how many atheists don't think humans are just robots?

Author: n8nrgmi

Posts

Total: 252
#31
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@RoderickSpode
My opinion is that Jane is correct. A robot will never be in the same sentient category as a human. AI, and nothing more than AI.

How do you form this opinion, like what's it based on? For example, IBM's Watson is an insanely intelligent (yet still imperfect) AI. There's so many chess playing AI's that are better than humans it's not even worth listing them. There are robotic limbs, as keith points out, that react to the electric stimuli produced by the brain and act as our own bodies. Robotic eyes make judgement all the time. Define the sentient category in which a human is contained and a theoretically super-advanced AI could NOT be contained. I'm not disagreeing with you necessarily, I'd just like to hear you flesh this out more. 
#32
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@ludofl3x
 
How do you form this opinion, like what's it based on? For example, IBM's Watson is an insanely intelligent (yet still imperfect) AI. There's so many chess playing AI's that are better than humans it's not even worth listing them. There are robotic limbs, as keith points out, that react to the electric stimuli produced by the brain and act as our own bodies. Robotic eyes make judgement all the time. Define the sentient category in which a human is contained and a theoretically super-advanced AI could NOT be contained. I'm not disagreeing with you necessarily, I'd just like to hear you flesh this out more. 
I don't see IBM's Watson as being particularly different than any computer that has more information stored than I have in my brain. Or book, like Webster's dictionary. I don't think a book is more intelligent than myself because it has information stored in it's pages that I don't.

Is Watson's chess playing ability unbeatable?



Topic's author
#33
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@Ramshutu
so you honestly think humans are just advanced robots? doesn't that rub against your common sense, or intuition? do you have intuition that says humans might more than just robots but you trump it with your (poorly formed) logic? 

how do you view NDEs? hallucinations? if they're hallucinations why aren't the experiences just random like a drug trip? how can there be such consistency with them with common elements such as meeting dead relatives, going through a tunnel, meeting a being of light, having a life review etc? you seriously think there's a death story embedded in our brain or in our genes? how far fetched is that? how do you explain it happening the in the same way to kids and people who've never heard of them? that's not even getting into the out of body experience evidence out there. 
Topic's author
#34
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
i can't prove it, but i suspect humans will never create consciousness. they may mimic it with AI, but it won't be self aware and free thinking and philosophical. 
#35
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@n8nrgmi
i can't prove it, but i suspect humans will never create consciousness
Female humans can create a consciousness in 9 months. 

Brains are a collection of atoms, arranged in a particular structure.   That would seem to imply an artificial brain is at least a theoretical possibility.

The 'Blue Brain' project has the aim "to build accurate, biologically detailed, digital reconstructions and simulations of the rodent brain and, ultimately the human brain."

It's not clear if you "suspect humans will never create consciousness" because brains are too complicated or because there is somthing beyond 'structured ordinary matter' involved - ie there is some 'ingredient X' that human brain possess which is beyond matter and structure.

If it's the former then Blue Brain might become conscious (making it as complex as a real brain is hard but not impossible).  But if it's the latter then presumably Blue Brain must fail.
 
 
#36
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@keithprosser
But as we've seen, brains are not a prerequisite for godists.
#37
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@n8nrgmi
All of these things are so scary because it makes your god unnecessary, which makes your afterlife non existent. Scary as all fuck and you have to accept your own mortality.
#38
amandragon01
amandragon01's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 101
1
2
2
amandragon01's avatar
amandragon01
1
2
2
-->
@n8nrgmi
From what I've read on the matter, it seems there are a lot of cultural elements in NDE's? If so this explains at least some aspects of them. Let's assume for a moment that the process the brain goes through when it shuts down causes NDE's, wouldn't the fact that each brain is somewhat similar and often goes through a similar process during an NDE account for much of the similarity between the experiences, with cultural input and perspective doing the rest? The mind trying to process the information it's getting filters the information through a cultural lens drawing on symbology and cultural expectations? Where is the issue with this as a possible explanation?

As for your argument of intuition and common sense how exactly to do suppose either tells us we're more than a collection of processes? As far as I can see there's no reason to assume either way.

The most valid question is: What would be different if we were just a collection of processes compared to if we had a soul/'free will'? If there's no way to know what if anything would be different then how can we assume either way?
#39
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,217
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
Do theists / Christians  look at Muslims and know they are truly Christians? 

Wow im off to the think bank, good day.

#40
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
Atheists wish we were robots then they could program away theism and everything else they can't live with 
#41
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@RoderickSpode
How do you form this opinion, like what's it based on? For example, IBM's Watson is an insanely intelligent (yet still imperfect) AI. There's so many chess playing AI's that are better than humans it's not even worth listing them. There are robotic limbs, as keith points out, that react to the electric stimuli produced by the brain and act as our own bodies. Robotic eyes make judgement all the time. Define the sentient category in which a human is contained and a theoretically super-advanced AI could NOT be contained. I'm not disagreeing with you necessarily, I'd just like to hear you flesh this out more. 
I don't see IBM's Watson as being particularly different than any computer that has more information stored than I have in my brain. Or book, like Webster's dictionary. I don't think a book is more intelligent than myself because it has information stored in it's pages that I don't.

Is Watson's chess playing ability unbeatable?
I don't know about Watson's chess playing ability, I don't believe that's what it's for, but what difference would it make? My question was can you explain a little more about your statement, "A robot will never be in the same sentient category as a human." I pointed out that machines can already do most of what people can do in practical terms. My question is more along the lines of "what in your opinion will delineate human sentience from super-advanced AI." You responded with can watson play chess and a dictionary isn't intelligent, I am not sure how those are relevant. 

#42
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Ramshutu
You are basically dismissing an avenue as irrelevant -
Souls and Consciousness are irrelevant.

based on two things that you state are true,
(1) Souls do not properly "exist" (as Quantifiable phenomena) and

(2) Consciousness does not properly "exist" (as Quantifiable phenomena).

you have no evidence for,
You cannot "disprove" Souls or Consciousness (because they are unfalsifiable ontologically Qualitative personal experiences).

and have as much inherent factual validity as something you just decided to make up.
Well, they have as much inherent (non-factual) validity as a persistent cultural myth normally does.
#43
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
If it's the former then Blue Brain might become conscious (making it as complex as a real brain is hard but not impossible).  But if it's the latter then presumably Blue Brain must fail.
HowEVer, if Blue Brain (or any other "Avatar" project) can seamlessly imitate the input and output of a "normal human brain" to such a degree that it is indistinguishable from a human brain (passes Turing/Voight-Kampff Test) how would anyone know if "element-x" is missing? [LINK]
#44
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@n8nrgmi
i can't prove it, but i suspect humans will never create consciousness. they may mimic it with AI, but it won't be self aware and free thinking and philosophical. 
How do you clearly and unambiguously distinguish "real" consciousness from "fake" consciousness?
#45
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@n8nrgmi
it's not exhaustive proof of God, and is sort of like the complexity argument for God.
An appeal to complexity is also known as an appeal to ignorance.
#46
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
If blue brain achieves human-like consciousness it would go a long way towards showing 'element-x' is not necessary.

Mathematicians, philososphers and theologians are obsessed with certainty, but science has to make do with getting closer to the truth with baby steps. 
#47
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@n8nrgmi
i can't prove it, but i suspect humans will never create consciousness. they may mimic it with AI, but it won't be self aware and free thinking and philosophical.
 How could you tell the difference between a very good mimic and actual consciousness?

Topic's author
#48
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@amandragon01
so you think there's an elaborate story embedded in our brain or genes when we are at death's door? how does that not seem far fetched to you? what's your theory as to why the brain would hallucinate in that way, so consistently? 

even if NDEs were based on culture, it doesn't mean they aren't still authentic experiences of the afterlife. 
Topic's author
#49
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@amandragon01
you said our brains are similar so we would have similar NDEs, but why would they be so vivid and more real than real and with such common elements that are more like a story and less like a random hallucination? 
#50
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@n8nrgmi
you said our brains are similar so we would have similar NDEs, but why would they be so vivid and more real than real and with such common elements that are more like a story and less like a random hallucination? 
In the same way that dreams can seem "more real than real".

In the same way that psychedelic experiences can seem "more real than real".

For example, [LINK]
Topic's author
#51
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3

this link has some smart people explaining the difference in consciousness and AI


Topic's author
#52
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@3RU7AL
if you think there's an elaborate story embedded in our brain when we are dying, and you can't tell if AI has consciousness, i also might have a bridge to nowhere that you might be interested in purchasing. 
#53
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@ludofl3x
yet still imperfect) AI. There's so many chess playing AI's that are better than humans it's not even worth listing them. There are robotic limbs, as keith points out, that react to the electric stimuli produced by the brain and act as our own bodies. Robotic eyes make judgement all the time. Define the sentient category in which a human is contained and a theoretically super-advanced AI could NOT be contained. I'm not disagreeing with you necessarily, I'd just like to hear you flesh this out more. 
I don't see IBM's Watson as being particularly different than any computer that has more information stored than I have in my brain. Or book, like Webster's dictionary. I don't think a book is more intelligent than myself because it has information stored in it's pages that I don't.

Is Watson's chess playing ability unbeatable?
I don't know about Watson's chess playing ability, I don't believe that's what it's for, but what difference would it make? My question was can you explain a little more about your statement, "A robot will never be in the same sentient category as a human." I pointed out that machines can already do most of what people can do in practical terms. My question is more along the lines of "what in your opinion will delineate human sentience from super-advanced AI." You responded with can watson play chess and a dictionary isn't intelligent, I am not sure how those are relevant. 


No, I didn't ask if if Watson can play chess. I responded to your underlined quote.

I'm pressed for time here, so I have to be brief. I'll pose another question.

Which holds more knowledge in terms of number of words, and definitions? You, or Webster's dictionary?

Very simple question.






#54
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@n8nrgmi
even if NDEs were based on culture, it doesn't mean they aren't still authentic experiences of the afterlife. 
So you're basically saying your hypothesis is unfalsifiable.
#55
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@n8nrgmi
if you think there's an elaborate story embedded in our brain when we are dying,
Oh, you mean like a dream?  Have you ever had a dream?  Do you think all your dreams are "real"?

Can you tell the difference between a dream and (Quantifiable scientific) reality?

and you can't tell if AI has consciousness,
Can you tell if your favorite pet has consciousness? [LINK]

Does your dog love you?

Does your neighbor's dog love you too?

i also might have a bridge to nowhere that you might be interested in purchasing. 
I also might have a beautiful eternal reward waiting for you after you die, if you swear to follow my book-of-ancient-rules.
#56
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@RoderickSpode
I didn't ask if if Watson can play chess. I responded to your underlined quote.

But you did in fact say "Is Watson's chess playing ability unbeatable", right? I mean if you're trying to be pedantic, good game, but that would certainly seem to be in some way related to "can watson play chess." Either way, I am still unsure how that response is to my quote about how many chess playing AI's there are. You know, doing things that people do: making strategic decisions in a game. It's not the be all end all, but chess simulators are one of the earliest examples of people starting out thinking "computers can't do X, only people can do X" only to find out that with enough work, computers can do X. 

Which holds more knowledge in terms of number of words, and definitions? You, or Webster's dictionary?
This is a distraction and a straw man disguised as a simple question. Of course the dictionary contains more words and definitions than I know, but I'm not saying books are or will be or can't be sentient or in the same level of sentience as a human. I asked you simply to define the 'level of sentience' in some way that is conducive to examination, because advancement in the nuances of AI are accelerating all the time. 
#57
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ludofl3x
AI destroys world poker champions. [LINK]

The bot bested 15 human professionals, all of whom have won at least $1 million playing poker, such as 2000 World Series of Poker champion Chris “Jesus” Ferguson and 4-time World Poker Tour champion Darren Elias. [LINK]
#58
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@ludofl3x
It's not the be all end all, but chess simulators are one of the earliest examples of people starting out thinking "computers can't do X, only people can do X" only to find out that with enough work, computers can do X. 
It's arguable chess programs are really dumb as they work by trial-and-error and rely on raw speed.  It turns out to be fairly easy to make a chess playing robot.  What is hard is making a robot that can make a cup of tea in someone else's kitchen.  That said, I'm very impressed by the progress in automated cars, but I think the real inteligence is in the design of the algoritms rather than in the algorithms themselves.


#59
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@keithprosser
What is hard is making a robot that can make a cup of tea in someone else's kitchen. 

I guess it depends on how 'hard' you think it is. I'm not an expert, but I'm pretty sure that conquering the "timed machine that is programmed to heat water, steep tea for X number of seconds" is not exactly the same as putting a man on the moon. I mean yeah, I can't do it, but I know it's doable. The question I have is for 'categories of sentience,' per Rod's remark. When does something go from 'smart' like a TV to 'sentient' like a human? No answer yet. Are dogs sentient? Are they on the same level of sentience as a human? If not, what's the quantifiable difference? We're not going to get answers because there aren't any, at least none that cannot be rephrased as "Well I'm a special human, and that's just a plain old cat."
#60
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@n8nrgmi
his link has some smart people explaining the difference in consciousness and AI
Brain. It consists of neurons. They process physical signals at lower level (sensing and moving) and higher level (reflexes, coordination, balance, etc). Brain also functions as an antenna and transmitter to mind.
Antenna and transmitter?  What The Heck?

Mind. It consists largely of emotions (they have also chemical counterparts), wantings, beliefs (definitions, meanings, knowledge). There are also thoughts, imagination, decision-making, motivation, concept of “self”, etc.
Wrapped around lizard brain is mammal brain, otherwise known as the Limbic system. Your Limbic system is concerned with safety. This is the area of the brain where you keep track of past pain and pleasure memories. All mammal brain wants to do is keep you safe, so if you have survived up until now by doing certain things, mammal brain will push you to keep repeating those same behaviours. Mammal brain absolutely hates change. [LINK]

Consciousness. There resides awareness, inspiration, intuition, conscience, feelings, liveness, etc.
What would make anyone think that "inspiration" is somehow "not part of either the brain or mind".

Here we go.

Brain. HARDWARE.

Mind. FIRMWARE.

Consciousness. SOFTWARE.