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

Groups > alt.comp.os.windows-10 > #183363 > unrolled thread

Scary AI

Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.os.windows-10

Contents

  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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#183363 — Scary AI

I thought I'd have a laugh, so I asked ChatGPT for a sonnet in the style 
of Shakespeare. What it gave me has caused me to gulp with astonishment. 
It looks pretty good to me; maybe a little more modern English than 
Elizabethan, but, still, it has a spark; as well as good iambic 
pentameters and rhymes.

******************

You said:
write a sonnet in the style of shakespeare
ChatGPT said:
Certainly! Here's a Shakespearean-style sonnet for you:

When twilight falls and paints the skies with gold,
The stars emerge, as whispers of the night;
The moon, a silver orb, her secrets told,
And soft winds sing of dreams within our sight.

Yet time, that thief, doth steal from youth's bright flame,
And bids us age before the hour is due.
No mortal heart can stay its endless claim,
Though love may bloom and linger, ever true.

But in your eyes, I find the world anew,
A spark that lights the path through shadowed days;
A love that beats within my soul, so true,
To guide me through life's ever-winding maze.

So let the years pass on, as they must go,
For in your love, I find eternal glow.

I hope this resonates with you! Would you like me to try a different 
theme or style for another one?
By messaging ChatGPT, you agree to our Terms and have read our Privacy 
Policy.
Don't share sensitive information. Chats may be reviewed for safety and 
abuse prevention. Learn more


ChatGPT can make mistakes. Check important info.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#183365

On 4/8/25 11:26 AM, Ed Cryer wrote:
> 
> I thought I'd have a laugh, so I asked ChatGPT for a sonnet in the style of Shakespeare. 
> What it gave me has caused me to gulp with astonishment. It looks pretty good to me; maybe 
> a little more modern English than Elizabethan, but, still, it has a spark; as well as good 
> iambic pentameters and rhymes.
> 
> ******************
> 
> You said:
> write a sonnet in the style of shakespeare
> ChatGPT said:
> Certainly! Here's a Shakespearean-style sonnet for you:
> 
> When twilight falls and paints the skies with gold,
> The stars emerge, as whispers of the night;
> The moon, a silver orb, her secrets told,
> And soft winds sing of dreams within our sight.
> 
> Yet time, that thief, doth steal from youth's bright flame,
> And bids us age before the hour is due.
> No mortal heart can stay its endless claim,
> Though love may bloom and linger, ever true.
> 
> But in your eyes, I find the world anew,
> A spark that lights the path through shadowed days;
> A love that beats within my soul, so true,
> To guide me through life's ever-winding maze.
> 
> So let the years pass on, as they must go,
> For in your love, I find eternal glow.
> 
> I hope this resonates with you! Would you like me to try a different theme or style for 
> another one?
> By messaging ChatGPT, you agree to our Terms and have read our Privacy Policy.
> Don't share sensitive information. Chats may be reviewed for safety and abuse prevention. 
> Learn more
> 
> 
> ChatGPT can make mistakes. Check important info.
I use it a lot to write code snippets.   Edge's CoPilot, but they surely are okay. I do 
read through every line of code to verify.

-- 
Linux Mint 22.1, Cinnamon 6.4.8,  Kernel 6.8.0-57-generic
Thunderbird 128.9.0esr, Mozilla Firefox 137.0
     Alan K.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183367

On 4/8/2025 11:26 AM, Ed Cryer wrote:
> 
> I thought I'd have a laugh, so I asked ChatGPT for a sonnet in the style 
> of Shakespeare. What it gave me has caused me to gulp with astonishment. 
> It looks pretty good to me; maybe a little more modern English than 
> Elizabethan, but, still, it has a spark; as well as good iambic 
> pentameters and rhymes.
> 
> ******************
> 
> You said:
> write a sonnet in the style of shakespeare
> ChatGPT said:
> Certainly! Here's a Shakespearean-style sonnet for you:
> 
> When twilight falls and paints the skies with gold,
> The stars emerge, as whispers of the night;
> The moon, a silver orb, her secrets told,
> And soft winds sing of dreams within our sight.
> 
> Yet time, that thief, doth steal from youth's bright flame,
> And bids us age before the hour is due.
> No mortal heart can stay its endless claim,
> Though love may bloom and linger, ever true.
> 
> But in your eyes, I find the world anew,
> A spark that lights the path through shadowed days;
> A love that beats within my soul, so true,
> To guide me through life's ever-winding maze.
> 
> So let the years pass on, as they must go,
> For in your love, I find eternal glow.
> 
> I hope this resonates with you!

   It sounds like Mr. Hallmark had a few too many drinks.

   I'll be happy when the AI craze blows over, leaving
a light of blessed clarity, replacing fake intelligence's
winding maze, and let me just say eternal and true
love and all that good stuff.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183370

Newyana2 wrote:
> On 4/8/2025 11:26 AM, Ed Cryer wrote:
>>
>> I thought I'd have a laugh, so I asked ChatGPT for a sonnet in the 
>> style of Shakespeare. What it gave me has caused me to gulp with 
>> astonishment. It looks pretty good to me; maybe a little more modern 
>> English than Elizabethan, but, still, it has a spark; as well as good 
>> iambic pentameters and rhymes.
>>
>> ******************
>>
>> You said:
>> write a sonnet in the style of shakespeare
>> ChatGPT said:
>> Certainly! Here's a Shakespearean-style sonnet for you:
>>
>> When twilight falls and paints the skies with gold,
>> The stars emerge, as whispers of the night;
>> The moon, a silver orb, her secrets told,
>> And soft winds sing of dreams within our sight.
>>
>> Yet time, that thief, doth steal from youth's bright flame,
>> And bids us age before the hour is due.
>> No mortal heart can stay its endless claim,
>> Though love may bloom and linger, ever true.
>>
>> But in your eyes, I find the world anew,
>> A spark that lights the path through shadowed days;
>> A love that beats within my soul, so true,
>> To guide me through life's ever-winding maze.
>>
>> So let the years pass on, as they must go,
>> For in your love, I find eternal glow.
>>
>> I hope this resonates with you!
> 
>    It sounds like Mr. Hallmark had a few too many drinks.
> 
>    I'll be happy when the AI craze blows over, leaving
> a light of blessed clarity, replacing fake intelligence's
> winding maze, and let me just say eternal and true
> love and all that good stuff.
> 

How does the program do that?
I used to earn my daily bread programming commercial mainframes. But 
this AI "in the style of" beats me. I've done Walt Whitman, Louis 
Carroll, William Wordsworth and others; and all win my praise.
And that's only one facet of the AI phenomenon.

I'd have needed a vast database of examples set up just for Shakespeare 
alone.

I'll not rest until I grab the working essentials of how this thing 
works; call it a program, call it an algorithm, call it what the hell 
you want, but I want to know how it produces its stuff.
The sort of things I've read so far are; "It has all the Internet at its 
call, and summons up vast resources". But that gives nothing away. If 
you've ever had to write a computer program, you'll know that is true.

So, how does it do its stuff?

Ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183372

On 4/8/2025 2:07 PM, Ed Cryer wrote:

> How does the program do that?
> I used to earn my daily bread programming commercial mainframes. But 
> this AI "in the style of" beats me. I've done Walt Whitman, Louis 
> Carroll, William Wordsworth and others; and all win my praise.
> And that's only one facet of the AI phenomenon.
> 
> I'd have needed a vast database of examples set up just for Shakespeare 
> alone.
> 
> I'll not rest until I grab the working essentials of how this thing 
> works; call it a program, call it an algorithm, call it what the hell 
> you want, but I want to know how it produces its stuff.
> The sort of things I've read so far are; "It has all the Internet at its 
> call, and summons up vast resources". But that gives nothing away. If 
> you've ever had to write a computer program, you'll know that is true.
> 
> So, how does it do its stuff?
> 

   As a programmer you know that it's all math. It's all
calculations on an abacus. It just gets increasingly complex.
The marketers say they've lost track of how it's working
and that must be intelligence and blah, blah, blah. But it's
still all just binary data and math calculations.

   So how do they make these things up? They copy billions
of lines of data and look for patterns. Notice that your poem
includes lots of cliches strung together. They mostly don't
make a lot of sense. But they come close and we read
into it.

   So how COULD they do it? There's only one way: To gather
data and compare it in various ways, then synthesize new
combinations. That's math, just like any other computer
operation. You might download porn of a naked woman with
an amazing ass and go into a long fantasy about having a
relationship with her. Would it matter whether that woman
exists or whether it's an AI production? What you're enjoying
is a bitmap recording of RGB pixel values, projected on a
screen. There's neither a real woman nor an AI picture there.
There's a data stream of numeric values interpreted as
RGB pixel colors. The rest is in your mind.

   I think that's the interesting thing about people who talk
about tests for consciousness. We'll know a computer is
conscious if it can make a human think it's conscious. But
that assumes the human is conscious. What is conscious?
If I always stop at Dunkin Donuts for a chocolate donut
when I pass by, is that conscious? If I give my life savings
to a woman who says she loves me, is that conscious? How
about if I decide an AI is conscious and empathetic because
it seems to like me?

   So, no, AI is not conscious. The more intriguing question
for me is whether it's possible for humans to be conscious. :)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183374

Newyana2 wrote:
> On 4/8/2025 2:07 PM, Ed Cryer wrote:
> 
>> How does the program do that?
>> I used to earn my daily bread programming commercial mainframes. But 
>> this AI "in the style of" beats me. I've done Walt Whitman, Louis 
>> Carroll, William Wordsworth and others; and all win my praise.
>> And that's only one facet of the AI phenomenon.
>>
>> I'd have needed a vast database of examples set up just for 
>> Shakespeare alone.
>>
>> I'll not rest until I grab the working essentials of how this thing 
>> works; call it a program, call it an algorithm, call it what the hell 
>> you want, but I want to know how it produces its stuff.
>> The sort of things I've read so far are; "It has all the Internet at 
>> its call, and summons up vast resources". But that gives nothing away. 
>> If you've ever had to write a computer program, you'll know that is true.
>>
>> So, how does it do its stuff?
>>
> 
>    As a programmer you know that it's all math. It's all
> calculations on an abacus. It just gets increasingly complex.
> The marketers say they've lost track of how it's working
> and that must be intelligence and blah, blah, blah. But it's
> still all just binary data and math calculations.
> 
>    So how do they make these things up? They copy billions
> of lines of data and look for patterns. Notice that your poem
> includes lots of cliches strung together. They mostly don't
> make a lot of sense. But they come close and we read
> into it.
> 
>    So how COULD they do it? There's only one way: To gather
> data and compare it in various ways, then synthesize new
> combinations. That's math, just like any other computer
> operation. You might download porn of a naked woman with
> an amazing ass and go into a long fantasy about having a
> relationship with her. Would it matter whether that woman
> exists or whether it's an AI production? What you're enjoying
> is a bitmap recording of RGB pixel values, projected on a
> screen. There's neither a real woman nor an AI picture there.
> There's a data stream of numeric values interpreted as
> RGB pixel colors. The rest is in your mind.
> 
>    I think that's the interesting thing about people who talk
> about tests for consciousness. We'll know a computer is
> conscious if it can make a human think it's conscious. But
> that assumes the human is conscious. What is conscious?
> If I always stop at Dunkin Donuts for a chocolate donut
> when I pass by, is that conscious? If I give my life savings
> to a woman who says she loves me, is that conscious? How
> about if I decide an AI is conscious and empathetic because
> it seems to like me?
> 
>    So, no, AI is not conscious. The more intriguing question
> for me is whether it's possible for humans to be conscious. :)

There's logic, and then there are emotions. They are different categories.
If a mind were to conclude "I'm wrong here; I don't belong"; then logic 
might suggest "Switch off". But emotion would fight against that. 
Dostoevsky put it well; "A man would stay alive on a shelf, rather than 
end it voluntarily"; and then there's Hamlet's famous soliloquy about 
the bourn from which no traveller returns.
That's the passage from bit-brain to humanity; and consciousness. We are 
not just logic. And how can emotions be produced from digital 
processing? How can you import fear and love into mathematics?

In humans the emotions came first; long, long before the logic and 
reason. Those qualities dawned in our species much later.
Now, with AI we are vice versa. They are the products of reason. So 
whence cometh the emotions? Whence will come will to survive at all costs?

Ed

> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183438

On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 20:35:13 +0100, Ed Cryer <ed@somewhere.in.the.uk>
wrote:

>Newyana2 wrote:
>> On 4/8/2025 2:07 PM, Ed Cryer wrote:
>> 
>>> How does the program do that?
>>> I used to earn my daily bread programming commercial mainframes. But 
>>> this AI "in the style of" beats me. I've done Walt Whitman, Louis 
>>> Carroll, William Wordsworth and others; and all win my praise.
>>> And that's only one facet of the AI phenomenon.
>>>
>>> I'd have needed a vast database of examples set up just for 
>>> Shakespeare alone.
>>>
>>> I'll not rest until I grab the working essentials of how this thing 
>>> works; call it a program, call it an algorithm, call it what the hell 
>>> you want, but I want to know how it produces its stuff.
>>> The sort of things I've read so far are; "It has all the Internet at 
>>> its call, and summons up vast resources". But that gives nothing away. 
>>> If you've ever had to write a computer program, you'll know that is true.
>>>
>>> So, how does it do its stuff?
>>>
>> 
>>    As a programmer you know that it's all math. It's all
>> calculations on an abacus. It just gets increasingly complex.
>> The marketers say they've lost track of how it's working
>> and that must be intelligence and blah, blah, blah. But it's
>> still all just binary data and math calculations.
>> 
>>    So how do they make these things up? They copy billions
>> of lines of data and look for patterns. Notice that your poem
>> includes lots of cliches strung together. They mostly don't
>> make a lot of sense. But they come close and we read
>> into it.
>> 
>>    So how COULD they do it? There's only one way: To gather
>> data and compare it in various ways, then synthesize new
>> combinations. That's math, just like any other computer
>> operation. You might download porn of a naked woman with
>> an amazing ass and go into a long fantasy about having a
>> relationship with her. Would it matter whether that woman
>> exists or whether it's an AI production? What you're enjoying
>> is a bitmap recording of RGB pixel values, projected on a
>> screen. There's neither a real woman nor an AI picture there.
>> There's a data stream of numeric values interpreted as
>> RGB pixel colors. The rest is in your mind.
>> 
>>    I think that's the interesting thing about people who talk
>> about tests for consciousness. We'll know a computer is
>> conscious if it can make a human think it's conscious. But
>> that assumes the human is conscious. What is conscious?
>> If I always stop at Dunkin Donuts for a chocolate donut
>> when I pass by, is that conscious? If I give my life savings
>> to a woman who says she loves me, is that conscious? How
>> about if I decide an AI is conscious and empathetic because
>> it seems to like me?
>> 
>>    So, no, AI is not conscious. The more intriguing question
>> for me is whether it's possible for humans to be conscious. :)
>
>There's logic, and then there are emotions. They are different categories.
>If a mind were to conclude "I'm wrong here; I don't belong"; then logic 
>might suggest "Switch off". But emotion would fight against that. 
>Dostoevsky put it well; "A man would stay alive on a shelf, rather than 
>end it voluntarily"; and then there's Hamlet's famous soliloquy about 
>the bourn from which no traveller returns.
>That's the passage from bit-brain to humanity; and consciousness. We are 
>not just logic. And how can emotions be produced from digital 
>processing? How can you import fear and love into mathematics?
>
>In humans the emotions came first; long, long before the logic and 
>reason. Those qualities dawned in our species much later.
>Now, with AI we are vice versa. They are the products of reason. So 
>whence cometh the emotions? Whence will come will to survive at all costs?
>
>Ed

Maybe that is how we'll be able to identify "consciousness": When it
will no longer allow itself to be switched off!

     >>>>>>>>>>jetjock<<<<<<<<<<

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183384

Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> On 4/8/2025 2:07 PM, Ed Cryer wrote:
> 
>> How does the program do that?
>> I used to earn my daily bread programming commercial mainframes. But 
>> this AI "in the style of" beats me. I've done Walt Whitman, Louis 
>> Carroll, William Wordsworth and others; and all win my praise.
>> And that's only one facet of the AI phenomenon.
>> 
>> I'd have needed a vast database of examples set up just for Shakespeare 
>> alone.
>> 
>> I'll not rest until I grab the working essentials of how this thing 
>> works; call it a program, call it an algorithm, call it what the hell 
>> you want, but I want to know how it produces its stuff.
>> The sort of things I've read so far are; "It has all the Internet at its 
>> call, and summons up vast resources". But that gives nothing away. If 
>> you've ever had to write a computer program, you'll know that is true.
>> 
>> So, how does it do its stuff?
>> 
> 
>   As a programmer you know that it's all math. It's all
> calculations on an abacus. It just gets increasingly complex.
> The marketers say they've lost track of how it's working
> and that must be intelligence and blah, blah, blah. But it's
> still all just binary data and math calculations.

Although true, it's very reductionist. It's like saying reading is just
photons bouncing off a page of a book. 

>   So how do they make these things up? They copy billions
> of lines of data and look for patterns. 

It's more then copied; it is transformed to better inform the model. 

> Notice that your poem
> includes lots of cliches strung together. They mostly don't
> make a lot of sense. But they come close and we read
> into it.
> 
>   So how COULD they do it? There's only one way: To gather
> data and compare it in various ways, then synthesize new
> combinations. That's math, just like any other computer
> operation. You might download porn of a naked woman with
> an amazing ass and go into a long fantasy about having a
> relationship with her. Would it matter whether that woman
> exists or whether it's an AI production? What you're enjoying
> is a bitmap recording of RGB pixel values, projected on a
> screen. There's neither a real woman nor an AI picture there.
> There's a data stream of numeric values interpreted as
> RGB pixel colors. The rest is in your mind.
> 
>   I think that's the interesting thing about people who talk
> about tests for consciousness. We'll know a computer is
> conscious if it can make a human think it's conscious. But
> that assumes the human is conscious. What is conscious?

That's what is really interesting about Artificial Intelligence. It
challenges us to think about what is it that makes "special". We're not, of
course, but we keep thinking we are since at least the ancient greek
philosophers. 

> If I always stop at Dunkin Donuts for a chocolate donut
> when I pass by, is that conscious? If I give my life savings
> to a woman who says she loves me, is that conscious? How
> about if I decide an AI is conscious and empathetic because
> it seems to like me?
> 
>   So, no, AI is not conscious. The more intriguing question
> for me is whether it's possible for humans to be conscious. :)

You can't argue than an AI is not conscious while at the same time asking
whether humans are conscious. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183388

On 4/8/2025 4:57 PM, Chris wrote:

>>
>>    So, no, AI is not conscious. The more intriguing question
>> for me is whether it's possible for humans to be conscious. :)
> 
> You can't argue than an AI is not conscious while at the same time asking
> whether humans are conscious.
> 

    Why not? AI is not conscious. It's responsive software.
Human consciousness is another issue. I'm partially being
provocative, but I put it that way because I don't think
we're nearly so conscious as we believe. We're mostly on
automatic. So how dependable is the judgement of people
whose thoughts and values are mostly knee-jerk reactions?
How capable are we to recognize consciousness?

   That gets into more complicated questions, though.
If you believe in scientific materialism then you might
believe that consciousness is an emergent quality, arising
from chemical reactions in the brain. In that case it's
not out of the question to posit that machines might have
the capacity for consciousness in the same way that
humans do. In that case, AI might be highly conscious while
a magic 8 ball would be slightly cocnscious (since it responds
with unpredictable answers to queries).

   I'm not a scientific materialist. I regard it as a thoroughly
untenable way to look at the nature of experience. Science
can't accept mind or even life as such, because those things
can't be measured empirically. But if you accept mind as
a something not arising from matter, then it's sensible to
posit that mind is primary and could never be generated by
hardware, or by biological processes.

   That may seem odd at first, but look at what science posits:
Lots of atoms, over billions of years, accidentally ended up
as amino acids, then DNA, then complex, communal systems
of cells, which spend all of their energy on maintaining their
own integrity as distinct entities, which implies will. Yet it all
happened willy nilly. And the incredibly complicated balance that
maintains these living systems is also happening by accident.
    Further, if that's the case then we're
simply accidental bio-robots and thus have no capacity to
reflect on these things in the first place. The theory negates
our capacity to have a theory. Our seeming consciousness and
thoughts could only be chemical reactions in that view.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183439

Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> On 4/8/2025 4:57 PM, Chris wrote:
> 
>>> 
>>> So, no, AI is not conscious. The more intriguing question
>>> for me is whether it's possible for humans to be conscious. :)
>> 
>> You can't argue than an AI is not conscious while at the same time asking
>> whether humans are conscious.
>> 
> 
>    Why not? 

Because, if you can't objectively describe what a specific attribute is you
cannot arguably say that something doesn't have it. i.e. "what is colour?"
"I don't know, but I can tell you that is not red." 

> AI is not conscious. It's responsive software.
> Human consciousness is another issue. I'm partially being
> provocative, 

Yes, I did appreciate that. 

> but I put it that way because I don't think
> we're nearly so conscious as we believe. We're mostly on
> automatic. So how dependable is the judgement of people
> whose thoughts and values are mostly knee-jerk reactions?
> How capable are we to recognize consciousness?

I'm not arguing that we do know what consciousness is, btw. You may be
right on that front. 

Also there's an issue with the term Artificial Intelligence. It is commonly
used to mean a whole spectrum of things from very simple probability models
to ultimate self-aware replicants. 

Computer AI is very much at the simple probabilistic end of the spectrum.
You're talking about the other end of the spectrum which may or may not
ever exist. Although, many people act like it's just around the corner. 

>   That gets into more complicated questions, though.
> If you believe in scientific materialism then you might
> believe that consciousness is an emergent quality, arising
> from chemical reactions in the brain. In that case it's
> not out of the question to posit that machines might have
> the capacity for consciousness in the same way that
> humans do. In that case, AI might be highly conscious while
> a magic 8 ball would be slightly cocnscious (since it responds
> with unpredictable answers to queries).
> 
>   I'm not a scientific materialist. I regard it as a thoroughly
> untenable way to look at the nature of experience. Science
> can't accept mind or even life as such, because those things
> can't be measured empirically. 

I mean there is a whole field of science looking at life and has done for
hundreds of years - biology - so that's an odd take. 

> But if you accept mind as
> a something not arising from matter, 

Where else would it arise from?

> then it's sensible to
> posit that mind is primary and could never be generated by
> hardware, or by biological processes.
> 
>   That may seem odd at first, but look at what science posits:
> Lots of atoms, over billions of years, accidentally ended up
> as amino acids, then DNA, then complex, communal systems
> of cells, which spend all of their energy on maintaining their
> own integrity as distinct entities, which implies will. Yet it all
> happened willy nilly. And the incredibly complicated balance that
> maintains these living systems is also happening by accident.

None of what you describe is an "accident". We simply cannot fathom the
power that billions of years has. 

>    Further, if that's the case then we're
> simply accidental bio-robots and thus have no capacity to
> reflect on these things in the first place. 

And yet we do and have done for millennia. 

> The theory negates
> our capacity to have a theory. 

Er...

> Our seeming consciousness and
> thoughts could only be chemical reactions in that view.

The lack of chemical reactions is death and therefore no mind. So, yes the
mind is function of us being alive which requires us to be bound by the
limits of the physical sciences (physics, chemistry and biology). 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183444

On 4/9/2025 3:53 PM, Chris wrote:

>>
>>    I'm not a scientific materialist. I regard it as a thoroughly
>> untenable way to look at the nature of experience. Science
>> can't accept mind or even life as such, because those things
>> can't be measured empirically.
> 
> I mean there is a whole field of science looking at life and has done for
> hundreds of years - biology - so that's an odd take.
> 

    Yes. Most people would think so. Yet the idea of mind
arising from matter is fairly new. We say that we recognize
mind and life, but what's studied empirically is just matter.
That's why the DSM is a book of symptoms. What's
schizophrenia? What's awareness? What's OCD? e describe
it as symptoms. If you display enough symptoms then
your insurance will pay for a happy pill prescription. More
recently we talk in terms of fMRIs and neurotransmitters.
But what science CAN theorize or know is limited to what it
can arrange a repeatable experiment for. Science can never
accept mind as such, or even life as such, because it can't
confirm them empirically. A biologist can describe a mouse
and tell us about its respiration and so on. They can also
describe the evidence for a dead mouse. But what is it that
maintains that unimaginably complex symphony of processes
that characterizes a live mouse? What is missing when the
mouse dies? We can't say. Why? Could there be some kind
of non-material essence that is life? Science must say no,
simply because such possibilities are outside of science's
purview.

>> But if you accept mind as
>> a something not arising from matter,
> 
> Where else would it arise from?
> 
   Some posit a soul. Christianity, for example. Hinduism
says there's something like a soul-self. The atman. Buddihsm
says there's awareness and mind, but the material world is
a projection of confusion. In other words, we're all God
dreaming, so to speak.


>>    That may seem odd at first, but look at what science posits:
>> Lots of atoms, over billions of years, accidentally ended up
>> as amino acids, then DNA, then complex, communal systems
>> of cells, which spend all of their energy on maintaining their
>> own integrity as distinct entities, which implies will. Yet it all
>> happened willy nilly. And the incredibly complicated balance that
>> maintains these living systems is also happening by accident.
> 
> None of what you describe is an "accident". We simply cannot fathom the
> power that billions of years has.
> 

   If there's no mind as such then the universe would have to
be an accidental soup of matter and energy. There are clearly
patterns that apply, but science must reject anything like
intelligent design or some kind of will. That would mean that DNA
can only be a preposterously unlikely accident.

>>     Further, if that's the case then we're
>> simply accidental bio-robots and thus have no capacity to
>> reflect on these things in the first place.
> 
> And yet we do and have done for millennia.
> 
    So says you. But if you believe you're a bio-robot, and that
mind arises from chemical reactions and electricity in the brain,
then how could you posit that you reflect? All apparent
thoughts would be merely Scrooge's "bit of mustard".
Interestingly, that's actually the current position of neuroscience.:
"Mind is what brain does." The comedy here is that these PhDs
haven't considered the implication that they're in no position
to think about it if that's true.

   That's not to say that science is a problem. It's very useful for
specific, relative situations. It tells us the boiling point of
water or the distance to NYC. But there's no objective
meta-context from which to observe the fundamental nature
of experience empirically. Science simply can't go there.
It's fatal flaw is that it can't know what it can't know, so it
tries to explain all.

   We feel certain of our take on reality. Yet we were also certain
during the dream before waking up this morning. That's the point
of the famous Taoist riddle: Chuang Tzu dreamt he was a
butterfly. Did Chuang Tzu dream he was a butterfly, or was it the
butterfly dreaming it was Chuang Tzu?

    On the surface that seems like a silly question, but if we
think about it, it's unknowable. We can't observe absolute reality
from an external vantage point. We only imagine that we do.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183538

Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> On 4/9/2025 3:53 PM, Chris wrote:
> 
>>> 
>>> I'm not a scientific materialist. I regard it as a thoroughly
>>> untenable way to look at the nature of experience. Science
>>> can't accept mind or even life as such, because those things
>>> can't be measured empirically.
>> 
>> I mean there is a whole field of science looking at life and has done for
>> hundreds of years - biology - so that's an odd take.
>> 
> 
>    Yes. Most people would think so. Yet the idea of mind
> arising from matter is fairly new. We say that we recognize
> mind and life, but what's studied empirically is just matter.
> That's why the DSM is a book of symptoms. 

DSM?

> What's
> schizophrenia? What's awareness? What's OCD? e describe
> it as symptoms. If you display enough symptoms then
> your insurance will pay for a happy pill prescription. 

Not here. We don't do insurance ;)

> More
> recently we talk in terms of fMRIs and neurotransmitters.
> But what science CAN theorize or know is limited to what it
> can arrange a repeatable experiment for. 

False. 

Einstein develop a whole range of theories based on his analyses of
fundamental physics. None of which were testable at the time and he had no
idea how they could be. In the decades since, new technology has enabled
experiments that have tested his theories. 

Darwin's theory was completely untestable at the time. He also had no idea
about genetics, DNA or molecular biology. All discoveries since have
confirmed and strengthened the scientific basis for evolution. 

> Science can never
> accept mind as such, or even life as such, because it can't
> confirm them empirically. 

As I've demonstrated above, this is a false representation of science. 

>A biologist can describe a mouse
> and tell us about its respiration and so on. They can also
> describe the evidence for a dead mouse. But what is it that
> maintains that unimaginably complex symphony of processes
> that characterizes a live mouse? What is missing when the
> mouse dies? We can't say. 

Yet. 

>Why? Could there be some kind
> of non-material essence that is life? 

There is no "non-material essence". 

> Science must say no,
> simply because such possibilities are outside of science's
> purview.

That's not why. All possibilities are considered. Only those that don't
require "magic" are realistic. 

>>> But if you accept mind as
>>> a something not arising from matter,
>> 
>> Where else would it arise from?
>> 
>   Some posit a soul. Christianity, for example. Hinduism
> says there's something like a soul-self. The atman. Buddihsm
> says there's awareness and mind, but the material world is
> a projection of confusion. In other words, we're all God
> dreaming, so to speak.

Those are all human constructs. Developed *by the* mind not *of the* mind. 

> 
>>> That may seem odd at first, but look at what science posits:
>>> Lots of atoms, over billions of years, accidentally ended up
>>> as amino acids, then DNA, then complex, communal systems
>>> of cells, which spend all of their energy on maintaining their
>>> own integrity as distinct entities, which implies will. Yet it all
>>> happened willy nilly. And the incredibly complicated balance that
>>> maintains these living systems is also happening by accident.
>> 
>> None of what you describe is an "accident". We simply cannot fathom the
>> power that billions of years has.
>> 
> 
>   If there's no mind as such then the universe would have to
> be an accidental soup of matter and energy. 

Nope. An accident implies a correct path and incorrect path. The universe
is fundamental and there is no path. 

> There are clearly
> patterns that apply, but science must reject anything like
> intelligent design or some kind of will. 

ID is anything but "intelligent". It is naive and intellectually
uninformative. ID has no capacity to make predictions, makes no attempt to
explain disparities, only looks at holes in current understanding and
doesn't help in advancing human knowledge. 

Science is far from perfect, but it can achieve amazing things. It basks in
the awe of the universe we live in. 

ID perpetuates the 17th century world view of a human-centric universe.
Which is hopelessly backward. 

Individual "Will" is not rejected by science. 

> That would mean that DNA
> can only be a preposterously unlikely accident.

Why is it unlikely? It follows the most basic rules of chemistry and
physics. 

You think it is irreducibly complex. It isn't. 

>>> Further, if that's the case then we're
>>> simply accidental bio-robots and thus have no capacity to
>>> reflect on these things in the first place.
>> 
>> And yet we do and have done for millennia.
>> 
>    So says you. But if you believe you're a bio-robot, and that
> mind arises from chemical reactions and electricity in the brain,
> then how could you posit that you reflect? 

"I think therefore I am". 

Obviously we can only personally experience the universe from the
perspective of what is experiencable. Yet much of science explains aspects
that are unexperienceable: light, time, matter, etc, etc. 

All of which enters "our" world through technology. 

> All apparent
> thoughts would be merely Scrooge's "bit of mustard".
> Interestingly, that's actually the current position of neuroscience.:
> "Mind is what brain does." The comedy here is that these PhDs
> haven't considered the implication that they're in no position
> to think about it if that's true.

There are a great many people involved in metaphysics and metascience.
There's no inconsistency. 

If science gets something wrong, and it happens a lot, it self corrects.
Other methods do not and suffer schisms. 

>   That's not to say that science is a problem. It's very useful for
> specific, relative situations. It tells us the boiling point of
> water or the distance to NYC. But there's no objective
> meta-context from which to observe the fundamental nature
> of experience empirically. Science simply can't go there.

It can get closer then other method. It is the most objective process we
have. 

> It's fatal flaw is that it can't know what it can't know, so it
> tries to explain all.

Patently false. There are many known unknowns plus and unknown unknowns are
an accepted possibility. 

>   We feel certain of our take on reality. Yet we were also certain
> during the dream before waking up this morning. That's the point
> of the famous Taoist riddle: Chuang Tzu dreamt he was a
> butterfly. Did Chuang Tzu dream he was a butterfly, or was it the
> butterfly dreaming it was Chuang Tzu?
> 
>    On the surface that seems like a silly question, but if we
> think about it, it's unknowable. 

You don't know that. 

> We can't observe absolute reality
> from an external vantage point. We only imagine that we do.

Does it matter? The possibility of some entity exisitng beyond our universe
doesn't obviate nor discredit the question of trying to understand what is
within in it. 

We may even discover what there is beyond our universe. If anything. 

I don't see why "mind" should be seen as distinct from science. They are
complementary and interdependent. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183547

On 4/11/2025 8:23 AM, Chris wrote:

>>> I mean there is a whole field of science looking at life and has done for
>>> hundreds of years - biology - so that's an odd take.
>>>
>>     Yes. Most people would think so. Yet the idea of mind
>> arising from matter is fairly new. We say that we recognize
>> mind and life, but what's studied empirically is just matter.
>> That's why the DSM is a book of symptoms.
> 
> DSM?
> 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSM-5

>> What's
>> schizophrenia? What's awareness? What's OCD? e describe
>> it as symptoms. If you display enough symptoms then
>> your insurance will pay for a happy pill prescription.
> 
> Not here. We don't do insurance ;)
> 
>> More
>> recently we talk in terms of fMRIs and neurotransmitters.
>> But what science CAN theorize or know is limited to what it
>> can arrange a repeatable experiment for.
> 
> False.
> 

   That's the definition of empirical research. It must
be repeatable by other. Science could theorize that
angels live in raspberries, I suppose, but it can't be
tested if angels are not composed of matter/energy.
So angels must be rejected. Anyone who tries to keep
an open mind is saying that they'll accept the possibility
of angels *if the can be found at some point and defined
scientifically in terms of matter/energy.*

   Science, in that sense, is a closed loop.

> Darwin's theory was completely untestable at the time. He also had no idea
> about genetics, DNA or molecular biology. All discoveries since have
> confirmed and strengthened the scientific basis for evolution.
> 
   Darwin's theory is still a theory. It was full of holes before
epigentics. It's still not proveable.

> We may even discover what there is beyond our universe. If anything.
> 
   There's that scientific materialism again. By definition
there's nothing beyond the universe.

> I don't see why "mind" should be seen as distinct from science. They are
> complementary and interdependent.
> 
     Complementary would imply distinct. As would interdependent.
Either way, science cannot accept mind as such because it
can't be evidenced in scientific terms as something that's
not matter/energy. It can't be measured empirically. That's
the point about the DSM. It's a book of symptoms used to classify
disorders for drug treatment and insurance coverage. (Psychiatry,
after all, is an industry based only loosely in science.)

   I think the key to being able to understand the possibilities
is to imagine mind as primary. Based on what we can know, that
possibility cannot be ruled out. To even consider it is to open up
new ways of looking at the nature of experience. In fact, there's
even a cognitive psychologist named Donald Hoffman who has
proposed such a theory:
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HFFr0-ybg0

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183601

Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> On 4/11/2025 8:23 AM, Chris wrote:
> 
>>>> I mean there is a whole field of science looking at life and has done for
>>>> hundreds of years - biology - so that's an odd take.
>>>> 
>>> Yes. Most people would think so. Yet the idea of mind
>>> arising from matter is fairly new. We say that we recognize
>>> mind and life, but what's studied empirically is just matter.
>>> That's why the DSM is a book of symptoms.
>> 
>> DSM?
>> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSM-5
> 
>>> What's
>>> schizophrenia? What's awareness? What's OCD? e describe
>>> it as symptoms. If you display enough symptoms then
>>> your insurance will pay for a happy pill prescription.
>> 
>> Not here. We don't do insurance ;)
>> 
>>> More
>>> recently we talk in terms of fMRIs and neurotransmitters.
>>> But what science CAN theorize or know is limited to what it
>>> can arrange a repeatable experiment for.
>> 
>> False.
>> 
> 
>   That's the definition of empirical research. It must
> be repeatable by other. 

Why did you snip my very clear examples? Uncomfortable for you were they?

> Science could theorize that
> angels live in raspberries, 

That's a hypothesis not a theory. 

> I suppose, but it can't be
> tested if angels are not composed of matter/energy.
> So angels must be rejected. 

People have studied the power of prayer. Unconventional science can be
tested just as well as any other. This is the beauty and strength of the
scientific method. It is objective. 

> Anyone who tries to keep
> an open mind is saying that they'll accept the possibility
> of angels *if the can be found at some point and defined
> scientifically in terms of matter/energy.*
> 
>   Science, in that sense, is a closed loop.

Nope. Science is completely open to things we don't understand. That is the
whole point of the scientific method. 

In the days before scientific enlightenment Prof. Hoffman (below) would
have been labelled a heretic and probably executed. We are lucky that we
live in more open-minded times. Recent blips, excluded. 

>> Darwin's theory was completely untestable at the time. He also had no idea
>> about genetics, DNA or molecular biology. All discoveries since have
>> confirmed and strengthened the scientific basis for evolution.
>> 
>   Darwin's theory is still a theory. 

Ah the good ol' "it's just a theory" supposed debunk. 

> It was full of holes before
> epigentics. It's still not proveable.

It is very, very easy to prove. With bacteria that reproduce in minutes you
can have hundreds of generations in a few days and demonstrate evolution. 

>> We may even discover what there is beyond our universe. If anything.
>> 
>   There's that scientific materialism again. By definition
> there's nothing beyond the universe.

How do you know? We already know it has a beginning. So what was there
before?

>> I don't see why "mind" should be seen as distinct from science. They are
>> complementary and interdependent.
>> 
>     Complementary would imply distinct. As would interdependent.
> Either way, science cannot accept mind as such because it
> can't be evidenced in scientific terms as something that's
> not matter/energy. 

As I've shown above, that's not a requirement. Hoffman also describes
empirical evidence. Within his conscious reality we still need evidence and
not simply the voice of a persuasive individual. 

> It can't be measured empirically. That's
> the point about the DSM. It's a book of symptoms used to classify
> disorders for drug treatment and insurance coverage. 

You're confusing clinical practice with hard science. A book of diagnoses
may be based on scientific research - it may also not be - but it is not in
itself science. A lot of medicine is based tradition which is a problem and
is taking a while to unwind. 

> (Psychiatry,
> after all, is an industry based only loosely in science.)
> 
>   I think the key to being able to understand the possibilities
> is to imagine mind as primary. Based on what we can know, that
> possibility cannot be ruled out. To even consider it is to open up
> new ways of looking at the nature of experience. In fact, there's
> even a cognitive psychologist named Donald Hoffman who has
> proposed such a theory:
>  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HFFr0-ybg0

Interesting guy. Provides an interesting view on reality which has fed into
popular media like the Matrix style films. 

For Hoffman, the mind is just a construct so we can study it. It is made of
conscious agents which (so far?) can't be studied. Which is potential
weakness of his theory. Like other theories like String theory it is very
useful in trying to think differently about our universe, but it is
effectively impossible to study directly. 

Like I said. This is complementary. We can study both or more models as we
know some or all may be wrong. Hoffman himself says he's also probably
wrong. Doesn't mean we shouldn't keep trying to improve our understanding
and get closer to what is right. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183611

On 4/12/2025 10:30 PM, Chris wrote:

>This is the beauty and strength of the
> scientific method. It is objective.

   Yes. You've highlighted the crux of my point in a
nutshell. It assumes an empirically discoverable object
and a neutral subject. Within that limited context,
and only within that context, science is very useful.

    The subject can only be neutral, and the object can
only be truly defined, within the confines of a paradigm
assumed to be absolute truth.

   In any case, I can see that you're not able to see past
the epistemological dogmas of Scientism, and the luxurious
allure of certainty. It's those dogmas that make people think
AI is intelligent. It's fear of uncertainty that reduces
discussion to bickering and accusations.

   But I thought I'd just throw this out there and see if
it rings any bells for anyone. I wasn't really thinking that
it would in a tech forum.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183617

Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> On 4/12/2025 10:30 PM, Chris wrote:
> 
>> This is the beauty and strength of the
>> scientific method. It is objective.
> 
>   Yes. You've highlighted the crux of my point in a
> nutshell. It assumes an empirically discoverable object
> and a neutral subject. Within that limited context,
> and only within that context, science is very useful.
> 
>    The subject can only be neutral, and the object can
> only be truly defined, within the confines of a paradigm
> assumed to be absolute truth.
> 
>   In any case, I can see that you're not able to see past
> the epistemological dogmas of Scientism, and the luxurious
> allure of certainty. It's those dogmas that make people think
> AI is intelligent. It's fear of uncertainty that reduces
> discussion to bickering and accusations.
> 
>   But I thought I'd just throw this out there and see if
> it rings any bells for anyone. I wasn't really thinking that
> it would in a tech forum.

Shame. I thought you would be interested in a conversation. 

Anyway thanks for sharing the yt link. Interesting topic. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183602

Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> On 4/11/2025 8:23 AM, Chris wrote:
> 
>>>> I mean there is a whole field of science looking at life and has done for
>>>> hundreds of years - biology - so that's an odd take.
>>>> 
>>> Yes. Most people would think so. Yet the idea of mind
>>> arising from matter is fairly new. We say that we recognize
>>> mind and life, but what's studied empirically is just matter.
>>> That's why the DSM is a book of symptoms.
>> 
>> DSM?
>> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSM-5
> 
>>> What's
>>> schizophrenia? What's awareness? What's OCD? e describe
>>> it as symptoms. If you display enough symptoms then
>>> your insurance will pay for a happy pill prescription.
>> 
>> Not here. We don't do insurance ;)
>> 
>>> More
>>> recently we talk in terms of fMRIs and neurotransmitters.
>>> But what science CAN theorize or know is limited to what it
>>> can arrange a repeatable experiment for.
>> 
>> False.
>> 
> 
>   That's the definition of empirical research. It must
> be repeatable by other. 

Why did you snip my very clear examples? Uncomfortable for you were they?

> Science could theorize that
> angels live in raspberries, 

That's a hypothesis not a theory. 

> I suppose, but it can't be
> tested if angels are not composed of matter/energy.
> So angels must be rejected. 

People have studied the power of prayer. Unconventional science can be
tested just as well as any other. This is the beauty and strength of the
scientific method. It is objective. 

> Anyone who tries to keep
> an open mind is saying that they'll accept the possibility
> of angels *if the can be found at some point and defined
> scientifically in terms of matter/energy.*
> 
>   Science, in that sense, is a closed loop.

Nope. Science is completely open to things we don't understand. That is the
whole point of the scientific method. 

In the days before scientific enlightenment Prof. Hoffman (below) would
have been labelled a heretic and probably executed. We are lucky that we
live in more open-minded times. Recent blips, excluded. 

>> Darwin's theory was completely untestable at the time. He also had no idea
>> about genetics, DNA or molecular biology. All discoveries since have
>> confirmed and strengthened the scientific basis for evolution.
>> 
>   Darwin's theory is still a theory. 

Ah the good ol' "it's just a theory" supposed debunk. 

> It was full of holes before
> epigentics. It's still not proveable.

It is very, very easy to prove. With bacteria that reproduce in minutes you
can have hundreds of generations in a few days and demonstrate evolution. 

Hoffman doesn't dispute evolution either. 

>> We may even discover what there is beyond our universe. If anything.
>> 
>   There's that scientific materialism again. By definition
> there's nothing beyond the universe.

How do you know? We already know it has a beginning. So what was there
before?

>> I don't see why "mind" should be seen as distinct from science. They are
>> complementary and interdependent.
>> 
>     Complementary would imply distinct. As would interdependent.
> Either way, science cannot accept mind as such because it
> can't be evidenced in scientific terms as something that's
> not matter/energy. 

As I've shown above, that's not a requirement. Hoffman also describes
empirical evidence. Within his conscious reality we still need evidence and
not simply the voice of a persuasive individual. 

> It can't be measured empirically. That's
> the point about the DSM. It's a book of symptoms used to classify
> disorders for drug treatment and insurance coverage. 

You're confusing clinical practice with hard science. A book of diagnoses
may be based on scientific research - it may also not be - but it is not in
itself science. A lot of medicine is based tradition which is a problem and
is taking a while to unwind. 

> (Psychiatry,
> after all, is an industry based only loosely in science.)
> 
>   I think the key to being able to understand the possibilities
> is to imagine mind as primary. Based on what we can know, that
> possibility cannot be ruled out. To even consider it is to open up
> new ways of looking at the nature of experience. In fact, there's
> even a cognitive psychologist named Donald Hoffman who has
> proposed such a theory:
>  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HFFr0-ybg0

Interesting guy. Provides an interesting view on reality which has fed into
popular media like the Matrix style films (i.e. "there is no spoon "). 

For Hoffman, the mind is just a construct so we can study it. And he is. It
is, according to the theory, made of conscious agents which (so far?) can't
be studied. Which is potential weakness of his theory. Like other theories
like String theory it is very useful in trying to think differently about
our universe, but it is effectively impossible to study directly. 

Like I said. This is complementary. We can study both or more models as we
know some or all may be wrong. Hoffman himself says he's also probably
wrong. Doesn't mean we shouldn't keep trying to improve our understanding
and get closer to what is right. By whatever method. 

I do have one question, however, if we're just an interface for these
conscious agents why have we evolved at all? Or why does time exist? Seems
weird for these agents to dumb down in order interact as biological
entities in this fake universe. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183787

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...

-- 
()  ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\  www.asciiribbon.org   -- against proprietary attachments

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183795

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#183799

["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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.os.windows-10

csiph-web