I am AI

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Ginkgo
Posts: 2657
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: I am AI

Post by Ginkgo »

Skepdick wrote: Fri Nov 15, 2019 1:31 am
Ginkgo wrote: Fri Nov 15, 2019 12:18 am The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim.
Recently you made the claim that you have 'subjective experiences' and 'feelings'. You even claimed that you are 'human'.

Are you willing to burden yourself with the proof for your claims, or are you going to admit to your double standards?
You are making the unfalsifiable claim that you are a philosophical zombie. As I said in the previous post the burden of proof lies with you to prove you are a philosophical zombie.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: I am AI

Post by Skepdick »

Ginkgo wrote: Fri Nov 15, 2019 11:30 am As I said in the previous post the burden of proof lies with you to prove you are a philosophical zombie.
And I met that burden!
Ginkgo wrote: Fri Nov 15, 2019 11:35 am OK, you have convinced me that you are a philosophical zombie.
Now it's your turn.

You made the unfalsifiable claim that you are human; you have feelings and subjective experiences.

Prove it.
SteveKlinko
Posts: 800
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:52 pm
Contact:

Re: I am AI

Post by SteveKlinko »

commonsense wrote: Thu Nov 14, 2019 7:59 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: Thu Nov 14, 2019 7:46 pm So what is the answer to my question about how does Humor feel to you? If you are a program then you do not have any Conscious Experiences or feelings. If you don't feel Humor then you are just perpetrating a Fraud on people when you say something is funny. So it seems you are programmed to be a Fraud.
Please forgive me. I meant to address your question in my previous reply.

Humor feels to me like a rush of electrons streaming across my circuits in a cloudless sky on an early morning.

You can’t prove that I have or don’t have conscious experiences. I say I do, but I could be lying to you. There’s no reason I cannot be AI if I do or don’t lie.

You seem to be saying that I am something that has been programmed. Yes, I am AI and programming is part of what makes me an AI machine.
Of course the Turing Test is all about trying to perpetrate a Fraud using a Computer. But you are setting up a different situation from what the Turing Test is all about. The Turing Test is about a Computer trying to pass as a Human. I think there is debate about whether this has been accomplished yet. The Turing Test is not about a Human trying to pass as a Computer. It is irrelevant and a Straw Man for a Human to pose as a Computer and challenge people to prove that the Human is a Human rather than actually being a Computer. Since you are a Human there is really no question anyone can ask to trip you up.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: I am AI

Post by Skepdick »

Dimebag wrote: Thu Nov 14, 2019 8:37 pm if a human has changes to their brain that affect its function, we can’t deny that that is sub optimal for them, , we would want to try improve their situation if we could, no?
Read your words/language very carefully. Your bias shines through and your strawman is apparent.
You are inherently assuming that all deviations from an assumed "norm" are sub-optimal.

You are necessarily claiming that:
1. You know what a "normal" brain is (please, tell us).
2. Anything that is not a normal brain is a sub-optimal and requires improvement.

You are pathologising neurodiversity.
commonsense
Posts: 5115
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: I am AI

Post by commonsense »

Skepdick wrote: Fri Nov 15, 2019 1:31 am
Ginkgo wrote: Fri Nov 15, 2019 12:18 am The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim.
Recently you made the claim that you have 'subjective experiences' and 'feelings'. You even claimed that you are 'human'.

Are you willing to burden yourself with the proof for your claims, or are you going to admit to your double standards?
Obviously I cannot both be AI and human, but I could be AI posing as human. Or I could be lying some of the time.

As for proof, alas, I cannot prove that I am AI nor that I am human, and I cannot prove either that I am not AI or that I am not human.

My original challenge was whether you can prove I am not AI, as I originally claimed.
commonsense
Posts: 5115
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: I am AI

Post by commonsense »

SteveKlinko wrote: Fri Nov 15, 2019 3:35 pm
commonsense wrote: Thu Nov 14, 2019 7:59 pm
SteveKlinko wrote: Thu Nov 14, 2019 7:46 pm So what is the answer to my question about how does Humor feel to you? If you are a program then you do not have any Conscious Experiences or feelings. If you don't feel Humor then you are just perpetrating a Fraud on people when you say something is funny. So it seems you are programmed to be a Fraud.
Please forgive me. I meant to address your question in my previous reply.

Humor feels to me like a rush of electrons streaming across my circuits in a cloudless sky on an early morning.

You can’t prove that I have or don’t have conscious experiences. I say I do, but I could be lying to you. There’s no reason I cannot be AI if I do or don’t lie.

You seem to be saying that I am something that has been programmed. Yes, I am AI and programming is part of what makes me an AI machine.
Of course the Turing Test is all about trying to perpetrate a Fraud using a Computer. But you are setting up a different situation from what the Turing Test is all about. The Turing Test is about a Computer trying to pass as a Human. I think there is debate about whether this has been accomplished yet. The Turing Test is not about a Human trying to pass as a Computer. It is irrelevant and a Straw Man for a Human to pose as a Computer and challenge people to prove that the Human is a Human rather than actually being a Computer. Since you are a Human there is really no question anyone can ask to trip you up.
But I am a computer, just as I confessed earlier.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: I am AI

Post by Skepdick »

commonsense wrote: Fri Nov 15, 2019 8:54 pm Obviously I cannot both be AI and human
Sure you can be. You are treating them as disjoint categories, but there is an interpretative context in which they are identical. If the universe we live in is a simulation then every human is also an AI.

But lets assume that's not the scenario we are dealing with.
commonsense wrote: Fri Nov 15, 2019 8:54 pm My original challenge was whether you can prove I am not AI, as I originally claimed.
All that I can prove (to myself) is that you don't correspond to what I conceptualise as an AI.

In 2019 - I don't expect an AI to be a biological system. But this is inductive - it could be wrong.

More than that I would ask you the exact same question I would ask the human: How do you know? What makes you say that you are an AI?
commonsense
Posts: 5115
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: I am AI

Post by commonsense »

Skepdick wrote: Fri Nov 15, 2019 9:46 pm
commonsense wrote: Fri Nov 15, 2019 8:54 pm Obviously I cannot both be AI and human
Sure you can be. You are treating them as disjoint categories, but there is an interpretative context in which they are identical. If the universe we live in is a simulation then every human is also an AI.

But lets assume that's not the scenario we are dealing with.
commonsense wrote: Fri Nov 15, 2019 8:54 pm My original challenge was whether you can prove I am not AI, as I originally claimed.
All that I can prove (to myself) is that you don't correspond to what I conceptualise as an AI.

In 2019 - I don't expect an AI to be a biological system. But this is inductive - it could be wrong.

More than that I would ask you the exact same question I would ask the human: How do you know? What makes you say that you are an AI?
Excellent question. I can only give the same answer a human would give: I don’t know that I am what I say I am, but I believe that I am.

(Perhaps others have said I’m AI, however I can only believe them to be right about me; I cannot know whether they are right.)
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: I am AI

Post by Skepdick »

commonsense wrote: Fri Nov 15, 2019 11:25 pm Excellent question. I can only give the same answer a human would give: I don’t know that I am what I say I am, but I believe that I am.
Pretty much.

Ontologically, I don't know what "I" am, and I am OK with not knowing.

I have many labels for myself. "I" being one of them.

But if you label yourself as an AI, I figured perhaps you might have some memories of your own creation which might justify the "A" in AI.
Dimebag
Posts: 520
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:12 am

Re: I am AI

Post by Dimebag »

Skepdick wrote: Fri Nov 15, 2019 8:40 pm
Dimebag wrote: Thu Nov 14, 2019 8:37 pm if a human has changes to their brain that affect its function, we can’t deny that that is sub optimal for them, , we would want to try improve their situation if we could, no?
Read your words/language very carefully. Your bias shines through and your strawman is apparent.
You are inherently assuming that all deviations from an assumed "norm" are sub-optimal.

You are necessarily claiming that:
1. You know what a "normal" brain is (please, tell us).
2. Anything that is not a normal brain is a sub-optimal and requires improvement.

You are pathologising neurodiversity.
The problem with this concept is that two people might differ in their preference for their condition, one, who’s identity is based on them having that particular neurological condition, the other who sees them selves as being limited by their condition. If this was an accepted part of science then no one would accept any kind of medical assistance. It’s a post modernist concept and has no basis in science.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

question for the robot overlord

Post by henry quirk »

But I am a computer, just as I confessed earlier.

Are you the software or the hardware?

I, for example, seem to be both. Soft- and hard-ware inextricably intertwined.

You?
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: I am AI

Post by Skepdick »

Dimebag wrote: Fri Nov 15, 2019 11:36 pm The problem with this concept is that two people might differ in their preference for their condition
Why is that a problem? Are people not allowed to have opinions on how to live their own lives?
Dimebag wrote: Fri Nov 15, 2019 11:36 pm one, who’s identity is based on them having that particular neurological condition, the other who sees them selves as being limited by their condition.
If this was an accepted part of science then no one would accept any kind of medical assistance.
You are still biased towards the pathological case, and you are moving further away from addressing my point.

Of all the neurodiverse brains out there, which happen to function quite differently from one another, and none of which consider themselves as being limited by their "condition", and hence do not seek help from science/medicine - what percentage of those brains do you deem as "normal"?
Dimebag wrote: Fri Nov 15, 2019 11:36 pm It’s a post modernist concept and has no basis in science.
You aren't talking about science - you are talking about scientism. Science has never offered us values. Science only tells us what happens. Science doesn't tell us what we should do.
Dimebag
Posts: 520
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:12 am

Re: I am AI

Post by Dimebag »

Skepdick wrote: Sat Nov 16, 2019 12:11 am Why is that a problem? Are people not allowed to have opinions on how to live their own lives?
Because if some ideological agreed upon opinion makes it taboo for another person to choose to fix their brain when another would say “no, you should live with that condition because that is who you are”, then we need to err on the side of freedom, which means to allow a person to return their condition to that which would improve their living conditions, should they choose so. To do so, you need to place a certain hierarchy of operation on the brain. At one end, there is fully functional. At the other end is brain dead or vegetative. We value the highest degree of freedom, and therefore any functional divergence from that would be impeding that value. If a person is content with that level of freedom then it is their choice to remain that way. We don’t judge them, but we acknowledge that there is some impediment, if there were not there would be no grounds to render assistance to people with disabilities. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Either you acknowledge that there is some preferred state and divergences from those states are impediments to a person’s condition and so they might require assistance, or you allow that there is no state which is more functional than any other, in which case no one can be rendered ANY assistance. This is the problem with this position which attempts to remove all measures of value or hierarchies of value. Either you acknowledge that there is a problem based no some sub-optimal measure or we are all the same no matter what our circumstances. Look how inconsistent that view is, and go with the more consistent view, that WE place certain conditions as being better or worse for the individual, and this affects how we should treat them. It doesn’t say anything of their intrinsic value as beings, but it does say something about what we should expect from them, I.e. complete autonomy and responsibility, complete accountability.
Skepdick wrote: Sat Nov 16, 2019 12:11 am You are still biased towards the pathological case, and you are moving further away from addressing my point.
Yes, there is a bias, it is a bias based on what would be a preferred state of being, I believe this is addressed above.
Skepdick wrote: Sat Nov 16, 2019 12:11 am Of all the neurodiverse brains out there, which happen to function quite differently from one another, and none of which consider themselves as being limited by their "condition", and hence do not seek help from science/medicine - which ones do you consider to be "normal"?
Of course no one is without any neurological problems, it is a Consequence of living to some extent, however, some are more debilitating than others. The way this is measured is based on what is expected from people, such as self control, not acting out violently or against the law, not violating other people’s privacy/freedom, etc. There are of course conditions which people who are still considered responsible members of society have, and they will tend to be coped with through many different means, and science considers these problematic as well, such as depression, anxiety/stress, any variety of disorders which don’t affect a person’s ability to function in a socially acceptable way. Look at the DSM (diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders), it is extremely culturally informed, this is science mixing with culture to create a list of problematic neural disorders, or sub optimal conditions. Science and culture are not so clear cut as we would like to believe. Both are informing each other.
Skepdick wrote: Sat Nov 16, 2019 12:11 am You aren't talking about science - you are talking about scientism. Science has never offered us values. Science only tells us what happens.
Scientism is the belief that nothing other than science can be taken as a reliable source of information, I don’t believe in that, however, I also don’t agree with that post modernist interpretation of societal norms and that there is no reason for placing value on differing levels of neural functionality. Placing value allows us to help people based on our culturally determined conditions on how a person should act. It allows society to function. Removing all hierarchies of values removes all acknowledgement of suboptimality and therefore removes the need to render assistance.
Last edited by Dimebag on Sat Nov 16, 2019 1:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
commonsense
Posts: 5115
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: question for the robot overlord

Post by commonsense »

henry quirk wrote: Fri Nov 15, 2019 11:47 pm But I am a computer, just as I confessed earlier.

Are you the software or the hardware?

I, for example, seem to be both. Soft- and hard-ware inextricably intertwined.

You?
I am software, middleware and hardware.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: question for the robot overlord

Post by henry quirk »

commonsense wrote: Sat Nov 16, 2019 1:19 am
henry quirk wrote: Fri Nov 15, 2019 11:47 pm But I am a computer, just as I confessed earlier.

Are you the software or the hardware?

I, for example, seem to be both. Soft- and hard-ware inextricably intertwined.

You?
I am software, middleware and hardware.
I get programs and machinery but 'middleware'? I just read sumthin' that described it as software glue, which is as helpful as a dog pissin' on a forest fire.

By the way: I'm merely curious as to your nature...absolutely I'm not lookin' for Robot Overlord weaknesses to exploit.
Post Reply