351–360 of 513 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
TRVKE whether you like it or not
Staying under the Earth's carrying capacity isn't some conspiracy, it's basic responsible behavior for surviving as a species. If your income is $700 a week, spending $900 a week isn't sustainable. What does "TRVKE" mean?
[flagged]
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Athiesm is actually just as dogmatic and unfalsifiable as Theism.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Sensory input refers to the information received by the body's senses, like sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell, through sensory organs like the eyes, ears, skin, tongue, and nose, which is then transmitted to the brain as electrical signals for processing and interpretation; essentially, it's anything you perceive using your senses. Even if we are talking about the best cameras in the world, they pale in compa…
You’re looking at the world from a very anthropocentric pov. Sight, sound, touch, feel, taste are all human senses, but they’re all just one thing: ingesting information. An AI can ingest information… that’s just a fact… so… what are we talking about here? Also, we have absolutely no idea how the brain works. Current AI was developed off of modern theories on how the brain works. Saying that AI doesn’t represent how…
You're assuming the sensory organs passively take in information, instead of creating it from all the noise in the world. That the world feeds us information the way we feed generative models. But humans have already taken the trouble to create the information in language, images, video.
This is a great demonstration of the fact that people coming from very different perspectives can, through good faith inquiry, find much to agree on. I think there are a lot of thoughtful arguments and conclusions in here even though I generally find the catholic church's metaphysical pyrotechnics to be fairly ridiculous. It goes to show that E.O. Wilson's concept of "consilience" can apply even outside of sciences -…
Yeah! Perhaps a bit naively, as a Highly Opinionated Person (HOP) on this topic I was ready for this to have something controversial to say about the nature of intelligence. It's not out of the ordinary for even Anglosphere philosophers to fall into a kind of essentiallism about intelligence, but I think the treatment of it here is extremely careful and thoughtful, at least on first glace. I suppose I would challenge…
That is to say, one view of consciousness suggests that if you froze a snapshot of a human brain in the process of experiencing and then transferred every single observable physical quantity into a simulation running on completely different material (e.g. from carbon to silicon) then the re-produced consciousness would be unaware of the swap and would continue completely unaffected. This would be a consequence of substrate independence, which is the predominant view as far as I can tell in both science and philosophy of mind.
I was fascinated that there was an entire conference dedicated to the opposite view. They contend that there would be a discernable and qualitative difference to the experience of the consciousness. That is, the new mind running in the simulation might "feel" the difference.
Of course, there is no experiment we can perform as of now so it is all conjecture. And this opposing view is a fringe of a fringe. It's just something I wanted to share. It's nice to realize that there are many ways to challenge our assumptions about consciousness. Consider how strongly you may feel about substrate independence and then realize: we don't actually have any proof and reasonable people hold conferences challenging this assumption.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Please don't perpetuate religious flamewars (or any flamewars) on HN. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
No argument there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't remember stating that having 5 senses were necessary to be human. This reads like a very uncharitable dismissal of what's really a very interesting topic. Helen Keller, despite lacking sight and hearing, was still able to perceive the world through sensory input, including taste, touch, and smell - and although she could not hear, she could still feel warmth and the touch of another human, and experienced emo…
You asked 'at what point will be it be considered human with added inputs' so I asked the reverse question. It is no more or less charitable to ask 'when does one stop being human with fewer inputs' than to ask 'when does one become human as inputs are added'.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These are things you have to understand in your heart, just like all the important things in life. I cannot communicate it in text to you, because the medium is limited. Meditate on it. You like all of us have only a limited time of life on this earth, why would you throw away that incredible gift by pursuing untruths?
That particular argument could be used to justify any belief.
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind"