Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Astronomy
 Cool on many levels
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 4

tomk80
SFN Regular

Netherlands
1278 Posts

Posted - 11/22/2006 :  06:53:55   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit tomk80's Homepage Send tomk80 a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
<snip whole post>

I see that you still haven't explained what desire is. Neither have you apologized for your mischaracterization of my reply. If you do not want to do either of those, there is no reason for me to think you are willing or able to have an honest discussion here. So until you do, I see no reason to respond to you until you show such a willingness.

Tom

`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll-
Go to Top of Page

tomk80
SFN Regular

Netherlands
1278 Posts

Posted - 11/22/2006 :  07:01:29   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit tomk80's Homepage Send tomk80 a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
I remembering hearing in grade school that every cell in the human body is replaced every 7 years. Using the same line of thinking, I wondered if in 7 years time I would be aware that nothing about me was the same.


For clarity. Some cells you have all your life, for example brian cells. However, all the fatty acids, proteins etc that they consist of are replaced. Just in case people think that replacing here means the original cell dying and being replaced by a new cell (as happens with blood cells for example).

Tom

`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll-
Go to Top of Page

ergo123
BANNED

USA
810 Posts

Posted - 11/22/2006 :  09:08:11   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send ergo123 a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by tomk80

quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
<snip whole post>

I see that you still haven't explained what desire is. Neither have you apologized for your mischaracterization of my reply. If you do not want to do either of those, there is no reason for me to think you are willing or able to have an honest discussion here. So until you do, I see no reason to respond to you until you show such a willingness.



How have I mischaracterized your reply?

No witty quotes. I think for myself.
Go to Top of Page

tomk80
SFN Regular

Netherlands
1278 Posts

Posted - 11/22/2006 :  10:54:11   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit tomk80's Homepage Send tomk80 a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123

quote:
Originally posted by tomk80

[quote]Originally posted by ergo123
<snip whole post>
How have I mischaracterized your reply?


I have explained that painstakingly clear already. I don't see the need to repeat myself.

Tom

`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll-
Go to Top of Page

ergo123
BANNED

USA
810 Posts

Posted - 11/22/2006 :  12:10:33   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send ergo123 a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by tomk80

quote:
Originally posted by ergo123

quote:
Originally posted by tomk80

[quote]Originally posted by ergo123
<snip whole post>
How have I mischaracterized your reply?


I have explained that painstakingly clear already. I don't see the need to repeat myself.



Well, it apparently wasn't clear enough to me. But if you want to withhold my alleged impass from me, there's nothing I can do...

No witty quotes. I think for myself.
Go to Top of Page

tomk80
SFN Regular

Netherlands
1278 Posts

Posted - 11/22/2006 :  13:05:56   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit tomk80's Homepage Send tomk80 a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Well, it apparently wasn't clear enough to me. But if you want to withhold my alleged impass from me, there's nothing I can do...


Okay, let's try.

You claimed that I claimed that you could claim your nobel prize because I couldn't answer a question. That was not the case. It was obvious from my posts that I said you could claim your nobel prize if you knew the answer because it has not been resolved at this point in time by the people studying the question.

See the difference in what I said and what you claimed I said?

Tom

`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll-
Go to Top of Page

tomk80
SFN Regular

Netherlands
1278 Posts

Posted - 11/22/2006 :  13:36:56   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit tomk80's Homepage Send tomk80 a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
The question of whether AI or artificial bodies with scanned and uploaded memories - both of which might act as if they are conscious - are actually conscious is not exactly the same as questioning whether people around us are conscious. Questioning the latter means putting ourselves, our own individual mind and ego at the center of things. It means entertaining such scenarios as the Matrix or The Truman Show or something far more imaginative than we've ever seen in movies. The possibility that our incomplete understanding of how consciousness arises might cause us to make some seriously big mistakes without even realizing it, is much more reasonable.

We can imagine a machine which is build to look and move exactly like a human being. We can also imagine that machine being programmed to act exactly like a human being while lacking the self awareness that it mimics with its behavior.

Actually, I do find that hard to imagine. Mimicking self awareness would also mean that you have to mimick a number of internal processes that simulate this self-awareness, such as creating an 'image' of what the program does as such or has done in the past. But if this happen, I see no reason to think that this would not automatically result in self-awareness, perhaps not as intended but at least as a necessary byproduct of programming such responses.

quote:
If we can imagine that, why not imagine that a destructive brain scan then uploaded into an artificial brain and body might transfer enough information to function as it is supposed to, without including the actual consciousness. This would be synonymous to the hologram characters from Star Trek who are programmed to act like certain real people for the purpose of entertaining or informing the visitor, but who are not actually self aware. So what is the fiction, the holograms who come alive or the ones who never do? And can we ever really know that answer? The nightmare scenario could be that we eventually upload all human “minds” into artificial brains and bodies where they seem to continue being human, but in reality are only behaving as if aware, while truly unaware of themselves. And the scariest part of that nightmare is that nobody would even realize it was happening.

I see your point. I just don't see how that could work. See what I wrote above.

quote:
Of course I tend to agree philosophically with Kurtzweil. I think machines will eventually be as sentient as humans. Don't know if we'll ever get to the point where we can actually scan our own minds and put them into another set of hardware, but I tend to think it is possible and even probable given enough time.

I would agree here. Although I am a bit doubtful about whether we will create such a machine on purpose, or whether it will arise as an emergent property of something we have created not for that purpose.

quote:
It matters quite a lot at this stage in the game because right now relatively little is understood about the brain; certainly far less than is understood about arms and legs.


I don't think the risk you describe above is really present here. Because if we would try to copy a consciousness to a compute

Tom

`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll-
Go to Top of Page

ergo123
BANNED

USA
810 Posts

Posted - 11/22/2006 :  19:52:58   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send ergo123 a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by tomk80

quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Well, it apparently wasn't clear enough to me. But if you want to withhold my alleged impass from me, there's nothing I can do...


Okay, let's try.

You claimed that I claimed that you could claim your nobel prize because I couldn't answer a question. That was not the case. It was obvious from my posts that I said you could claim your nobel prize if you knew the answer because it has not been resolved at this point in time by the people studying the question.

See the difference in what I said and what you claimed I said?



Oh, that post. Ha--I didn't even know which one you were talking about...

But I didn't mischaracterize that post. Sure, I responded to what you meant vs. what words you used to say it. But that whole "if I don't know it it must be Nobel-level" schtick has been around since thr Nobel Prizes were first awarded.

No witty quotes. I think for myself.
Go to Top of Page

tomk80
SFN Regular

Netherlands
1278 Posts

Posted - 11/23/2006 :  01:39:45   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit tomk80's Homepage Send tomk80 a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123

quote:
Originally posted by tomk80

quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Well, it apparently wasn't clear enough to me. But if you want to withhold my alleged impass from me, there's nothing I can do...


Okay, let's try.

You claimed that I claimed that you could claim your nobel prize because I couldn't answer a question. That was not the case. It was obvious from my posts that I said you could claim your nobel prize if you knew the answer because it has not been resolved at this point in time by the people studying the question.

See the difference in what I said and what you claimed I said?



Oh, that post. Ha--I didn't even know which one you were talking about...

But I didn't mischaracterize that post. Sure, I responded to what you meant vs. what words you used to say it.

That's the point, you didn't respond to what I meant.

quote:
But that whole "if I don't know it it must be Nobel-level" schtick has been around since thr Nobel Prizes were first awarded.


But it is true also. Unless, of course, you can show that that question has already been solved. So be my guest, show that I am wrong in thinking the question has not been solved yet.

Tom

`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll-
Go to Top of Page

ergo123
BANNED

USA
810 Posts

Posted - 11/23/2006 :  07:41:36   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send ergo123 a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by tomk80

quote:
Originally posted by ergo123

quote:
Originally posted by tomk80

quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Well, it apparently wasn't clear enough to me. But if you want to withhold my alleged impass from me, there's nothing I can do...


Okay, let's try.

You claimed that I claimed that you could claim your nobel prize because I couldn't answer a question. That was not the case. It was obvious from my posts that I said you could claim your nobel prize if you knew the answer because it has not been resolved at this point in time by the people studying the question.

See the difference in what I said and what you claimed I said?



Oh, that post. Ha--I didn't even know which one you were talking about...

But I didn't mischaracterize that post. Sure, I responded to what you meant vs. what words you used to say it.

That's the point, you didn't respond to what I meant.

How can that not be what you meant? If you knew the answer to the question (like I do), you wouldn't think it was Nobel-worthy.

quote:
quote:
But that whole "if I don't know it it must be Nobel-level" schtick has been around since thr Nobel Prizes were first awarded.


But it is true also. Unless, of course, you can show that that question has already been solved. So be my guest, show that I am wrong in thinking the question has not been solved yet.



Clearly, the truth of the fact that I know the answer does not rest on me telling you the answer.

No witty quotes. I think for myself.
Go to Top of Page

tomk80
SFN Regular

Netherlands
1278 Posts

Posted - 11/23/2006 :  08:17:42   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit tomk80's Homepage Send tomk80 a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Clearly, the truth of the fact that I know the answer does not rest on me telling you the answer.


Clearly, you are a troll. Clearly, you do not know the answer, otherwise you would have told it by now.

Tom

`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll-
Go to Top of Page

marfknox
SFN Die Hard

USA
3739 Posts

Posted - 11/23/2006 :  14:34:27   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit marfknox's Homepage  Send marfknox an AOL message Send marfknox a Private Message
Tom wrote:
quote:
Actually, I do find that hard to imagine. Mimicking self awareness would also mean that you have to mimick a number of internal processes that simulate this self-awareness, such as creating an 'image' of what the program does as such or has done in the past. But if this happen, I see no reason to think that this would not automatically result in self-awareness, perhaps not as intended but at least as a necessary byproduct of programming such responses.
I think the assertion that anything mimicking self awareness must also mimic internal processes is inaccurate, or at least, unproven. We do not yet know exactly what stimulates self awareness. At least not what from I've read on AI and neuroscientific research. Perhaps I am wrong about this. Anyone else have further info on this topic?

"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong

Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com

Edited by - marfknox on 11/23/2006 14:34:54
Go to Top of Page

ergo123
BANNED

USA
810 Posts

Posted - 11/23/2006 :  19:54:14   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send ergo123 a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by tomk80

quote:
Originally posted by ergo123
Clearly, the truth of the fact that I know the answer does not rest on me telling you the answer.


Clearly, you are a troll. Clearly, you do not know the answer, otherwise you would have told it by now.



Really? Why are either of your assertions "clear?" Is it because you want it to be clear?

No witty quotes. I think for myself.
Go to Top of Page

ergo123
BANNED

USA
810 Posts

Posted - 11/23/2006 :  20:19:47   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send ergo123 a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox

Tom wrote:
quote:
Actually, I do find that hard to imagine. Mimicking self awareness would also mean that you have to mimick a number of internal processes that simulate this self-awareness, such as creating an 'image' of what the program does as such or has done in the past. But if this happen, I see no reason to think that this would not automatically result in self-awareness, perhaps not as intended but at least as a necessary byproduct of programming such responses.
I think the assertion that anything mimicking self awareness must also mimic internal processes is inaccurate, or at least, unproven. We do not yet know exactly what stimulates self awareness. At least not what from I've read on AI and neuroscientific research. Perhaps I am wrong about this. Anyone else have further info on this topic?



Marfknox: You are correct. There have, indeed, been computers programmed to mimic self awareness that do not actually possess or mimic the complex internal processes of the human brain. Nor has any unexpected processes arisen as an emergent property. I think tom has watched too many episodes of Star Trek...

No witty quotes. I think for myself.
Go to Top of Page

tomk80
SFN Regular

Netherlands
1278 Posts

Posted - 11/23/2006 :  20:29:52   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit tomk80's Homepage Send tomk80 a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
I think the assertion that anything mimicking self awareness must also mimic internal processes is inaccurate, or at least, unproven. We do not yet know exactly what stimulates self awareness. At least not what from I've read on AI and neuroscientific research. Perhaps I am wrong about this. Anyone else have further info on this topic?


Oh, I am definitely not saying it is proven in any way. I just see know way on how to do it. Sure, there have been attempts to pull it off, but none of them really have worked very well. I think there might be a good reason for this, which is that you need to simulate certain internal processes to make such a program truly effective. I just don't see in what other way this would work.

Tom

`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll-
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 4 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.2 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000