Technological singularity and Scientism

[John_Mann]

Shrug, OK, you're a consciousness fundamentalist. People who ascribe to this belief come up with various reasons on occasion, Quantum Mechanics, existence of the Soul, or whatever but it boils down to some form of not seriously entertaining the idea. Meanwhile those of us in the business are 24/7 trying to achieve it.

Like all such progress, discussing the negative doesn't go anywhere, so why bring it up? That is, a negative can't be proved, where as a positive can. So therefore, why waste your time? Go spend it on something you can make a difference in .... taking the negative hypothesis of any issue accomplishes nothing other than wasting our time.

Yes I'm a "consciousness is not physical" fundamentalist.

But I'm interested in the effort to try to build a consciousness. I just making a prediction or bet that it's an impossibility. I don't think trying to achieve consciousness is a waste of time because more sophisticated failures only confirms my position. That's why I like to be upto date with the attempts. BTW the Blue Brain Project is going down the drain. There's a satirical video about it telling some truths about the project:


https://youtu.be/FhsZll_P1iA

My problem is with those "consciousness is physical" fundamentalists trying to use science as evidence to this premise. This premise is not scientific even though science starts with this premise. But a start is not a conclusion.

I don't think strong AI needs to be conscious to reach some kind of technological singularity.

 

[Architect]

But I'm interested in the effort to try to build a consciousness. I just making a prediction or bet that it's an impossibility.

Fair enough

I don't think trying to achieve consciousness is a waste of time because more sophisticated failures only confirms my position.

Actually no, negative results (in any investigative field) simply confirm the difficulty of the problem. If you take that position (that you have) you're simply looking for confirmation bias.

BTW the Blue Brain Project is going down the drain.

No surprise, I've expected that for some years. The project has systemic and scientific issues.

This premise is not scientific even though science starts with this premise. But a start is not a conclusion.

It's actually 'pre' - pre-scientific, pre-epistomological (but not pre-judicial, see below). We don't have a definition for what consciousness is, so it can't be answered either positively or negatively a-priori. We can identify it though, there's a legal precedent (indeed the legal system is largely about protecting consciousness), so we do have a way of identifying it. The Turing Test is one formulation.

 

[John_Mann]

Would be confirmation bias if I was avoiding the attempts to eliminate my position.

But I'm doing the opposite. I'm very interested in the exascale computing and the Blue Brain Project and BRAIN.

Naturally similar or better non human brains are empirical evidence that only fancy hardware can't produce a sophisticated mind and consciousness.

IMHO even when exascale and a molecular level model of the human brain will be achieved, consciousness will not arise from that as consciousness already did not emerged from similar non human brains.

Because this attempt to create consciousness is philosophically flawed. It starts from the premise physicalism is right but physicalism is a philosophical mess. You can't be successful upon a sandy base that's how things work in this universe.

That's my educated guess.

 

[John_Mann]

I think Julian Jaynes made the best definition of consciousness.

 

[Cognisant]

Naturally similar or better non human brains are empirical evidence that only fancy hardware can't produce a sophisticated mind and consciousness.

That's just flat out wrong, firstly you can't prove a negative, secondly the progress that has been made and is being made all indicates that the mind is the result of physical processes.

IMHO even when exascale and a molecular level model of the human brain will be achieved, consciousness will not arise from that as consciousness already did not emerged from similar non human brains.

But animals are conscious, if they're not how can you explain dolphins and chimps being able to recognize themselves in mirrors? How could they have a concept of self by which to recognise themselves if they weren't self aware?

 

[Cognisant]

Because this attempt to create consciousness is philosophically flawed. It starts from the premise physicalism is right but physicalism is a philosophical mess. You can't be successful upon a sandy base that's how things work in this universe.

The only critique you've been able to make is an appeal to ignorance yet I keep providing you evidence so whose ignorance is it really?

 

[John_Mann]

That's just flat out wrong, firstly you can't prove a negative,

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_impossibility

secondly the progress that has been made and is being made all indicates that the mind is the result of physical processes.

Like what? Be more specific.

But animals are conscious, if they're not how can you explain dolphins and chimps being able to recognize themselves in mirrors? How could they have a concept of self by which to recognise themselves if they weren't self aware?

The mirror test and the spot test are very controversial.

http://m.nautil.us/blog/when-does-a-consciousness-test-not-test-for-consciousness

 

[Black Rose]

https://youtu.be/uypIj_BYzAw

 

[John_Mann]

The only critique you've been able to make is an appeal to ignorance yet I keep providing you evidence so whose ignorance is it really?

Physicalism is a joke in philosophy for a long time.

I'm not appealing to ignorance regarding physicalism. Physicalism is logically flawed because states "everything is physical". But this very statement is metaphysical (monistic ontology).

That's why (eliminative) materialists deny the existence of consciousness. Why they deny consciousness? Because it's not physical so it can't exist!

If thoughts are merely chemicals why we perceive them as true or false? Who or what is the ultimate judge of true and false? Other chemicals? Circles and circles...

"Materialism/physicalism is the philosophy of the subject who forgets to take account of himself." - Arthur Schopenhauer

 

[Black Rose]

If we copy the brain in software I believe it will act just like any other person who has a brain. Because I have a brain I can think and I can reason. If you damaged my brain I would be impaired. I see no reason a digital brain would not act like a meat brain. And if a digital brain can think and reason then it will be just like a person. Even now some brain models have past primitive IQ tests. A brain learns and is socially conditioned with language. Digital neurons are just as good as meat neurons when it comes to intelligent action.

 

[Cognisant]

I'm not appealing to ignorance regarding physicalism. Physicalism is logically flawed because states "everything is physical". But this very statement is metaphysical (monistic ontology).

Is the software we're currently using on our computers physical?
Consciousness isn't a thing it's a process and the information it processes is stored in synaptic connections between neurons, there's no reason why the data "everything is physical" couldn't be stored this way, heck we can already encode digital information into DNA.

Your ontology is a sophism.

That's why (eliminative) materialists deny the existence of consciousness. Why they deny consciousness? Because it's not physical so it can't exist!

We deny the magical explanation of consciousness because there's no evidence for it and plenty of evidence against, basically it's just fucking stupid.

If thoughts are merely chemicals why we perceive them as true or false? Who or what is the ultimate judge of true and false? Other chemicals? Circles and circles...

You're taking refuge in ignorance again.
I can give a decent explanation but not right now, I'm a bit busy/tired and it's a long explanation.

 

[John_Mann]

If we copy the brain in software I believe it will act just like any other person who has a brain.

That's the ultimate experiment about matter vs mind.

If materialism is correct that's exactly the result.

But considering materialism is philosophically flawed I bet it will be empirically flawed too.

 

[Black Rose]

That's the ultimate experiment about matter vs mind.

If materialism is correct that's exactly the result.

But considering materialism is philosophically flawed I bet it will be empirically flawed too.

The brain is physical and I act because of it. If the brain has nothing to do with consciousness then that means the brain is useless and not needed for anything. It is completely reasonable to assume the brain produces what we see the body doing when we interact with those people with their bodies. We have bodies, that is fact. Empirically all we need is a body and a brain. Artificial bodies and brains will act like people. We will see this in the next 15 years.

Just ask yourself, why do we have a brain if we don't need it?

 

[John_Mann]

Is the software we're currently using on our computers physical?

The correlation between material hardware and immaterial software is total. So software is physical.

The correlation between human mind and brain is not total.

Consciousness isn't a thing it's a process and the information it processes is stored in synaptic connections between neurons, there's no reason why the data "everything is physical" couldn't be stored this way, heck we can already encode digital information into DNA.

Consciousness is a function of a thing (metaphysical soul).

We deny the magical explanation of consciousness because there's no evidence for it and plenty of evidence against, basically it's just fucking stupid.

That's the problem with materialism/physicalism/scientism.

They demand scientific evidence (NEVER specify what kind of evidence) to metaphysical entities. It's possible to spot a materialist just by highlighting the words "evidence" and "merely/only/just".

Consciousness can perceive itself and the logical conclusion of the soul was reached way before Christianity and by all great civilizations that ever existed. Everyone stupid? How do you explain the perfect logical conclusion for the soul? This logical conclusion moved entire civilizations and still moves. To deny the existence of the soul you must deny logic itself. Actually that's exactly what materialists do.

Calling everyone who disagree as stupid is the problem of liberals/leftists too. It's way more polite to say you don't agree with my premises or/and my conclusions. Premises and conclusions can be attacked but attack the very act of reasoning of your opponent is very rude and also a logical fallacy (ad hominem).

You're taking refuge in ignorance again.
I can give a decent explanation but not right now, I'm a bit busy/tired and it's a long explanation.

Sophism, appeal to ignorance, etc... For a materialist you're using too much philosophical terms. Remember that materialists say philosophy is BS.

Humans are not ignorant about the soul, never were. We know exactly what it is and also the implications of denying the reality of the soul.

 

[John_Mann]

The brain is physical and I act because of it. If the brain has nothing to do with consciousness then that means the brain is useless and not needed for anything. It is completely reasonable to assume the brain produces what we see the body doing when we interact with those people with their bodies. We have bodies, that is fact. Empirically all we need is a body and a brain. Artificial bodies and brains will act like people. We will see this in the next 15 years.

Just ask yourself, why do we have a brain if we don't need it?

I never said that. Just the opposite. Catholics believe that humans are not ghosts locked in a physical body. Human nature is destined to be the eternal union of spiritual soul and physical body. There's an obvious correlation between human mind and the brain. The soul is not the totality of the mind.

Catholics believe humans are composed by three souls and a physical body: vegetative soul, sensitive (animal) soul and the spiritual immortal soul.

 

[John_Mann]

We will see this in the next 15 years.

This is a variation of the "in the next 30 years" cultish thinking.

Will you change your mind if a molecular-level human brain model running into an exascale computer fail to produce a human mind?

 

[Cognisant]

The correlation between human mind and brain is not total.

Why?

Consciousness is a function of a thing (metaphysical soul).

What is a soul?

They demand scientific evidence (NEVER specify what kind of evidence) to metaphysical entities. It's possible to spot a materialist just by highlighting the words "evidence" and "merely/only/just".

Any kind of evidence will doas long as it can be independently verified because the fact of the matter is I don’t believe you but if you can back up your claims with proof and I can't refute that proof then you've convinced me.

Saying you have a soul because it feels right proves nothing to me because I can't feel your feelings, heck you can't even tell me what a soul is because it's just a word you we're brainwashed into having faith in.

Premises and conclusions can be attacked but attack the very act of reasoning of your opponent is very rude and also a logical fallacy (ad hominem).

There's no reasoning to attack, you have an unsubstantiated premise and refuse to acknowledge any evidence that contradicts it.

Remember that materialists say philosophy is BS.

Actually this is new to me, can you provide examples?

 

[Haim]

What you call a soul, I call a part of my brain.
And for the matter, I therefore call all humans are a stupid thing.
The brain magic is in the electrons.

 

[Black Rose]

This is a variation of the "in the next 30 years" cultish thinking.

Will you change your mind if a molecular-level human brain model running into an exascale computer fail to produce a human mind?

Why would it fail and why would that matter? All it would show is they did it in the wrong way, that they had the wrong software. If you make a digital brain that can learn then it will learn just like a child. This whole thing about believing it will fail is based on the belief that learning is impossible in software. I think learning is possible in software and thus a digital brain will act like a person because it can learn. I believe learning is not impossible.