have broken it down, but since they were not present, then the bacteria could survive millions of years
the soft tissue argument is number 6, the carbon-12 argument is number 6, and the Lazarus DNA is number 3, though it was the same explanation as number 6
Again I'm not a young earther, but hopefully this will make for a good discussion...
thank you for playing devil's advocate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
what is your definition of mind and brain.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
I think, therefore I am.
so I at least have a mind, according to René Descartes.
Created: