Artificial Intelligence and Bot Programs

[devilof76]

It's souls waiting in the magical place between lives. Downright wacky.

 

[devilof76]

Existence and consciousness are so fundamentally different from each other that the universe has to be either metaphysically conscious or not. Either consciousness comes first in the grand scheme, or existence does.

To be conscious, there has to be something of which to be conscious. Consciousness implies existence, both of the object of which one is conscious, and the being that is conscious of it.

Consciousness is not metaphysically fundamental. Being is the foundation of what is real. That is where cognition--the means of knowing reality--begins and ends. If that which is conscious ceases to exist, it will no longer be conscious.

What's is being questioned here (and thanks a lot to whoever brought this up; I wanted to say this in front of my religious friends; really; you're the best) is the existence of a soul that has all the features of a finite consciousness, but none of the finity. I think the answer is no, there is no such thing as a consciousness that can travel from one body to the next. I am fairly certain that belief in it has no rational foundation and if you are going to argue from such a premise, you are going to fall flat on your face. You are free to attest to faith, but faith as a method of knowledge is the opposite of reason. Have your kid who says something and someone else says it's true. Have all kinds of people saying it's true. It's aribitrary at best and at worst, a shameless lie. Anyone can say anything; that demonstrates nothing other than that people talk, and that some people will believe anything people say.

 

[Blackthornone]

man, we're not going back to that babies past lives choosing their mommas are we? or was that unborn babies?

It was souls who were not babies because they had no bodies choosing which body they would go into. Otherwise, there would be no real free will.
To have free will, you must have choice. The more choice, the more freedom. The less choice, the less freedom. When there are absolutely unchangeable factors in the situation you are in, and you in no way chose an action that would put you in that situation, you have no free will.
It doesn't matter what the situation is. No exceptions, including what body you are in. If there was an exception, then the whole concept of free will would never exist. For free will to exist, there cannot be an exception to it, and so logically, a soul must choose it's body if free will exists. It is based on logical deduction. Absolute logical deduction. Only relative logic defends free will without choosing which body you are born into. Only absolute logic, only perfectly logical things are truly logical.

Only completely perfectly logical concepts are logical concepts.
You cannot have a logical concept in which there is an inherent exception, ie which body are in.
Actual evidence of souls without bodies or souls choosing them is not necessary to prove the concept. However, the idea that one cannot choose ones body would disprove free will.





That isn't this topic, though.

 

[Blackthornone]

No, ignorance was clear. It's even more clear now. I'm sorry, did I have to include it as well? Apparently I did.

People who refuse to fall for psychic hustlers are ignorant. People who believe that spirits jump from body to body across hundreds of years is playing with a full deck. You've convinced me beyond the most unreasonable depths of my capacity for unreasonable doubt. Somebody give this guy a degree.

People who fall for ANY kind of hustler are ignorant. People who follow or obey anyone who lacks competence in ANY area is ignorant. That includes doctors, lawyers,teachers, and every profession, every field, every person in this world.
Don't just limit it to psychics. That's just biased.
There are so people who have demonstrated a level of knowing about events and people that they had no previous knowledge about that goes far beyond chance. Granted, there are many mediocre psychics who only give out really good info on a really great day, and a large amount of people who claim to be psychic with no significant talent.



There are also a lot of people Who use psychic abilities that don't call them psychic abilities. They don't say they are psychic. They say they have great intuition or they have a gut instinct. Same difference. They just avoid the bugaboo of the word psychic.



Lots of regular people have psychic hits when they feel something or they sense something is about to happen, like a bad vibe before getting on a plane and then they don't and the plane crashes, or they get the feeling about someone they know right before that person calls them on the phone.


Why is the idea of reincarnation unreasonable? You say "not playing with a full deck" but that is just a dismissal based on nothing. What is the basis of this assertion? Conventional belief? The mainstream? Denial of most based upon ignorance? That doesn't disprove it. To say it doesn't exist or one isn't playing with a full deck isn't a reasonable assertion.
To say you don't know is a reasonable assertion, because that statement would be an objective one.

 

[Pork Chop Express]

Actually, isn't art an expression of the artist? As to whether machines will become conscious in the future... I'm not actually sure. An understanding of consciousness will require a purely scientific, and empirical breakdown on the metaphysics of the human mind - which, for the last several centuries have only been explained through philosophical conjecture.

Art is created by the artist, yes, but made what it is by humanity at large from literature to fine art.
A.C. Clarke is credited to some degree for the idea of the communications satellite, where would we be without them today.
No one can agree what consciousness is definitively, philosophers or the judicial system. But again, that doesn't mean that a reliable, trustworthy AI isn't possible.

Food for thought, https://www.buzzfeed.com/donnad/27-science-fictions-that-became-science-facts-in-2?s=mobile

All this and more will continue and improve over time.

 

[devilof76]

The basis is that consciousness requires being to be conscious, and there is zero objective evidence of any conscious being transcending the laws of physics.

Whether it can transcend biological law is different. Can you make a machine conscious without giving it life?

 

[Blackthornone]

Existence and consciousness are so fundamentally different from each other that the universe has to be either metaphysically conscious or not. Either consciousness comes first in the grand scheme, or existence does.

To be conscious, there has to be something of which to be conscious. Consciousness implies existence, both of the object of which one is conscious, and the being that is conscious of it.

Consciousness is not metaphysically fundamental. Being is the foundation of what is real. That is where cognition--the means of knowing reality--begins and ends. If that which is conscious ceases to exist, it will no longer be conscious.

What's is being questioned here (and thanks a lot to whoever brought this up; I wanted to say this in front of my religious friends; really; you're the best) is the existence of a soul that has all the features of a finite consciousness, but none of the finity. I think the answer is no, there is no such thing as a consciousness that can travel from one body to the next. I am fairly certain that belief in it has no rational foundation and if you are going to argue from such a premise, you are going to fall flat on your face. You are free to attest to faith, but faith as a method of knowledge is the opposite of reason. Have your kid who says something and someone else says it's true. Have all kinds of people saying it's true. It's aribitrary at best and at worst, a shameless lie. Anyone can say anything; that demonstrates nothing other than that people talk, and that some people will believe anything people say.

So you are saying that everyone who corroborates reincarnation accounts by saying that the person claiming it knows something only the person who existed before ever knew is lying.

That belief of yours makes denial of reincarnation easy for you. Obviously eyewitness testimony is all nonsense with no inherent credibility whatsoever to you because you lack the ability to tell when someone is telling the truth to you when speaking in front of you.

 

[Lejuan]

Eyewitness testimony

 

[Blackthornone]

Existence and consciousness are so fundamentally different from each other that the universe has to be either metaphysically conscious or not. Either consciousness comes first in the grand scheme, or existence does.

To be conscious, there has to be something of which to be conscious. Consciousness implies existence, both of the object of which one is conscious, and the being that is conscious of it.

Consciousness is not metaphysically fundamental. Being is the foundation of what is real. That is where cognition--the means of knowing reality--begins and ends. If that which is conscious ceases to exist, it will no longer be conscious.

An AI would need to have the definition of itself as a thing like a robot or some other object that it can observe. So long as it can see itself, it can differentiate itself from the rest of nothingness, so it can have an Id, it can be conscious. As long as it can think, and observe itself and sense itself in the environment it can be conscious of that and therefore conscious of itself, and so it can be conscious, just as people are conscious in their bodies.

To have consciousness requires the ability to have an identity separate from the rest of the world. If you only program a thinking computer without exterior senses, it can't be conscious, since there is nothing for it to be conscious OF. If however it has eyes and or ears it can distinguish itself from nothingness and can thus be conscious.
When human beings don't have the ability to have any exterior senses, they lose THEIR consciousness too, like when they are in a coma or they are asleep.

 

[devilof76]

Light impressing itself on photoreceptors is not the receptor being conscious of light. Consciousness is the actual seeing and you can't create it by imitating its means.

And no, an eyewitness account is not sufficient to give any credibility to that which cannot be corroborated by those who were not eyewitnesses. Being unable to communicate a fact through demonstration is the epitome of unproven. It has nothing to do with whether I think they're lying. They are not providing enough information from which to conclude truth or falsehood. However, asking me to believe your words on the sole basis of you having spoken them is enough for me to not trust a god damn thing you say.

 

[Blackthornone]

Light impressing itself on photoreceptors is not the receptor being conscious of light. Consciousness is the actual seeing and you can't create it by imitating its means.

And no, an eyewitness account is not sufficient to give any credibility to that which cannot be corroborated by those who were not eyewitnesses. Being unable to communicate a fact through demonstration is the epitome of unproven. It has nothing to do with whether I think they're lying. They are not providing enough information from which to conclude truth or falsehood. However, asking me to believe your words on the sole basis of you having spoken them is enough for me to not trust a god damn thing you say.

Cameras, particularly stereo cameras give information about space and location. You could also equip it with a rangefinder. You could put a thermometer in it and the AI could be conscious of it's temperature. It can be conscious of how far it is away from other things. It can be conscious of it's size and shape. If you put legs on it it can be conscious of it's speed, the position of it's legs, where those legs are in relation to others things in order to avoid them.

In fact, the Roomba robot vacuum cleaner has a limited amount of consciousness, since it can navigate around things using sensors to steer itself.

Of course light impressing itself on photo-receptors makes the computer that reads it conscious of light. Consciousness is awareness. The photo-receptor makes a computer aware of the presence of light, and to be aware of the presence of light is to be conscious of light. To not have photo-receptors is of course, to be unconscious of light. Once conscious of light, the AI can make a decision about what it means. It means visibility, enabling it to see and move and interact with it's environment to gather more data.

It can know what things mean and what it is, what it's composed of, so it can know what it is.
It can know that by acquiring new information, it can understand more so it can do more. That is what human beings do.
I haven't spoken any words. I have only written them. There is a big difference between reading the written word and watching someone as they speak.
The written word alone is not sufficient to establish the credibility of any eyewitness testimony.

 

[Solidus]

Cameras, particularly stereo cameras give information about space and location. You could also equip it with a rangefinder. You could put a thermometer in it and the AI could be conscious of it's temperature. It can be conscious of how far it is away from other things. It can be conscious of it's size and shape. If you put legs on it it can be conscious of it's speed, the position of it's legs, where those legs are in relation to others things in order to avoid them.

In fact, the Roomba robot vacuum cleaner has a limited amount of consciousness, since it can navigate around things using sensors to steer itself.

Of course light impressing itself on photo-receptors makes the computer that reads it conscious of light. Consciousness is awareness. The photo-receptor makes a computer aware of the presence of light, and to be aware of the presence of light is to be conscious of light. To not have photo-receptors is of course, to be unconscious of light. Once conscious of light, the AI can make a decision about what it means. It means visibility, enabling it to see and move and interact with it's environment to gather more data.

It can know what things mean and what it is, what it's composed of, so it can know what it is.
It can know that by acquiring new information, it can understand more so it can do more. That is what human beings do.
I haven't spoken any words. I have only written them. There is a big difference between reading the written word and watching someone as they speak.
The written word alone is not sufficient to establish the credibility of any eyewitness testimony.

For the love of god, there is way too much wrong with your statement to shake a stick at . A roomba is not conscious because of its motion sensors, and placing a thermal sensor into a robot does not make it conscious of temperature changes. These are simply closed-loop feedback systems that involve varying implementations of PID controls. I work with control systems. I'd know.

 

[Blackthornone]

For the love of god, there is way too much wrong with your statement to shake a stick at . A roomba is not conscious because of its motion sensors, and placing a thermal sensor into a robot does not make it conscious of temperature changes. These are simply closed-loop feedback systems that involve varying implementations of PID controls. I work with control systems. I'd know.

If a robot can recognize temperature changes with a thermometer, then it is conscious of temperature changes. That's all consciousness is.

Consciousness is a relative concept.

There are degrees of consciousness. You act like something must have a certain degree of awareness of everything in order to have ANY consciousness. I disagree.

Some people have more consciousness than others. Does that mean that people with less consciousness or brainpower have NO consciousness?
How much consciousness does something have to have in order to recognize that t has some consciousness?
What is the arbitrary yardstick you are using?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conscious
"con·scious
adjective \ˈkän(t)-shəs\

: awake and able to understand what is happening around you

: aware of something (such as a fact or feeling) : knowing that something exists or is happening

: known or felt by yourself"

With sensors, a robot is able to understand it's environment. It is aware of it's surroundings. It knows or feels the obstacles around it.

Therefore, the robot is conscious.

 

[Pork Chop Express]

AI is a tool to be used to humanities benefit from hospice care or space exploration. Be it an operating system only, robot, android or clone. The question of consciousness really doesn't matter. The day someone or a particular group feels threatened and starts passing laws to restrict their place in active human society is when you can really start to ask that question.

 

[Solidus]

If a robot can recognize temperature changes with a thermometer, then it is conscious of temperature changes. That's all consciousness is.

Consciousness is a relative concept.

There are degrees of consciousness. You act like something must have a certain degree of awareness of everything in order to have ANY consciousness. I disagree.

Some people have more consciousness than others. Does that mean that people with less consciousness or brainpower have NO consciousness?
How much consciousness does something have to have in order to recognize that t has some consciousness?
What is the arbitrary yardstick you are using?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conscious
"con·scious
adjective \ˈkän(t)-shəs\

: awake and able to understand what is happening around you

: aware of something (such as a fact or feeling) : knowing that something exists or is happening

: known or felt by yourself"

With sensors, a robot is able to understand it's environment. It is aware of it's surroundings. It knows or feels the obstacles around it.

Therefore, the robot is conscious.

Such failed reasoning, yet again . Robot are not conscious, dude. They run on softwares that utilize feedback systems to read information from sensors. This is not consciousness or self-awareness in any regard. Please give it a rest already - your craziness in here is too much to bear.

 

[Lejuan]

I am surprised to know, thanks to the Reverend's flawless reasoning, that my car is actually displaying conscious awareness of its surroundings when it beeps at me as I reverse towards an obstacle. F$&king amazing!

 

[fosing]

my security lights is actually conscious and fully aware. its sending me jumbled morse code ONLY the "special" ones can decipher.

 

[Blackthornone]

Such failed reasoning, yet again . Robot are not conscious, dude. They run on softwares that utilize feedback systems to read information from sensors. This is not consciousness or self-awareness in any regard. Please give it a rest already - your craziness in here is too much to bear.

According to the dictionary definition, they are conscious. They aren't ALIVE, nor will they ever be, since only organic forms can be alive. Why is it that human beings don't just use an organic software system to read information from it's sensors? That's what they do. Computers process information which governs what the robot will do and the human brain is an organic computer that processes information which will govern what it does.
The only two differences between a computer and the brain is one is inorganic while the other is organic, and one has a lot less processing power than the other one. They both store memory. They both operate systems.

 

[Blackthornone]

my security lights is actually conscious and fully aware. its sending me jumbled morse code ONLY the "special" ones can decipher.

Your lights can't be aware, just like eyes aren't aware. Only the computer that runs the lights can be aware of whether it is day or night if it has a light sensor, which then turns the lights on and off. Thus, that computer is conscious of light and dark. That is the ONLY thing it is conscious of. The lighting system knows when it is light and dark, and so it is conscious of this.

It has no soul, but a soul is not required for consciousness. By contrast, a light switch has no consciousness, because it doesn't know whether it is on or off, because it has no sensor that detects light or computer that switches the lights on and off accordingly. For that, you usually need a person who can see light with its sensors, recognize that it is dark, and then activate the electrically operated mechanism (the nerves) that tells the arm to turn the light switch on.

That is consciousness too. The person is conscious that the light is off and then turns the light on in response. That is consciousness.

That's all that is needed for consciousness. A person could be conscious of MORE than that based if they have the brainpower.

Actually, all the system has to do is SENSE that the lights are on or off to have consciousness, just like a person only needs to be able to see the light and know it is there to be conscious of it.


It just requires a sensor and a way of registering information from that sensor to a type of computer, be it inorganic or organic.
The light turning on only proves to an observer that the light system is conscious.

To sense something is to be conscious of it, period. It doesn't matter if it is a lighting system or a human being.

Most of you seem to be defining "consciousness" as some holistic phenomenon that requires that which "has" consciousness to be as conscious and aware and as able to think and reason and recognize oneself as much as a human can.



That is not how the definition is written.
Perhaps some others treat consciousness as some spiritual phenomenon, which it doesn't have to be, either.
It seems that people use the word consciousness to actually mean what soul means, without using the word soul.

I don't see consciousness as requiring some higher intelligence. The dictionary definition doesn't require it for the word, so neither do I, because I refer to the dictionary in order to interpret the meanings of words.That's how you understand English, by knowing what the dictionary says things mean, NOT what common belief and some usage of people who DON'T use the actual dictionary definition interpret it to mean.

Basically, you refuse to accept the dictionary's meaning of the word.

That said, once again, an AI COULD think even better than a human because computers don't forget as much. It would not have a soul, but it would still be conscious, and for all practical purposes, be as independent as any human being is, and function as well as most people, except the maintenance would be different than a human.

 

[fosing]

Your lights can't be aware, just like eyes aren't aware. Only the computer that runs the lights can be aware of whether it is day or night if it has a light sensor, which then turns the lights on and off. Thus, that computer is conscious of light and dark. That is the ONLY thing it is conscious of. The lighting system knows when it is light and dark, and so it is conscious of this.

It has no soul, but a soul is not required for consciousness. By contrast, a light switch has no consciousness, because it doesn't know whether it is on or off, because it has no sensor that detects light or computer that switches the lights on and off accordingly. For that, you usually need a person who can see light with its sensors, recognize that it is dark, and then activate the electrically operated mechanism (the nerves) that tells the arm to turn the light switch on.

That is consciousness too. The person is conscious that the light is off and then turns the light on in response. That is consciousness.

That's all that is needed for consciousness. A person could be conscious of MORE than that based if they have the brainpower.

Actually, all the system has to do is SENSE that the lights are on or off to have consciousness, just like a person only needs to be able to see the light and know it is there to be conscious of it.


It just requires a sensor and a way of registering information from that sensor to a type of computer, be it inorganic or organic.
The light turning on only proves to an observer that the light system is conscious.

To sense something is to be conscious of it, period. It doesn't matter if it is a lighting system or a human being.

Most of you seem to be defining "consciousness" as some holistic phenomenon that requires that which "has" consciousness to be as conscious and aware and as able to think and reason and recognize oneself as much as a human can.



That is not how the definition is written.
Perhaps some others treat consciousness as some spiritual phenomenon, which it doesn't have to be, either.
It seems that people use the word consciousness to actually mean what soul means, without using the word soul.

I don't see consciousness as requiring some higher intelligence. The dictionary definition doesn't require it for the word, so neither do I, because I refer to the dictionary in order to interpret the meanings of words.That's how you understand English, by knowing what the dictionary says things mean, NOT what common belief and some usage of people who DON'T use the actual dictionary definition interpret it to mean.

Basically, you refuse to accept the dictionary's meaning of the word.

That said, once again, an AI COULD think even better than a human because computers don't forget as much. It would not have a soul, but it would still be conscious, and for all practical purposes, be as independent as any human being is, and function as well as most people, except the maintenance would be different than a human.

so, my security lights do get unconscious. like when their lights get knocked out. LOOOLz