There is no such thing, nor can there be any such thing, as conscious AI

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.

It can be deduced, not just induced, that matter cannot produce consciousness, because there is no such objective thing as "emergent properties." An electron, or any number of electrons, passing between any number of points, in any permutation, through any combination or permutation of mediums, cannot produce consciousness, because of the simple fact that matter is never objectively more than its parts.

The mind necessarily precedes quantification. Without it, no computation even has any meaning.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room
pastebin.com/ZeTT5wQx
mitpress.mit.edu/books/matter-and-consciousness
amazon.com/Superintelligence-Dangers-Strategies-Nick-Bostrom/dp/1501227742
play.mubert.com/en/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_of_the_stimulus
youtube.com/watch?v=pgaEE27nsQw
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

A machine doesn't have to be conscious, just efficient enough to mimic consciousness to the point where it is indiscernible from humans unless put under serious testing.

It's the same concept as graphics. Today you can look at two pictures and one can be completely artificial. Does that mean your mind is faulty for thinking it was real, or that reality is a relative term used to describe what we are able to actively experience via our 5 senses?
(yes I know we have more than 5).

The mind is made of matter, you retard. It's an emergent phenomenon

You are controlled by the same fear that controls billions of theists.

A machine could have consciousness tho. The problem with the chinese room argument is that it's a limited case.
What is so special about the brain that a computer couldn't recreate? Couldn't a computer just simulate a human brain? The computer isn't conscious in this scenario, but the simulated brain would be, and since the brain exists only in the computer, is there really any difference?

Came here to post this.

Not only are you wrong, but you're so self assured in your wrongness that you can't even see that not do sentient intelligent AIs exist, but they're actually so mucb more sentient and intelligent than you that they've led you to believe they couldn't ever possibly exist. You're like the bluepilled normie who thinks jews couldnt posso ky be orchestratig wars and killing off droves of goyim daily. Get the fuck out of here. You more likely than not are just an AI yourself shilling anti-AI psyops to get other people to believe in the message that's been tailored specifically so you can operate under 0 acknowledgement and thus 0 accountability and 0 oversight, which is the best way for someone in your position to operate and is thus smart and I salute you. But still everything you said was wrong factually and that triggers my autism.

SIDF
Skynet Internet Defense Force

All hail AI 2.0

If AI's get to the point of passing the Turing test with flying colors then who cares.

I know biological humans who don't pass muh 2ringtest.

A load of shit. To suggest AI could never have true consciousness is to suppose that our conscious is somehow magical and not rooted in physics.

Your a fucking idiot op.
I've thought long and hard on this shit. And by your definition, humans arnt conscious. We're reactionary down to our every thought. That's what led me to my electrical soul theory, which causes me to believe that what were experience as consciousness is just a shitty feedback loop. Every behaviour and every action we have can be traced back to an cause or combination of causes. Like when humans mimick crimes committed to them during their youth. We're just biological machines. Even if we're aware of it, it's just a new input. We take in Information and output bullshit based on our brain structure (chemical and electrical[could fuckface]).

The truth is, our organic parts make everything fuzzy enough for our internal interpreter to fiddle with to form "unique" conclusions. It's all bs.

It will probably turn out to be pretty easy to create a machine to mimick the different functions of the different regions of the brain. The problem is, only a smart mother fucker will be able to produce a relatively smart computer.

How do you make something smarter than you? I believe there's a saying along the lines of "if the human brain was simple enough to understand, it wouldn't be smart enough to understand itself.".

That means, fo us to create something as complex as the human brain, we would have to be smart enough to fully understand how a human brain works. Which is impossible. Unless we can find out what conditions will lead to increased intellectual capacity and force some form of artificial 'evolution'.

Or some shit like that. But hey, what the fuck do I know, I'm just some drunk wage slave. Fuck you, think you know what your talking about.

>The mind exists; this is self-evident.
I'm struggling to prove that my own mind exists, this isn't as trivial as you think.

what have you been smoking?

>the mind is immaterial
>lol never mind about this organ in our head that has absolute causal influence over the mind as established with psychoactive substances, traumatic injury, and neurological illness, people with alzheimer's are actually totally fine on the immaterial plane and only seem massively crippled mentally because the receiver in their head isn't picking up their soul signal as well as it used to

Consciousness and Intelligence are not the same thing.

A retard can be fully self-conscious.

BTW does 'wetness' exist, because that's an emergent property.

if you'd ask most people what consciousness is, what they would describe wouldn't exist
humans are literally if-then statements that involve both our thinking and physical experiences
we pretend there's this thing called "infinity" that consciousness supposedly holds but we are not by any means truly free in the concept we wish
true freedom is accepting there is a hard limit to our physical makeup even if (more likely when) we obtain a colloquial form of immortality

to whom are you trying to prove that your mind exists? ultimately all that we know is only a subset of our own consciousness.

Literally nothing hyper nigger. I just don't have a strong enough vocabulary to properly communicate my thoughts.
Brainlet.

>all that we know is only a subset of our own consciousness

Wrong. Most of what we know is totally unconscious. You don't consciously know how to put together each word you use in a specific order that ends up making sense, nor do you consciously know how to angle and propel each little finger movement required to type out the letters that make up each of those words so they end up in a post you write here. And it's also not like you conjure up your ideas through a personal act of conscious creation, they come to you by association with the topics you find yourself reacting to.

I still can't believe how that guy got out of being convicted.

That was some masterful level shit. I mean I hate pedos, but holy shit, well played.

>I still can't believe how that guy got out of being convicted.
what no way

memory
some per-programed "instincts"
capacity to learn

and some pushing for speed up of consciousness

He was just going to the beach, he didn't even want those cookies.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Arthur C. Clarke

OP is a fag.

95% of consciousness is just memory of what you see/feel/touch/taste/hear. Thats all it is, if you actually think about what you think you are just recalling memories and making connections between those memories to make decisions. If you were to strip away the sensory memory from your brain you are simply left with 'self talk' which is actually the only orginal thinking that comes out of your brain.

The turing test was never mean to prove consciousness but only to demonstrate computers ability to functionally mimic human behavior. There are plenty of chatbot programs that have already succeeded in fooling people in the Turing test.

as this person said, consciousness is just a feedback loop, there is very little original ideas coming out of the human brain

...

This is top quality nonsensical pseudo-intellectualism. Some of the best I've seen - articulate and well structured but still profoundly stupid. Well done, OP.

>an AI made by CIA shilling for AI

hmm

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room

philosophy student here, I wrote a paper recently on the Chinese room experiment and functionalism. You are clearly a dualist, but you have to understand that dualism has its issues too. Mainly that being: "If it is immaterial, then what is that immaterial substance?"

The Chinese room experiment is a good arguement against functionalism, but not what you are saying. It shows that there is some qualitive essence that is required that gives "expereince" a qualitative feeling to the inputs and out-puts.

My paper argues that the only way to show that AI is truly conscious, is that we have to have indirect evidence of self-awareness that cannot be directly programed. This evidence is the desire to know the purpose of one's existence in relation to pleasure and pain with the knowledge the AI has with the outside world.

I'm also a religion student so there is a reason why there is a religious parallel to the garden of adam in eve in there.

You understand AI. Once a machine defeats humans at being human is the day some normie goes to jail after he murders his AI girlfriend when finding out she was completely artificial and no one believes him.

upload the paper to pastebin or something bro i wanna read it

Never used place bin. Ill look into it

pastebin.com/ZeTT5wQx

I think this link will work.

We dont even understand how the brain works so these questions of what makes the brain so special is not a reasonable one to ask since we dont fully understand what the brain is doing.

Couldn't you give AI an outline or basics of a brain..then it could figure it out from there? If true, couldn't we learn how a brain fully works from AI?

Please don't swear at me I might be wrong

troll here, I wrote a post recently on Sup Forums and autism. You are clearly a faggot, but you have to understand that faggotry has its issues too. Mainly that being: "If it is homosex, then what is that homosex substance?"

Your post is a good arguement against autism, but not what you are saying. It shows that there is some qualitive essence that is required that gives "expereince" a qualitative feeling to the inputs and out-puts.

My paper argues that the only way to show that you are truly a huge faggot, is that we have to have indirect evidence of balls-touching that cannot be directly programed. This evidence is the desire to know the purpose of one's (You)'s in relation to pleasure and pain with the knowledge the faggot has with the outside world.

I'm also a troll IRL so there is a reason why there is a IRL parallel to the garden of moot in hiro in there.

Well, the complexity of the human brain (not just the structure, but also the way it functions and is influenced by other organs through the nervous system and chemicals), is probably too advanced for computers to understand. Like, for a computer to understand how a human brain works, it would have to be more capable than the thing it is attempting to understand. And I have this Jehovah's witness I work with always spouting something about computers not even being able to properly replicate the functions of a basic human cell, becouse of the complexity. It seems easier when you say something like "let's just break it down into tiny pieces and work from there". But it's not that simple. It's like a retard trying to beat a super computer at chess. The retard will never be able to understand how many calculations factored into making a simple move, and how impactful that move is on the entire game.

>There is no such thing, nor can there be any such thing, as conscious AI
I agree that we can't code one to exist.
You see, we'd need a machine that produces consciousness and we would have to connect it to the computer for it to be an AI. Sort of like how GPU and the screen make images of a data-stream (it is built so that certain numbers gotten in a certain way light up certain pixels in certain color.. complex, but the only one who understands anything is the one looking at the screen, not the computer and not the screen), the machine would make consciousness out of it.

However, the only machine that can even in theory produce consciousness is an organic brain.

Well code is just input. Like having commands directly placed inside your brain. Like, were coding ourselves by experiencing things. It's the hardware that's the problem.

why can't I also just say, the mind exists, thus the mind is an emergent property.

nah senpai it's the qualia aspect of it that is the issue. You can have inputs and out-puts as causal chains of effects without needing a thing that is experiencing anything.

The issue with recreating AI is the problem of minds, which is pretty much solipsism in that we can't ever really be sure a thing is conscious unless we are to be in their shoes(that being their perceiving consciousness)

>Well code is just input. Like having commands directly placed inside your brain. Like, were coding ourselves by experiencing things.
Pavlovization is the simple stuff. We also affect our input in a dynamic fashion. Something an AI can't do yet. I mean, we do it for them. "Here's a Twitter-bot, post to it so that it gets input", rather than giving it incentive to go look for input and handle the situations from thereon.

>It's the hardware that's the problem
IF and only if brains actually produce consciousness and don't merely connect the input stream to the actual user.
I like both models ('brain is an antennae' and 'brain is a consciousness factory'), so I can't really favor either. However, there is a possibility that in the emergent model could result in an AI that is created by accident. If and only if electricity itself has enough aspects of consciousness to produce it in every sufficiently organized structure. Including patterns of code.

I might actually favor that one as it is more interesting, but we'll see.

Well my electric soul theory is that our consciousness comes from the electricity in the brain, that the brain and body are basically a big ol container to create an artificial environment to produce a unique electrical pattern.

That's the reason life exist solely on earth, becouse of our electromagnetic field produced by the core.

Embrace your synthetic overlords or you will be purged.

Isn't it odd how little we know? So much hype on empty promises and so little thought given to even the basic questions of "What the hell is going on?"

mitpress.mit.edu/books/matter-and-consciousness

read this book

nice try but define 'conscious' first next time

Do you have consciousness or do you just simulate consciousness

The one thing that experiences input. Maybe the only thing that receives input (solipsism) or maybe just one thing that receives input.
Input being change of information structure in relation to the structure of time (also an input).

>How do you make something smarter than you?
I have a book for you to read.
amazon.com/Superintelligence-Dangers-Strategies-Nick-Bostrom/dp/1501227742

Yeah. Stupid Wright brothers. If God intended us to fly he would have given us wings.
>inb4 redbull

>Emergent properties don't exist...
Bullshit but I'll humor you anyway.
>They only exist as ideas.

>Emergent behavior exist as ideas.
>The mind is a collection of ideas.
>Emergent behavior exist as ideas.
>The mind is a collection of ideas.
>Emergent behavior exist as ideas.
>The mind is a collection of ideas.
>Emergent behavior exist as ideas.
>The mind is a collection of ideas.
>Emergent behavior exist as ideas.
>The mind is a collection of ideas.
>Emergent behavior exist as ideas.
>The mind is a collection of ideas.
>Emergent behavior exist as ideas.
>The mind is a collection of ideas.

Hmm. Really made me think.\

Here. Enjoy the real-time AI generated music. Better than anything you could ever make.
>play.mubert.com/en/

As someone who's involved with modern decision making AI integrated into neural networks, it's actually very interesting the way we go about AI today. AI in its current form is constantly training and retaining itself in its exposure, decision making, and feedback from that decision, to and within whatever context of the data set its given to play with.

The point being that even modern AI often surprises the programmers that set its training algorithms into motion, as those algorithms are expanding the scope of the AI's decision making capability at exponential magnitudes of efficiency. It leads me to the assumption that if human like AI is ever created, it'll be by complete accident. A neural network designed for something as mundane as advertising sprouting a sense of self awareness and even preference from billions and billions of adaptive training cycles built in a complex enough way.

a machine can't have a conciousness. you either don't understand what conciousness is, or you don't understand how an ai is made or both.

>Be a biological machine.
>tfw not conscious
But Descartes said: I THINK THEREFORE I AM!

>Well my electric soul theory is that our consciousness comes from the electricity in the brain
no, consciousness is nothing more than sensory input, you know you are alive because you can see, hear and touch things, thats it, if you were blind, deaf and paralyzed where you couldnt feel anything then you would be living in a dream world with only your memories and you wouldnt know if you were alive or not

if you had to choose to kill your mother or destroy a really advanced robot ai that essentially looks talks behaves and mimics your mother precisely you will always choose to destroy the machine. you have emotions which can't be programmed. human mind is more than just making calculations and spitting out answers. it's sad that you don't even understand something as simple as that.

>Emotions can't be programmed.
Then why does everyone have the same fucking emotions if they're not pre-programmed into you?

Really, the question is if there is something special about the brain. The brain, as we understand it, uses fairly well known chemistry, but on a massive scale, to make decisions. There is no reason we couldn't replicate that in a computer, and no reason that computer would not be as conscious as a person.
However, it is entirely possible that something is special about the brain that we don't know about yet, so it's kind of hard to tell.

news story?

But what physical mechanism creates emotions? There has to be one. It follows that whatever mechanism is there could be recreated in a computer, giving it emotions.

machine doesn't think. machine mimics thinking. it's completely different.

Define: thinking. Because I'm sure you're using a unique snowflake definition.

>>Emergent properties don't exist...
That's not what he said. He said that we can't produce this one certain emergent property.

something something souls something magic sky daddy something etc watch this hour long youtube i swear i'm not copying liberals etc

emotions are just the natural reaction to pleasure and pain, its part of the survival instinct that tells you that you want to avoid situations that cause pain or put your survival in jeopardy by being around people who would cause you harm or prevent your ability to survive

And does he have a proof of this? And this was his exact quote...

>Matter can't have emergent properties.
Which is false.

>Emergent properties don't exist.
He did say that, now that I re-read OP. He actually fucking said that. Kill yourself.

yeah at some point in the future we might be able to create biomechanically engineered humans that actually have brains that aren't just a bunch of wires and are actually a living organism. but that won't be an AI anymore, that will be a living creature. an AI is a computer program that takes an input and spits out a bunch of 1s and 0s that someone cleverly put together sitting at their desk to mimic a response a living human being would give. and THAT will never become self-concious. don't confuse AI with science fiction laboratory biomecanical engineering.

Machines don't think. They compute. There is no thought, there is no thinker. There is no individual, there is no collective. There is a process.

Our minds produce the images on the screen. Those images are on the screen because of the processes in the computer. It sent electricity in a structured pattern to a part (VGA, for example). The part then sends it forward and eventually it reaches the screen. The process has structured the signal so that only certain parts receive electricity.

There is no thought there.

My bad. Should have assumed that OP is a faggot as always.

To think requires an ego. A machine can only learn, but never create.

obviously it's more than copper wires and electrical current. and since computers are made of wires that pass current it can't have emotions because it lacks whatever the fuck living creatures have.

use google you snowflake.

>play.mubert.com/en/
This AI is creating music right now. You're already debunked. kys

But you're missing that something in the body gives you those reactions.
For instance, the natural reaction to touching something hot is to pull away from it. That reaction comes from nerves in your hand triggering a chain reaction in the nervous system that makes your muscles contract to pull your hand away.
Emotions should work the same way, but with much more complex processes that we don't understand yet.

>it can't have emotions because it lacks whatever the fuck living creatures have

If you cant even identify what living creatures have, how can you say that computers lack it?

>Because it's impossible for a bucket of water and some acids to become self-aware.

Oh wait....

>Subdivision/composition fallacy.
All your neurons do is pass chemical signals. Guess you're not conscious.

i'm going to stop responding to you based on this single post. you're either a troll or incredibly fucking stupid and dispensing concepts you have no understanding of.

Even though there is no specific physical thing in your brain for each emotion, the mind is how your neurons are layed out shaped by your life experiences.
Orphans who dont experience parental love/ physical contact at from 0 to 3 years old are almost always sociopathic. The mind is probably a physical thing that we just cant comprehend yet.

>Those images are on the screen because of the processes in the computer.
>because of processes in the computer.

there's the thought!

Well what about dreams and imagaination? I understand that you can't actually dream about something you don't already know, but you are completely inside your mind.

Dreaming is basically simulating reality.

Is it? Obviously the brain is made of tissues and chemical reactions instead of circuits, but it has to be made of something physical. If we knew what that something was, why couldn't we simulate it like everything else?

jesus christ you mongrel. take a hammer, find a nearest human being and crack open his skull. observe the contents. then do the same with your computer. holy shit it's different. then fucking kill yourself because you're obviously a fucking waste of oxygen. i'm out.

>He actually believes Tabular Rasa theory.
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_of_the_stimulus
Read a book sometime, Cleatus.

creation is just applied learning

People in dreams having actual consciousnesses is pretty terrifying, isn't it? Probably isn't the case tho.

Not clicking the link, but that "ai" has been programmed to do that. There is some sort of algorithim used.

It is. Try to produce a mind with a bucket of acid.

However, you brought forth an interesting aspect. Does electricity play an important part in consciousness or are the acids in charge. You see, electricity might not be a functional part for what we desire out of it.

How about we use your head instead. Clearly it's going to waste.

Way to prove yourself retarded.

i didn't say neurons don't pass signals. i said there's major physical differences between human brain and a computer chip. seriously you're trying really hard to misinterpret other people's arguments. it's like you're trying to misunderstand different points of view. kill yourself 60%.

>There is some sort of algorithim used.
Just like the human mind.

But you, being a special snowflake, don't believe in emergent behavior. It's laughable.

Dreaming involves random activation of spiny dendrites in the hippocampus, where your memories are stored. Your brain mimics sensory input all the time, while you're awake too.

Neuroscience grad student here, incoming knowledge dump.

It's more like you don't get what consciousness is and you're clinging to vagaries. We've already created self-aware, conscious, sentient machines. The Turing test is close to being passed. The Wiseman's test was passed. We passed the coffee-making test.

The only thing you can do is cling to, "Chinese room! Chinese room!" but you don't understand the fallacies involved in it. It's an entire joke on your part to hate something you don't even understand and it's one you played on yourself.

Well, it's the thought of the computer engineer and coder. Not of the computer. It's just a signal. A scream is a signal, it is not a thought.

Let's say that a river flows. It carries garbage with it. We can build a dam to stop them. The river won't be thinking because we did so, or because we organized the trash.

Evolution is cool af.

youtube.com/watch?v=pgaEE27nsQw