Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.comp.os.windows-10 > #183799

Re: Scary AI

From Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups alt.comp.os.windows-10, alt.philosophy
Subject Re: Scary AI
Followup-To alt.philosophy
Date 2025-04-18 02:12 +0000
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <slrn1003d7v.ou1.rotflol2@geidiprime.bvh> (permalink)
References (3 earlier) <vt3qqt$2rfml$1@dont-email.me> <vt42j1$326a7$1@dont-email.me> <vt43ma$337e2$1@dont-email.me> <20250418014050.57c6b5377c6c62bba4a595e4@gmail.moc> <vts5uq$1p3ic$1@dont-email.me>

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Followups directed to: alt.philosophy

Show all headers | View raw

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.philosophy.]
On 2025-04-18, Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> On 4/17/2025 6:40 PM, Anton Shepelev wrote:
>> Newyana2:
>> 
>>> If you believe in scientific materialism then you might
>>> believe that consciousness is an emergent quality, arising
>>> from chemical reactions in the brain.
>> 
>> Is this compatible with us perceiving our own consciousness
>> and being able to discuss it, which means it is casually
>> active?
>> 
>> Do you mean strong (aka miraculous) emergence, or weak
>> emergence? IMHO, the weak variety is out of the question:
>> chemmical, electrical, and other material processes can
>> produce only other material processes, but not feelings,
>> emotions, qualia...
>> 
>
>   I don't support either premise. Do we perceive
> consciousness? That seems questionable. "I think,
> therefore I am" is a desperate grasping at ground,
> not an observation.
>

Consciousness being an emergent quality seems like handwaving to me.
"We don't have the foggiest idea of how it works, so I suppose a
computer would become conscious because are like computers".
Computation and intelligence are two different things, and our brains,
our minds work fundamentally different to a Ryzen chip.  Also, if
conciousness arises from chemical reactions, why not elsewhere?  Why not
in a beaker?

Consciousness doesn't make sense outside of a living thing, and it
likely was selected for during evolution.  This leads to two suggestions

1: Consciousness has a real-world difference in how a brain thinks,
which provides an evolutionary advantage.

2: It isn't wholly emergent simply by virtue of a brain being a brain,
but is something that has to be specifically catered for.  That is to
say, a computer could only become conscious if we designed it to become
conscious, which we haven't.


I suspect Roger Penrose was onto something when he suggested a link
between consciousness and Quantum Mechanics, and somewhere during
evolution nature 'stumbled' on a way of introducing some chaos into
information processing which made sorting through alternatives much
faster.

Back to alt.comp.os.windows-10 | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Scary AI Ed Cryer <ed@somewhere.in.the.uk> - 2025-04-08 16:26 +0100
  Re: Scary AI "Alan K." <alan@invalid.com> - 2025-04-08 11:45 -0400
  Re: Scary AI Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-04-08 12:39 -0400
    Re: Scary AI Ed Cryer <ed@somewhere.in.the.uk> - 2025-04-08 19:07 +0100
      Re: Scary AI Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-04-08 14:45 -0400
        Re: Scary AI Ed Cryer <ed@somewhere.in.the.uk> - 2025-04-08 20:35 +0100
          Re: Scary AI jetjock <jetjock@unkown.com> - 2025-04-09 14:01 -0500
        Re: Scary AI Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-04-08 20:57 +0000
          Re: Scary AI Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-04-08 17:16 -0400
            Re: Scary AI Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-04-09 19:53 +0000
              Re: Scary AI Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-04-09 16:47 -0400
                Re: Scary AI Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-04-11 12:23 +0000
                Re: Scary AI Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-04-11 13:31 -0400
                Re: Scary AI Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-04-13 02:30 +0000
                Re: Scary AI Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-04-13 07:49 -0400
                Re: Scary AI Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-04-13 13:08 +0000
                Re: Scary AI Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-04-13 02:38 +0000
            Re: Scary AI Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> - 2025-04-18 01:40 +0300
              Re: Scary AI Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-04-17 20:22 -0400
                Re: Scary AI Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> - 2025-04-18 02:12 +0000
                Re: Scary AI Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-04-18 06:44 +0000
                Re: Scary AI Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2025-04-18 14:34 +0300
      Re: Scary AI Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-04-08 20:46 +0000
        Re: Scary AI Ed Cryer <ed@somewhere.in.the.uk> - 2025-04-08 22:48 +0100
          Re: Scary AI Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-04-09 09:50 +0000
    Re: Scary AI occam <occam@nowhere.nix> - 2025-04-18 16:45 +0200
  Re: Scary AI Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2025-04-09 05:29 +0200
  Re: Scary AI Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> - 2025-04-18 01:02 +0300

csiph-web