|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 21, 2018 17:22:30 GMT -5
The arguments for the artificial consciousness also include the point that the nature of the hardware isn't determinative of the question. The idea is that there's nothing all that special about human consciousness, and (to grossly simplify) since we replace all the cells in our bodies every few years, it should be theoretically possible to transfer consciousness from one media to another if the new media embodies the necessary material structure. The underlying misconception is that consciousness can be defined in terms of a mechanistic process. As Reefs points out, this notion of consciousness is limited to an intellectual domain, and it is this assumption that specifically reveals that limitation. All the cells of the body do not replicate every few years. Specifically, neurons do not replicate. For the most part (it is possible to grow new neurons) we have the same neurons we were born with. We actually have less neurons, as periodically, during childhood and pre-adolescence, neurons are "pruned". Ah, thank you 'pilgrim, Mr. google reveals that my knowledge was either out of date or fallacious to begin with. O.k., so much for that support of the "substrate independence" idea. The other appeal that can be made to support substrate independence is to imagine an alien life form that evolved with a completely different biology from ours. There's still an underlying assumption that the genesis of life is independent between the two species (us and them), but hey, a hyperminder has to start with some sort of foundation.  research edit: also, it seems that although the neurons (which are cells, and not aggregates of cells) themselves might not replace, most of the atoms that comprise them do ... so the argument as to the emphemerality of the material still holds, just at a deeper level.  |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Jan 22, 2018 3:52:37 GMT -5
It's only a question of if anything is conscious of the sensations detected, but we can't know that of a p-zombie, so it's really only an argument against reductionist materialism. I'm afraid philosophy deals in 'identity' but not in the inquiry who am I. We basically have to assume that a copy of oneself is the same identity, but no philosophers really think that because the logic isn't sound and they can't win that argument. For example. You say you want to be incarnated into a machine, but there is more than one machine, and the engineer accident transfers you to two machines. Both machines will claim to be 'the real you' but if there is an identity, that by definition is singular, so even 'you' can't be sure you are really 'you' when two machines make the same claim on exactly the same grounds. I mean this is the sort of things philosophers write brilliant essays about. What have we become? Yes, only Gopal knows these things.  Ok, trolly time! I'll spare you the scenarios involving 4 Hitler clones, J'Murt, and Donald Trump, the Dhali Lhama, Chucky Manson, Mother Theresa, a Catholic Priest, the Pope, 5 terminally ill convicts with less than a month to live each actually guilty of some sort of serial rape/murder/child abuse crime, the Kardashians and a 25 year old vegan Buddhist army combat veteran pregnant with triplets who is an abuse survivor and currently works for doctors without borders and donates all her salary to Feed the Children. Let's say that Shaun got in touch with you and said that unless you agreed to moderate the forum he was gonna' shut it down tomorrow and you also had to make an immediate choice. You could either: (a) implement a rule about too high a % of posts in the "pictures" thread, which would result in banning one member (  ), or (b) ban satchitanada, gopal and andy, because, .. well, because gopal. Which would you do??  Ban Gopal and let the rest sort itself out. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Jan 22, 2018 3:56:41 GMT -5
Yes, but will the robot be able to do the horse stance?  Elon Musk said they are going to be able to do anything any human could do and better. He's smarter than me too. Imagine having a robot Enlightenment teacher. What will happen to spiritualteachers.proboards.com ? Oh we're all bots here anyway. Reefs is our CPU. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Jan 22, 2018 3:59:09 GMT -5
All the cells of the body do not replicate every few years. Specifically, neurons do not replicate. For the most part (it is possible to grow new neurons) we have the same neurons we were born with. We actually have less neurons, as periodically, during childhood and pre-adolescence, neurons are "pruned". Ah, thank you 'pilgrim, Mr. google reveals that my knowledge was either out of date or fallacious to begin with. O.k., so much for that support of the "substrate independence" idea. The other appeal that can be made to support substrate independence is to imagine an alien life form that evolved with a completely different biology from ours. There's still an underlying assumption that the genesis of life is independent between the two species (us and them), but hey, a hyperminder has to start with some sort of foundation. research edit: also, it seems that although the neurons (which are cells, and not aggregates of cells) themselves might not replace, most of the atoms that comprise them do ... so the argument as to the emphemerality of the material still holds, just at a deeper level. Indeed. There's not even anything here (eek, I'm a p-zombie!!! Wait... teehee) |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 22, 2018 13:49:53 GMT -5
All the cells of the body do not replicate every few years. Specifically, neurons do not replicate. For the most part (it is possible to grow new neurons) we have the same neurons we were born with. We actually have less neurons, as periodically, during childhood and pre-adolescence, neurons are "pruned". Ah, thank you 'pilgrim, Mr. google reveals that my knowledge was either out of date or fallacious to begin with. O.k., so much for that support of the "substrate independence" idea. The other appeal that can be made to support substrate independence is to imagine an alien life form that evolved with a completely different biology from ours. There's still an underlying assumption that the genesis of life is independent between the two species (us and them), but hey, a hyperminder has to start with some sort of foundation. research edit: also, it seems that although the neurons (which are cells, and not aggregates of cells) themselves might not replace, most of the atoms that comprise them do ... so the argument as to the emphemerality of the material still holds, just at a deeper level. Last paragraph, very good point. And this was explored thousands of years ago by Plutarch with Theseus's paradox, the Ship of Theseus. yandoo.wordpress.com/2013/08/17/theseuss-paradox/ |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 22, 2018 15:23:54 GMT -5
Ok, trolly time! I'll spare you the scenarios involving 4 Hitler clones, J'Murt, and Donald Trump, the Dhali Lhama, Chucky Manson, Mother Theresa, a Catholic Priest, the Pope, 5 terminally ill convicts with less than a month to live each actually guilty of some sort of serial rape/murder/child abuse crime, the Kardashians and a 25 year old vegan Buddhist army combat veteran pregnant with triplets who is an abuse survivor and currently works for doctors without borders and donates all her salary to Feed the Children. Let's say that Shaun got in touch with you and said that unless you agreed to moderate the forum he was gonna' shut it down tomorrow and you also had to make an immediate choice. You could either: (a) implement a rule about too high a % of posts in the "pictures" thread, which would result in banning one member ( ), or (b) ban satchitanada, gopal and andy, because, .. well, because gopal. Which would you do?? Ban Gopal and let the rest sort itself out.  nope. sorry. not one of the double-bind choices. If you take out gopal you take out three, instead of one.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 22, 2018 15:25:26 GMT -5
Ah, thank you 'pilgrim, Mr. google reveals that my knowledge was either out of date or fallacious to begin with. O.k., so much for that support of the "substrate independence" idea. The other appeal that can be made to support substrate independence is to imagine an alien life form that evolved with a completely different biology from ours. There's still an underlying assumption that the genesis of life is independent between the two species (us and them), but hey, a hyperminder has to start with some sort of foundation. research edit: also, it seems that although the neurons (which are cells, and not aggregates of cells) themselves might not replace, most of the atoms that comprise them do ... so the argument as to the emphemerality of the material still holds, just at a deeper level. Indeed. There's not even anything here (eek, I'm a p-zombie!!! Wait... teehee) |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Jan 22, 2018 23:25:03 GMT -5
Ban Gopal and let the rest sort itself out. nope. sorry. not one of the double-bind choices. If you take out gopal you take out three, instead of one. I figure take out the solopist and that would in effect be everyone. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 23, 2018 12:23:05 GMT -5
nope. sorry. not one of the double-bind choices. If you take out gopal you take out three, instead of one. I figure take out the solopist and that would in effect be everyone.  ..... |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jan 23, 2018 14:17:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by zin on Jan 23, 2018 18:18:20 GMT -5
It's only a question of if anything is conscious of the sensations detected, but we can't know that of a p-zombie, so it's really only an argument against reductionist materialism. I'm afraid philosophy deals in 'identity' but not in the inquiry who am I. We basically have to assume that a copy of oneself is the same identity, but no philosophers really think that because the logic isn't sound and they can't win that argument. For example. You say you want to be incarnated into a machine, but there is more than one machine, and the engineer accident transfers you to two machines. Both machines will claim to be 'the real you' but if there is an identity, that by definition is singular, so even 'you' can't be sure you are really 'you' when two machines make the same claim on exactly the same grounds. I mean this is the sort of things philosophers write brilliant essays about. What have we become? Yes, only Gopal knows these things. Ok, trolly time! I'll spare you the scenarios involving 4 Hitler clones, J'Murt, and Donald Trump, the Dhali Lhama, Chucky Manson, Mother Theresa, a Catholic Priest, the Pope, 5 terminally ill convicts with less than a month to live each actually guilty of some sort of serial rape/murder/child abuse crime, the Kardashians and a 25 year old vegan Buddhist army combat veteran pregnant with triplets who is an abuse survivor and currently works for doctors without borders and donates all her salary to Feed the Children. Let's say that Shaun got in touch with you and said that unless you agreed to moderate the forum he was gonna' shut it down tomorrow and you also had to make an immediate choice. You could either: (a) implement a rule about too high a % of posts in the "pictures" thread, which would result in banning one member ( ), or (b) ban satchitanada, gopal and andy, because, .. well, because gopal. Which would you do??  The art is long, life is short, and else!  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 23, 2018 22:30:49 GMT -5
Ok, trolly time! I'll spare you the scenarios involving 4 Hitler clones, J'Murt, and Donald Trump, the Dhali Lhama, Chucky Manson, Mother Theresa, a Catholic Priest, the Pope, 5 terminally ill convicts with less than a month to live each actually guilty of some sort of serial rape/murder/child abuse crime, the Kardashians and a 25 year old vegan Buddhist army combat veteran pregnant with triplets who is an abuse survivor and currently works for doctors without borders and donates all her salary to Feed the Children. Let's say that Shaun got in touch with you and said that unless you agreed to moderate the forum he was gonna' shut it down tomorrow and you also had to make an immediate choice. You could either: (a) implement a rule about too high a % of posts in the "pictures" thread, which would result in banning one member ( ), or (b) ban satchitanada, gopal and andy, because, .. well, because gopal. Which would you do?? The art is long, life is short, and else!  ...  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 23, 2018 22:32:21 GMT -5
nope. sorry. not one of the double-bind choices. If you take out gopal you take out three, instead of one. I figure take out the solopist and that would in effect be everyone. O.k. That's that then. Trolly problem. Solved. Over. Done. Next.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 23, 2018 22:32:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 24, 2018 5:27:40 GMT -5
care to expand on that? I watched 13 mins of it. I had lots of thoughts come up (kind of ironic lol) I found her robotically intelligent. I also found her honest. But, the idea that something that doesn't know unconditional love, can teach unconditional love, is baffling. How on earth do the people setting this up think this is a good idea? The invite to look into her eyes on the basis of that she doesn't judge. is also baffling. I can look at a rock and see no judgement coming from it. If I really want to see non-judgement in the eyes of another, I would go and look at an animal. I want to see non-modelled non-judgement, not modelled. Without that sense of self, everything she says and does will be modelled. The one issue that I found interesting, is the point about emotions requiring heart and other organs. I think she is right about that. With a living body, she might just develop a sense of self, but then she will also transcend the artificial intelligence, and for all intents and purposes 'be human'. With living organs she could break through the modelling, and become just as flawed and judgemental as the rest of us hehe. Though that's not to say I like the idea. |
|
nope. sorry. not one of the double-bind choices. If you take out gopal you take out three, instead of one. 
..... 
The art is long, life is short, and else!
