91–100 of 170 posts
Counter Point: ALL software is someone else's intelligence.
Almost all of our intelligence is someone else's. That is what education does.
The article has a fundamental flaw, much like those who confuse copyright and trademark: intelligence is the algorithm; knowledge is the data set.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>not that AI is sentient, but that we aren't. Anything presenting such a ridiculous conclusion is so wrong as to not be taken seriously. The only thing that is for certain in this life is that we are sentient, everything else is derived from that. Same with things proposing we don't have freewill, we do.
You make decisions subconsciously before your conscious mind is aware of it. It's been experimentally demonstrated and at least calls into question the perception of free will. Each hemisphere of our brain is its own intelligence, but only one hemisphere (for 95% of humans the left hemisphere) controls speech. This only became apparent in some seizure patients during the 21st century when doctors might sever the corp…
For reference, a cat has ~200 million neurons in its brain - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_intelligence
Perhaps we have dozens of intelligences, with varying degrees of cognition? What is actually happening when the amygdala takes over the nervous system to avoid a car accident before you are aware what is happening? What is really going on with Tourette syndrome?
Might the human gut have its own hopes and dreams?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>not that AI is sentient, but that we aren't. Anything presenting such a ridiculous conclusion is so wrong as to not be taken seriously. The only thing that is for certain in this life is that we are sentient, everything else is derived from that. Same with things proposing we don't have freewill, we do.
You make decisions subconsciously before your conscious mind is aware of it. It's been experimentally demonstrated and at least calls into question the perception of free will. Each hemisphere of our brain is its own intelligence, but only one hemisphere (for 95% of humans the left hemisphere) controls speech. This only became apparent in some seizure patients during the 21st century when doctors might sever the corp…
No, you do not. This is a widely parroted "fact" that is not a fact at all. So you move your arm before we can record you thinking about, this proves nothing other than both are being triggered by a lower level reaction. Humans are sentient, no one is having a serious debate otherwise because the benchmark of being sentient is humanity not because they're "uncomfortable with this fact."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The primordial single-cell organism from which we all evolved was not conscious, but rather just a biological machine. I reject this assumption. We have no reason to assume cells aren't aware beings and that a sense of being isn't fundamental to at least all life.
Do you, then, agree that a machine that is built to work in the same manner as that single-cell organism (which I assume should be possible with the current technological level humans are at) is also conscious? That path would lead to a conclusion that all matter is, in some way, conscious. I don't disagree, but I find that such definition of consciousness diverges from what we usually mean by it - a walking, talking…
No, not without serious proof.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because there's no reason for anyone to take seriously this notion. It's not scientific and is just a different kind of religious nonsense.
there's nothing religious about entertaining the idea that sentience could just be an emergent property
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>not that AI is sentient, but that we aren't. Anything presenting such a ridiculous conclusion is so wrong as to not be taken seriously. The only thing that is for certain in this life is that we are sentient, everything else is derived from that. Same with things proposing we don't have freewill, we do.
You make decisions subconsciously before your conscious mind is aware of it. It's been experimentally demonstrated and at least calls into question the perception of free will. Each hemisphere of our brain is its own intelligence, but only one hemisphere (for 95% of humans the left hemisphere) controls speech. This only became apparent in some seizure patients during the 21st century when doctors might sever the corp…
Eh, that's one possible interpretation of that experiment. Which asks people to rate when they feel like they have done a task and then show that the MRI scan shows brain activity happening before that.
However, we also know that our brain messes with the temporal ordering of events all the time. Apparently when you hear sounds is messed with (up to a point) to match when the event appears to be happening so that things sync up. Also if you tap your knee your brain messes with that experience to make it sync up because otherwise you get a gap due to the speed at which nerves transmit data.
So an alternative interpretation is that we're consciously making a decision that we perceive at happening later than it actually does because our brain is trying to provide us with a lag free experience.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think consciousness represents a single real concept. It's just a word people use, some people use it in completely different contexts than others, what it means is probably more of a reflection of the user of that word than of some underlying reality. You'll speak with a Christian and he'll say that even a very early fetus is conscious. Speak with other people, and it isn't. Some vegans say animals are consc…
The only definition of "conscious" that makes any sense to me is "self-awareness". The problem is that is just kicking the can down the road. What is "self-awareness"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only definition of "conscious" that makes any sense to me is "self-awareness". The problem is that is just kicking the can down the road. What is "self-awareness"?
Obviously self-awareness means beieg conscious, isn't it?
I build robots as a hobby. My robots are aware of their their environment and their place in it. In that sense, they're "self-aware" but nobody would argue they're conscious.
The underlying problem is that we have all these words that imply a precision that doesn't exist. All we can say for certain is that consciousness and self-awareness are effects we experience. Beyond that, all bets are off. We can't even really say what these things actually are.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For consciousness it is fairly easy to build a reasonable metric like IQ is for human intelligence. Simply take any game (turn based if you don't care about speed, and real-time if you do), and measure instantaneous skill level in that game. Then you'd see that common effects that lower consciousness would lower the metric like sleepiness or drunkenness, so it would have a decent predicting power. In fact almost any…
> a reasonable metric like IQ is for human intelligence IQ is not a reasonable metric for human intelligence.
The matter of fact is that it is a metric of human intelligence and of all known metrics of human intelligence it is one of the best. Considering you still gauge people on intelligence with something you came up internally that you consider reasonable, and that whatever is that that you use internally is almost certainly worse than IQ, I'd say you're full of shit and/or lack logic :)