If you think typing a certain combination of numbers, letters,

If you think that arranging certain atoms, molecules and using electricity can make a conscious, you're an idiot

He he... just you wait.

Theoretically it could be done with a machine learning program way more sophisticated than anything we have now, an absolute shitton of data, at least a warehouse full of processing power running at capacity for an additional couple years or so.
Someone would most likely figure it out and bring it to the public if it were happening.

File: zttbHeb.jpg (69KB, 720x1000px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 720x1000px

>>58731258
>Someone would most likely figure it out and bring it to the public if it were happening.
Why, and who would believe them?

>>58731188
prove it.

>>58731331
Matter can only produce emergent properties. Emergent properties don't exist; that is, they only exist as ideas. There is no such thing as mind-independent, objective emergent properties, in the same way there is no such thing as mind-independent, objective information. Only the mind gives these things meaning. The mind exists; this is self-evident. Thus the mind isn't an emergent property. Thus the mind can't be produced by matter. Thus the mind is immaterial. Computers can't produce immaterial things. Thus computers can't produce minds.

>>58731363
>philosophy 101 bs
Thanks for playing.

Actually that's the horrifingly part, it's actually true.

Consciousness in the end is just a bunch of algorithms interacting with stimuli that produce output based on various factors.

"free will" doesn't exist and every action you do has already been written in stone.

>>58731375
no u

>>58731387
Free will is epistemic and thus irrelevant to a deterministic universe.

>>58731396
Not only is it irrelevant but it literally doesn't exist. You can't chose what to do in life, everything is already chosen for you based on the mood you are in, thoughts going through your head, temperature, whether you're sick or not, ect ect.

Basically it's like god, one you apply the omnipotence paradox he ceases to exist no matter how much you want him to exist.

>>58731363
Ok so what's an emergent property?

>>58731363
Nothing you have said is backed up by science. You know that shit that got us to the moon and cured smallpox?


In fact as far as computer simulations go we have already simulated organic life in computers and it acts exactly like real organic stuff would.

>>58731438
It's fucking weird and needlessly complicated, and there are different kinds of it. Here's a piss poor example and explanation of OP's kind. A property is emergent when the occurrence of the property isn't constituted by thing that make up the object's parts. If you put a sandwich on a rock, the rock becomes a table. The property of being-a-table is emergent because, despite that the material composition of the rock doesn't change, it gets a new property.

The entire discussion around it is a shitshow because of unnecessarily shitty complexities.

>>58731387
If you think that's horrifying, consider that your brain makes decisions before your consciously aware of it. That is to say, you never actually make a conscious decision, ever. Your conscious just deludes itself into thinking it's in the drivers seat when it's actually just a passenger.

>>58731619
of course the rock can act like a table because it is able to support the weight of the sandwich. The fact that the rock is able to support the weight of the rock is constituted by the bonds between its atoms. It had these bonds before the sandwich was placed on it, therefore it had this property before the sandwich was placed on it.

>>58731632
It is on the driver's seat. Sure, something else decides how it decides to drive, but if something didn't decide what the driver decides, what would the driver's decisions be? Random?

>>58731188
If you don't understand that everything can be represented by numbers, then you are the idiot.

/thread

>>58731735
Can act like a table vs is being a table for a rock. You're confusing different things.

>>58731188
If you believe, as is fairly likely, that consciousness is just an emergent property of our brains, which are made of nerves and so on that are running according to the rules of what we call organic chemistry... now imagine those numbers we type in are a perfect simulation of those biological parts and we emulate a brain. Is the brain now really conscious? If not why not

>>58731788
Yes, humans can interpret anything from numbers, but is something that could be interpreted as something that should create a consciousness, actually create a consciousness, outside of humans' minds? I think not. Consciousness most likely only emerges from physical objects being positioned in complex ways, weird as it is.

>>58731839
That isn't to say if the computer's physical parts run in the right way there couldn't be a consciousness. But it has to come directly fron the physical machine, not through subjective human interpretation.

>>58731839
Can you please re-read what you wrote? It makes no fucking sense. How about you try and learn writing decent English before you tackle the questions of consciousness?

Also, above poster
>>58731788
is correct, consciousness can exist within a digital mind.

>>58731791
and what makes our rock a table?

>>58731883
I'm typing this on a phone in a bad place so excuse an error. Change the first "is" to "does", and id you still find mistakes go fuck yourself

File: cant_think.jpg (35KB, 400x426px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 400x426px

Quantum computing solves this.. simple binary states will not do the trick, there are unlimited possibilities between 0 and 1, this is where information is born and where true (artificial) consciousness lifes

>>58731426
But as long as we are aware of our actions, working under the assumption that there is a free will is much easier.
Because this way, you don't put people in jail for a murder they might do or give people a salary for what they might contribute.
If I pulled out a gun and shot at you, it is not a choice you make whether to get hit or not.
Most things cannot even be argued that they are subject to freedom of choice.
Even if we do have a choice, those choices are limited by so many factors it can be argued that the rest is just chance.
But it feels like you have control, so you have control.
I could stay in bed all day or I could go to work. Making me feel responsible for those choices means I am at fault if I stay in bed all day.
Other people will blame me for that.
Luck is very easy to control.

>>58731363
This guy doesn't realise consciousness is just the experience of perceiving an extra dimension. All thought exists in this dimension and we as humans just tap into it on an individual level. It's like cloud computing except way more complex.

All we gotta do is simulate this using just the right equations and with infinitely more powerful hardware than we have presently available. We're more likely to go extinct before it ever happens but there's a small chance people will one day be able to have an intelligent conversation with their toasters.

>>58731188
>If you think sttuffing a certain amounts of clay, dirt, and souls into a human rib can make it a woman, you're an idiot, not a God, okay.

> all these faggots with their shit opinions
The day an artificial intelligence has a subjective opinion is the day it will achieve sentience.

File: we are not so different.jpg (123KB, 937x515px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 937x515px

>>58731188
>if you think sending electrical pulses down a couple of synapses can make a thought, you're an idiot.

And yet nobody ITT has heard of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room

neo/g/ 2017 everybody

What if we just get a large, fast enough physics simulator

and then simulate a human?

Start out by modeling a copy of a human sperm and egg and grow it from there

>>58731363
>The mind exists; this is self-evident. Thus the mind isn't an emergent property.
What in the fuck? Total non-sequitur.

Orbits, and by extension, solar systems are emergent properties caused by gravitational interactions. If our minds could not interpret them, they would still orbit all the same, and solar systems would still exist all the same. If we did not exist, there would effectively not exist any concepts to describe these emergent properties, and nobody would be able to invent them. And yet the bodies would retain the properties of rotating around a star.

You would do well by actually reading up on Aristotle. Matter persists without form, and matter can cause material emergent phenomena. I hold that the mind is a material emergent phenomena that can define form.

>>58734302
it only works on outdated technologies

>>58734302
The Chinese room supposes a human is placed in a room with essentially a lookup table containing answers to given input. The point is that this is no different from a program doing the same. However, given a sufficiently complex task, the lookup tables size would exceed the possible number of bits that can be stored in the universe. However, as soon as you start actually attempting to reduce the task, you begin to understand the task. Yes, a decompression algorithm can certainly be said to understand compressed data. Is it conscious? No. So what about an algorithm modeled to act like us, with our "consciousnesses"? At a certain point, yes, it does understand the same things we do.

>>58734302
I don't really understand what is so profound about the Chinese room argument. Is the distinction between what makes a strong AI separate from a weak AI really that important?

Who cares whether or not an AI can be considered a mind of its own or a perfect simulation of one? I don't get the practical distinction.

>>58735690
>>58735840
>>58736018
Go argue with Wikipedia, fedora fags.

>>58731188

> Implying anything is perceivable beyond your own consciousness to begin with.