Searching for GOD...

[Nearly Sane]

How would you? This is just trying to shift the burden of proof - like Alan is continually trying to do. It's entirely up to those claiming that concious minds need god-magic to make the case that they do.

The point was in response to Alan's daft claim that people's posts were evidence of god-magic. If a computer (conscious or otherwise) could produce something as good, then they cannot be regarded as needing god-magic.

And Alan's posts often seem to be reminiscent of a very bad attempt at AI.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

How would you know your message posting computer was conscious rather than just intelligent? Although I accept as you continually remind us ...that posting here doesn't necessarily imply intelligence.

How would you know that it isn't? Moreover how would you know that, say, AB is conscious rather than just a very buggy piece of AI?   

[Alan Burns]

You’ve missed the point in any case. You were asked to justify your unqualified assertion that no computer even in principle could ever be conscious. I have no idea why you think that, not least because you’ve never attempted to tell us why you think that despite being asked to do so on several occasions.   

Computers are a man made creation.
Conscious awareness is beyond human understanding - we cannot create what we do not understand.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Computers are a man made creation.

Conscious awareness is beyond human understanding - we cannot create what we do not understand.

Way to miss the point again.

First, “conscious awareness is beyond human understanding” is just another of your unqualified assertions. How do you know that that will always be the case?

Second, the question wasn’t about computers as they currently are – it was an in principle question about what computers might or might not be able to achieve in principle.

Third, there’s no reason to assume that a conscious computer would have to be designed to be a conscious computer. Maybe if ever a computer was invented that was of sufficient complexity consciousness would emerge from it spontaneously. How do you know that it wouldn’t?     

[Alan Burns]

First, “conscious awareness is beyond human understanding” is just another of your unqualified assertions. How do you know that that will always be the case?

Conscious awareness will never be achieved by material entities alone, because conscious awareness is not a reaction - it is awareness of reaction.  You need to understand this profound difference.

Second, the question wasn’t about computers as they currently are – it was an in principle question about what computers might or might not be able to achieve in principle.

Computers will only do what they are programmed to do.  They may well mimic the outward appearance of conscious awareness - but there will never be internal awareness as experienced by human beings.

Third, there’s no reason to assume that a conscious computer would have to be designed to be a conscious computer. Maybe if ever a computer was invented that was of sufficient complexity consciousness would emerge from it spontaneously. How do you know that it wouldn’t?     

You are reading too much science fiction. 

[Stranger]

Computers are a man made creation.

Whoosh! The point sails way over Alan's head again.

I was using computers to illustrate the much deeper mathematical concept of being algorithmic. If something is algorithmic (such as I assume you think non-human animal's brains are), then it doesn't need god-magic - obviously.

Conscious awareness is beyond human understanding...

Baseless assertion.

Conscious awareness will never be achieved by material entities alone, because conscious awareness is not a reaction - it is awareness of reaction.

Baseless assertion.

You need to understand this profound difference.

No, you need to prove it - burden of proof again.

Computers will only do what they are programmed to do.  They may well mimic the outward appearance of conscious awareness - but there will never be internal awareness as experienced by human beings.

Baseless assertion.

Are you really too dim to understand the point here, or are you just being lazy and complacent?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Conscious awareness will never be achieved by material entities alone, because conscious awareness is not a reaction - it is awareness of reaction.  You need to understand this profound difference.

First, this supposed “profound difference” is just something you’ve made up that does not align with our current understanding of what consciousness entails.

Second, you have no definition of what you’d mean by a “non-material” and no argument at all to demonstrate that there even is such a "thing".

Third, there’s no reason at all to suppose that a sufficiently complex organism couldn’t be quite capable of self-awareness – indeed that’s what the evidence from neuroscience suggests.
   

Computers will only do what they are programmed to do.  They may well mimic the outward appearance of conscious awareness - but there will never be internal awareness as experienced by human beings.

You cannot possibly know that “computers will only do what they are programmed to do”. Computers of sufficient complexity may well be capable of doing all sorts of things they weren’t programmed to do –  you might for example design Part A to do something and Part B to do something else, but have no idea what phenomena may emerge when Part A and Part B interact. That in essence is how the emergence works: it's why the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.   

You are reading too much science fiction.

I think perhaps that the problem here is rather that you haven’t been reading enough science.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

How would you know that it isn't? Moreover how would you know that, say, AB is conscious rather than just a very buggy piece of AI?

It seems to me then you are equating intelligence with consciousness.

Consciousness therefore becomes redundant or eliminated in one deft turdpolish.

I don't know why you don't just come clean and say consciousness is bunk.....an illusion, instead of showboating and grandstanding on this forum.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

How would you know that it isn't? Moreover how would you know that, say, AB is conscious rather than just a very buggy piece of AI?

ARTIFICIAL intelligence? That would be a bit of a problem for you wouldn't it Hillside.

And of course eliminating consciousness.

[Stranger]

It seems to me then you are equating intelligence with consciousness.

Your capacity to misunderstand, well... err, pretty much everything, come to think of it, seems boundless. It is Alan who keeps making the role of conciousness central to his 'argument'.

In fact, nobody is sure of the relationship between general intelligence and conciousness.

Consciousness therefore becomes redundant or eliminated in one deft turdpolish.

Another world-beating non-sequitur. 

[Alan Burns]

I was using computers to illustrate the much deeper mathematical concept of being algorithmic. If something is algorithmic (such as I assume you think non-human animal's brains are), then it doesn't need god-magic - obviously.

An algorithm is simply a specified procedure used to achieve a perceived goal.  In effect it is a reflection of the way we use our own human mind to consciously direct our thought processes to reach a verifiable conclusion.  Once defined and tested, it does not need further human intervention to perform its designated task.  But the existence of the algorithm is entirely dependent on our human ability to direct our own thought processes in conceptualising and designing the algorithm in the first place.  Its existence is evidence of the creative capacity of the human mind which is enabled by our conscious freedom to direct our own thought processes.

And our existence is evidence of the creative capacity of the source of all that exists.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And Alan's posts often seem to be reminiscent of a very bad attempt at AI.

But he poses a good question will AI be able to imitate, completely, a human.....or even a Humean?

[Nearly Sane]

But he poses a good question will AI be able to imitate, completely, a human.....or even a Humean?

Since his 'definition' of what that is is entirely illogical it becomes a non question.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

It seems to me then you are equating intelligence with consciousness.

Consciousness therefore becomes redundant or eliminated in one deft turdpolish.

You really are the master of the non sequitur aren’t you. How on earth did you derive the second sentence from the first?

I don't know why you don't just come clean and say consciousness is bunk.....an illusion, instead of showboating and grandstanding on this forum.

I don’t know whether or not consciousness is an “illusion”. Nor do you. What I do know though is that there’s no fundamental reason that consciousness could not one day be produced artificially, which AB declares to be impossible but won’t tell us why.

Here’s an interesting article on the subject that may help you:

https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/08/25/1032111/conscious-ai-can-machines-think/ 

ARTIFICIAL intelligence? That would be a bit of a problem for you wouldn't it Hillside.

And of course eliminating consciousness.

Here for example it’s genuinely impossible to know whether these sentences were written by a conscious being or instead by an algorithm with poor language skills and no ability to express a cogent thought.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

An algorithm is simply a specified procedure used to achieve a perceived goal.  In effect it is a reflection of the way we use our own human mind to consciously direct our thought processes to reach a verifiable conclusion.

Wrong again. There’s neither evidence in principle and nor for any mechanism that would suggest we can “use our own human mind to consciously direct our thought processes”, and besides (as keeps being explained to you with no rebuttal) even if there was, such a “human mind” would itself have to be thinking to perform that task, and so you’d just relocate the same “problem” to that “director”.     

Once defined and tested, it does not need further human intervention to perform its designated task.

Let’s agree that that’s a fact about computer technology as it currently is. Now then, given your declaration that artificially produced consciousness is “impossible” even in principle what fundamental reason do you have to justify that claim?   

But the existence of the algorithm is entirely dependent on our human ability to direct our own thought processes in conceptualising and designing the algorithm in the first place. Its existence is evidence of the creative capacity of the human mind which is enabled by our conscious freedom to direct our own thought processes.

Utter bollocks for the reasons that keep being explained to you and that you won’t or can't even attempt to rebut with a counter-argument of your own. Will it ever occur to you that assertions and declarations are not the same thing as reason and arguments?

And our existence is evidence of the creative capacity of the source of all that exists.

Should I assume that you won’t ever bother even to attempt an argument to justify that extraordinary and entirely unqualified claim?

[Stranger]

....we use our own human mind to consciously direct our thought processes....

Undefined, meaningless gibberish.

But the existence of the algorithm is entirely dependent on our human ability...

Since many natural physical laws are algorithmic (the only exceptions involve some stochastic elements), you appear to be suggesting that humans designed the universe.

The question also arises as to how you think non-human animal behaviour is arrived at, if not being algorithmic?

It doesn't look as if you've bothered to even try to understand that being algorithmic means that it is computable, but it does not mean that it is the result of a computer executing it or that it was produced by humans.

...direct our own thought processes....

Undefined, meaningless gibberish.

Its existence is evidence of the creative capacity of the human mind which is enabled by our conscious freedom to direct our own thought processes.

Once again, a totally baseless assertion that something is evidence for something else that is, yet again, nothing but undefined, meaningless gibberish..

And our existence is evidence of the creative capacity of the source of all that exists.

Asserting that something is evidence, does not make it so,

You need to demonstrate that it is evidence. Burden of proof yet again.

Yet again, your post seems to be either lazy and complacent or just plain dimwitted.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

You really are the master of the non sequitur aren’t you. How on earth did you derive the second sentence from the first?

I don’t know whether or not consciousness is an “illusion”. Nor do you. What I do know though is that there’s no fundamental reason that consciousness could not one day be produced artificially, which AB declares to be impossible but won’t tell us why.

Here’s an interesting article on the subject that may help you:

https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/08/25/1032111/conscious-ai-can-machines-think/ 



Here for example it’s genuinely impossible to know whether these sentences were written by a conscious being or instead by an algorithm with poor language skills and no ability to express a cogent thought.

I'm tickled you think there is AI out there able and willing as I to lampoon you Hillside.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5FHVZIcFdY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLHMxFGqhIs

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I'm tickled you think there is AI out there able and willing as I to lampoon you Hillside.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5FHVZIcFdY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLHMxFGqhIs

No, I'm telling you that you're no more capable of "lampooning" anyone than some not very good AI would be. (Or is?)

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No, I'm telling you that you're no more capable of "lampooning" anyone than some not very good AI would be. (Or is?)

That's OK you are self lampooning.

[Alan Burns]

Undefined, meaningless gibberish.

Since many natural physical laws are algorithmic (the only exceptions involve some stochastic elements), you appear to be suggesting that humans designed the universe.

The question also arises as to how you think non-human animal behaviour is arrived at, if not being algorithmic?

It doesn't look as if you've bothered to even try to understand that being algorithmic means that it is computable, but it does not mean that it is the result of a computer executing it or that it was produced by humans.

Undefined, meaningless gibberish.

Once again, a totally baseless assertion that something is evidence for something else that is, yet again, nothing but undefined, meaningless gibberish..

Asserting that something is evidence, does not make it so,

You need to demonstrate that it is evidence. Burden of proof yet again.

Yet again, your post seems to be either lazy and complacent or just plain dimwitted.

You claim that the phrase I used "we use our own human mind to consciously direct our thought processes" to be, in your own words, "Undefined, meaningless gibberish".  And you chose to use bold characters and change the text colour to red.  Do you honestly claim that this choice of words just emerged into your conscious awareness after they were defined by your sub conscious brain activity?  And that it was your sub conscious brain activity which invoked the action to change the text to bold and red?  All of this done in your sub conscious before you became aware of it?

No doubt you will claim that your apparent perception of consciously controlling your own thoughts is "just the way it seems" as the underlying logic denies this ability.  But if this is the case, could your perception of this "underlying logic" also be labelled as "just the way it seems"?

[Stranger]

You claim that the phrase I used "we use our own human mind to consciously direct our thought processes" to be, in your own words, "Undefined, meaningless gibberish".  And you chose to use bold characters and change the text colour to red.  Do you honestly claim that this choice of words just emerged into your conscious awareness after they were defined by your sub conscious brain activity?  And that it was your sub conscious brain activity which invoked the action to change the text to bold and red?  All of this done in your sub conscious before you became aware of it?

No. I meant what I said, not what mindless repetition of your daft, decades' old script demands that I meant in order for you to pretend to answer it from more mindless repetition of said script.

No doubt you will claim that your apparent perception of consciously controlling your own thoughts is "just the way it seems" as the underlying logic denies this ability.

No, I would not. Again, I meant what I said. Not only that, I have actually explained many times to you why I said it. I do not perceive "consciously controlling my thoughts", so it isn't even "the way it seems".

It just doesn't mean anything at all. How can one consciously control one's own thoughts? By thinking about every thought before you think it? It's just meaningless.

And, for about the ten millionth time: the role of conciousness is simply irrelevant both to what I said and also to your self-contradictory version of 'free will'.

The evidence for either laziness and complacency or simple stupidity just grows stronger every time you mindlessly repeat yourself without any apparent thought (conscious or otherwise).

[Alan Burns]

Stranger,

So can you please define what you think it was that invoked the action to define bold text and the colour red?
If it was not your conscious self, then what?

[Stranger]

So can you please define what you think it was that invoked the action to define bold text and the colour red?
If it was not your conscious self, then what?

No. By which I mean I'm refusing, not that I can't. I'm refusing because:

• It would pander to your continued attempts to shift the burden of proof.
• Saying "your conscious self" is not the same thing as "consciously control our own thought processes" anyway, so it's an irrelevant question.
• I'm sick of repeating myself, even if you clearly prefer it to thinking.

Despite 3, however, I am going to remind you that you have made the claim that minds must involve god-magic. You have also made the claim that you have "sound logic" (e.g. #38202), which has a particular meaning, so it is entirely your burden of proof. Nobody else needs to supply anything at all in the way of an alternative hypothesis. Hence questions like yours here are automatically fallacies in themselves.

Vague phrases that you just throw into the conversation, like "consciously control our own thought processes" and all your drivel about "the present" and "ever present state" have no place in a logical deduction unless you define them in a logically meaningful and unambiguous way.

So, still waiting for the first hint of a sound logical argument from you. I also note that my attempts to highlight how meaningless your phrase was, seems to have given you an excuse to ignore my point about your misunderstanding of the term algorithmic, so you could go back to trying to prove that minds cannot be algorithmic (as a tiny first step towards your conclusion), or just start again. Maybe by stating some premises on which you think everybody would agree.

In any case, your tired, old script of stock phrases has already been shown to be totally inadequate, so you really should try to forget it all and start from scratch with a new approach, because the old one is a spectacular failure of thought and reasoning.

[Alan Burns]

No. By which I mean I'm refusing, not that I can't. I'm refusing because:

• It would pander to your continued attempts to shift the burden of proof.
• Saying "your conscious self" is not the same thing as "consciously control our own thought processes" anyway, so it's an irrelevant question.
• I'm sick of repeating myself, even if you clearly prefer it to thinking.

Despite 3, however, I am going to remind you that you have made the claim that minds must involve god-magic. You have also made the claim that you have "sound logic" (e.g. #38202), which has a particular meaning, so it is entirely your burden of proof. Nobody else needs to supply anything at all in the way of an alternative hypothesis. Hence questions like yours here are automatically fallacies in themselves.

Vague phrases that you just throw into the conversation, like "consciously control our own thought processes" and all your drivel about "the present" and "ever present state" have no place in a logical deduction unless you define them in a logically meaningful and unambiguous way.

So, still waiting for the first hint of a sound logical argument from you. I also note that my attempts to highlight how meaningless your phrase was, seems to have given you an excuse to ignore my point about your misunderstanding of the term algorithmic, so you could go back to trying to prove that minds cannot be algorithmic (as a tiny first step towards your conclusion), or just start again. Maybe by stating some premises on which you think everybody would agree.

In any case, your tired, old script of stock phrases has already been shown to be totally inadequate, so you really should try to forget it all and start from scratch with a new approach, because the old one is a spectacular failure of thought and reasoning.

So I take it that you continue believe you are just a biological robot entirely driven by unavoidable reactions to past events with no will of your own, and that you could not possibly have chosen to do anything other than highlight text in bold and change the colour to red.  What I am trying to point out to you is the overwhelming evidence that we do have the power to consciously direct our own thought processes - we do have the consciously driven freedom choose - which you consistently deny because the logic you freely ponder on deems it to be impossible.  If logic fails to reflect reality then the logic must be flawed.

[Sebastian Toe]

So I take it that you continue believe you are just a biological robot entirely driven by unavoidable reactions to past events with no will of your own, and that you could not possibly have chosen to do anything other than highlight text in bold and change the colour to red.  What I am trying to point out to you is the overwhelming evidence that we do have the power to consciously direct our own thought processes - we do have the consciously driven freedom choose - which you consistently deny because the logic you freely ponder on deems it to be impossible.  If logic fails to reflect reality then the logic must be flawed.

Any "logic" that requires an element of magic..... isn't logic.