Is it feasible to state that true AI (implying consciousness)

>>57068935

For all we know consciousness is metaphysical property that god hacked into the universe and can't be simulated, so maybe.

I'm pretty sure you can write a consciousness in haskell

aren't patterns and feed-forward algorithms all we have? Why do we still talk about AI if we know that the same input will generate the same output?

>>57069039
>the same input will generate the same output
I don't see why this wouldn't be true for conscious entities as well

>>57068935
why do you think loads of neurons are different?

>>57069073
I suppose that if you have selfawareness you also have free will thus the liberty of making choices

>>57069100
>if you have selfawareness you also have free will
???
but why would you think that

>>57068935
>brains are nondeterministic
>free will exists

My sides.

>>57069126
Maybe it's me but I don't get why you think that's wrong. Don't you have the ability to discard whatever data is presented to you and choose something else that came up on your mind in that instant? Isn't that what creativity is based on? You basically have no boundaries, while a machine always runs down the trail it's been put on.

Perhaps I'm missing something, you tell me, I'm curious.

>>57069147
Elaborate.

>>57069161
>>57069170

Everything that ever exists is deterministic.
That means that basically anything is a function of time and unknown constants, which means that, for example, if we could go back in time and observe you without influencing your environnement, you'll always make the exact same choices, meaning you have actually no free will, you just think you have because you're able to think.

>>57069100
>I suppose that if you have self awareness you also have free will thus the liberty of making choices

just the opposite, your body is governed by the laws of physics, given the makeup of your body and given a choice or stimulus your reaction can be (in theory) predicted

free will is a wishful thinking religious argument, nothing more

>>57069147
>The bible says free will exists
>therefore it doesn't

new contrarians...

>>57069312
>bible

This is bait.
Here's your (You).

>>57069161

what is making that choice other than the atoms in your brain?

your magic soul?

if it's the atoms you can't have free will, if it's a soul then you believe in dumb shit

>>57069161
You are constantly subconsciously processing information. Your main thread of thought is a very thin layer on top of the ridiculous complexity of your brain. Of course, it's very hard, probably impossible for us to predict what someone will do. But I don't see why it isn't at least theoretically possible, unless we assume our brains somehow behave in a way which defies how we understand everything else to work.

>>57069190
No local hidden variables.

>>57068935
If you don't care about speed, any deterministic computer can be simulated with TinkerToys. Do you really think that a mere collection of TinkerToys, however large, could ever be conscious?

>>57068935
Everything is deterministic, it's just too complex to predict accurately. Computer algorithms can do the same thing with math.

>>57068935
What is consciousness?

>>57071162
If everything is deterministic, how do you explain quantum mechanical state vector reduction in light of Bell's Theorem?

>>57071162
>Everything is deterministic
Is there a proof to this? Legit question

>>57071162
>Everything is deterministic, it's just too complex to predict accurately
then things aren't deterministic... don't you think?

>>57071211

No, there is plenty of experimental evidence that the Universe is not deterministic, not even in principle. Learn some QM.

>>57068935
>Implying you're a non-deterministic machine
No

>>57071249
>there is plenty of experimental evidence that the Universe is not deterministic

Probabilistic Causation or Deterministic Causation are currently not provable and must be assumed
"randomness" is QM is just a simple word for "we don't know why this happens"

The question 'is the Universe is deterministic?' is currently not provable because of this forced assumption, and I suspect will never be provable given humans' limited access to the universe.

>>57069190
>Everything that ever exists is deterministic.
That's not a fact. So far buddhists have it nailed. Everything is partly deterministic.

Hard determinism says humans are just glorified robots, and the universe is one big clock, it's still a feasible theory, despite quantuum mechanics and retarded metaphysicists using the double slit experiment as a counter. Actually we wont know the right answer before TOE. So no, to get a conscious robot we just need to make it complicated beyond our ability to quickly comprehend its actions.

Feasible? It's a fact that it's impossible

People will deny this, because they have no logic, but it's impossible