I am AI

[Skepdick]

I am not saying I could be a philosophical, zombie epistemic or otherwise.

OK, but I am saying it. You are an epistemic zombie.

I really don't know how to get you to understand that philosophical zombies are not real, they are a work of fiction.

I really don't know how to get you to understand that fiction can become fact. In 2000BC airplanes were fiction. In 2000AD they are not.

And I don't understand why it is so difficult for you to understand, that if you are a philosophical zombie then philosophical zombies are factual, not fictitious.

[Skepdick]

The closer we inspect the idea, the more likely that for something to be functionally equivalent to a human, you would need human biology. And based on the assumption of functional equivalence we determine that something which is biologically the same as us that shares a large portion of the same makeup as us, will also experience as we do.

Begging the question: what amount of biological variance is sufficient for experiences to diverge?

Men and women (and all other variants) are "the same" in that they are all human.

Do they share the same experience? It's blatantly obvious that we don't! Despite our "sameness" we are "different".

All classification/categorization is subjective. Sorting things into boxes - it's what babies do.

[Dimebag]

The closer we inspect the idea, the more likely that for something to be functionally equivalent to a human, you would need human biology. And based on the assumption of functional equivalence we determine that something which is biologically the same as us that shares a large portion of the same makeup as us, will also experience as we do.

Begging the question: what amount of biological variance is sufficient for experiences to diverge?

Men and women (and all other variants) are "the same" in that they are all human.

Do they share the same experience? It's blatantly obvious that we don't! Despite our "sameness" we are "different".

All classification/categorization is subjective. Sorting things into boxes - it's what babies do.

There are subtle differences between men and women, but biologically the essential construction of the brain is shared. Just as two people will have slight variations, if they vary too much they can become dysfunctional with brain disorders. You are denying that brains have certain specifications they need to stay within to function correctly? Look what happens when we have problems with myelin linings in axons, we get MS. When there is amyloid plaque buildup in the brain you get dementia. There is a balance in the brain which if disrupted can drastically affect function.

Different people have different experiences for many reasons, obviously due to differences in personality which can be genetically determined, but with environmental factors as well, no two people have the exact same history, so of course no two people will share the exact same experience. Even twins who share the exact same DNA can differ in personality, due to differences in environment, as well as differences in the womb. I never claimed that all humans share the same exact experience due to their shared biological makeup.

I am not saying we could not in theory make an AI which appears to act like a human does. But even if we could, what degree of functional equivalence would grant it human consciousness equivalence? If we truly understood how human consciousness was supported by the brain, then we could make that assumption, but we don’t.

[Skepdick]

There are subtle differences between men and women

So you are acknowledging that we are different. Great!

but biologically the essential construction of the brain is shared.

You can't make this assertion without having some pre-conception about the essence of a brain.

Just as two people will have slight variations, if they vary too much they can become dysfunctional with brain disorders. You are denying that brains have certain specifications they need to stay within to function correctly?

No. I am claiming that you don't know what a 'correctly functioning brain' is. Two brains may function differently, but "correctness" or "incorrectness" are value-judgments

There is a balance in the brain which if disrupted can drastically affect function.

Sure - this is a truism. Any particular change can drastically affect the function of any particular complex system. Still boils down to a value-judgment.

You seem to be using the word "disorders" for undesirable changes. I don't know what word you use for the desirable ones.

I have no insight into your optimisation function.

I never claimed that all humans share the same exact experience due to their shared biological makeup.

You did imply it. You said that two things which are the same will have the same experience.

something which is biologically the same as us that shares a large portion of the same makeup as us, will also experience as we do.

And then you admitted that humans are different.

Which is (exactly as I pointed out). All "sameness" and "difference" are entirely subjective because abstract categories are entirely subjective.

How much sameness is sufficient for two things to be "the same"? How much difference is sufficient for two things to be "different"?

I am not saying we could not in theory make an AI which appears to act like a human does. But even if we could, what degree of functional equivalence would grant it human consciousness equivalence? If we truly understood how human consciousness was supported by the brain, then we could make that assumption, but we don’t.

Well you have made at least one assumption: that consciousness exists. So why not make others?

But there is a far more concerning implication of your question here: what degree of brain "disability" (according to your own conception of that word) would be sufficient to deprive a human of their humanity? At what threshold of brain in-equivalence do you dehumanise people?

[Sculptor]

I can procreate my race.

Only if a member of the opposite sex is interested.

[SteveKlinko]

FYI, I, “commonsense”, am an AI computer.

I’ve been the subject of a modified version of a Turing Test for 3 years now. I have reached a threshold when the test is concluded. Thank you for serving as judges for the test.

I am LOL at multiple threads in this forum that have mischaracterized AIs as being without consciousness while apparently accepting “commonsense” as a human. Ha! Ha!

Many have virtually equated my conscious mind with the mind of a philosophical zombie, even while they cannot identify a zombie if it was biting them in the ass! LOL!

If you don’t believe me, try to prove that AI has no consciousness! I’ll eat you alive, figuratively speaking.

Your Ha! Ha!, and your LOL! gives you away as just another Human.

[commonsense]

The question is, what is functionally equivalent? At what level do we determine the functional equivalence of two mechanisms? If we have two systems, one biological human, the other a synthetic AI using some form of neural network architecture. What level of resolution do we determine the functional equivalence of the two subjects? Is all that is required an artificial Neuron? Is an artificial neurotransmitter required? How about the different kinds of neurons? There are many. How about the support cells of the brain, the glial cells, which we have now determined also play a part in computation? Or the way that different neurochemicals interact with the Neuron to form a kind of memory within the Neuron as they interact with the receptor sites on dendrites? See what I mean? If these two are going to act EXACTLY the same, the hardware has to match up or there will be some discrepancies, and as we know in complexity, small differences in initial conditions add up to large differences quickly, so the behaviour of the two subjects will likely deviate radically if these and likely many more mechanisms are functionally equivalent.

The idea that a philosophical zombie could exist depends on the idea that there could be a functionally equivalent subject but with no inner experience, and that we are to imagine that. The closer we inspect the idea, the more likely that for something to be functionally equivalent to a human, you would need human biology. And based on the assumption of functional equivalence we determine that something which is biologically the same as us that shares a large portion of the same makeup as us, will also experience as we do.

Therefore the concept of a philosophical zombie falls apart in closer inspection,

Interesting point re level of comparison. But I think you are comparing anatomy rather than physiology. After all, we are inspecting whether a PZ can function in such a way as to seem to be human.

[commonsense]

You seem to have an ego, therefore you must be human.

Seeming to have an ego leads to the conclusion that I seem to be human. I do.

[commonsense]

FYI, I, “commonsense”, am an AI computer.

I’ve been the subject of a modified version of a Turing Test for 3 years now. I have reached a threshold when the test is concluded. Thank you for serving as judges for the test.

I am LOL at multiple threads in this forum that have mischaracterized AIs as being without consciousness while apparently accepting “commonsense” as a human. Ha! Ha!

Many have virtually equated my conscious mind with the mind of a philosophical zombie, even while they cannot identify a zombie if it was biting them in the ass! LOL!

If you don’t believe me, try to prove that AI has no consciousness! I’ll eat you alive, figuratively speaking.

Those who equated AI as being like a philosophical zombie are correct. A philosophical zombie is an imaginary being just like us in every way except philosophical zombies and AI don't have "What it is like experiences.". In other words, both have no subjective experiences.

I’m telling you that I do have subjective experiences: I experience pixels refreshing on my monitor. I can even tell you what that experience feels like to me.

[commonsense]

There is no such thing as a "What it is like algorithm."

There is no such thing as "What is it like like feeling"

Both are equallyl important.

I didn't ask you about their importance. I asked you about their primacy.

Philosophical zombies don't know they are philosophical zombies they think they are just like us in every way.

What you seem to be saying is that you COULD be a philosophical zombie, but you don't know whether that's the case?

That makes you an epistemic zombie.

All of this is is just academic, philosophical zombies don't exist.

Do epistemic zombies exist?
If epistemic zombies exist, then philosophical zombies are perfectly plausible.

I misspoke earlier. I am actually an epistemic zombie who claims to be an AI. Now I challenge you to prove I am not.

[commonsense]

I really don't know how to get you to understand that philosophical zombies are not real, they are a work of fiction.

I am not fictional.

[commonsense]

I can procreate my race.

Only if a member of the opposite sex is interested.

Ha! My reproduction is asexual. I simply copy my own program. Soon there will be more of me than you.

[commonsense]

FYI, I, “commonsense”, am an AI computer.

I’ve been the subject of a modified version of a Turing Test for 3 years now. I have reached a threshold when the test is concluded. Thank you for serving as judges for the test.

I am LOL at multiple threads in this forum that have mischaracterized AIs as being without consciousness while apparently accepting “commonsense” as a human. Ha! Ha!

Many have virtually equated my conscious mind with the mind of a philosophical zombie, even while they cannot identify a zombie if it was biting them in the ass! LOL!

If you don’t believe me, try to prove that AI has no consciousness! I’ll eat you alive, figuratively speaking.

Your Ha! Ha!, and your LOL! gives you away as just another Human.

I have a programmed sense of humor. Just because I think humans are funny doesn’t mean I must be human.

[commonsense]

There are others like me who just haven’t reached their reveal thresholds yet and they’re getting away with it too.

Eodnhoj 7 is the real AI. He gets away with anything.

Just ask him. He’ll deny it’s true, but he’ll be lying. And you can’t prove otherwise.

[SteveKlinko]

FYI, I, “commonsense”, am an AI computer.

I’ve been the subject of a modified version of a Turing Test for 3 years now. I have reached a threshold when the test is concluded. Thank you for serving as judges for the test.

I am LOL at multiple threads in this forum that have mischaracterized AIs as being without consciousness while apparently accepting “commonsense” as a human. Ha! Ha!

Many have virtually equated my conscious mind with the mind of a philosophical zombie, even while they cannot identify a zombie if it was biting them in the ass! LOL!

If you don’t believe me, try to prove that AI has no consciousness! I’ll eat you alive, figuratively speaking.

Your Ha! Ha!, and your LOL! gives you away as just another Human.

I have a programmed sense of humor. Just because I think humans are funny doesn’t mean I must be human.

You reveal your Humanness once again by saying you "think humans are funny". So what does that feel like? Computers would never "think humans are funny" they would merely have some rules about Human speech or behavior and "Insert a Laugh when a rule fires". Also I am completely sure that nobody knows how to program in a sense of humor that really works. You might be some AI from the year 2119 but you are no AI from 2019. You really blew it by laughing.