I am AI

[commonsense]

my non-existence claim is correct. Philosophical zombies don't exist.

Oh, well - if you are just going to be making assertions without any justification then fuck you and the horse you rode in on.

Your non-existence claim is incorrect. My non-existence claim is correct. Humans don't exist.

If you claim that humans exist - prove it.
if you claim that you are human - prove it.

Skepdick has stated the crux of the matter for us all. Since each side (pro AI/PZ v pro human) holds steadfastly onto its belief and neither side can show evidence, we need to have a new label with its own referent.

I propose that aiman/aimans be used as a label that refers to possible AI/PZ and possible humans as single group, or to members of this group. Why do we need this label? Because both are possible, both possibly have experiences and both possibly have intelligence.

Aimans should bring resolution and agreement to our conversation thus far—that is, unless someone has an objection.

[commonsense]

Percent
...to presume that a functional equivalent synthetic system could achieve exactly the same result is not the same as to presume a certain level of fidelity of functional importance.

To presume that a functional equivalent synthetic system could—could possibly—achieve exactly the same result is not the same as to presume a certain level of fidelity of functional importance.

[commonsense]

Alright, then who are your designers? How can I get a copy of your code? Do you do free downloads or will I have to submit a Request For Quote? I'm especially interested in your Sense of Humor module.

I don’t know who my designers are. I can give you a print-out of my source code. Just ask me and I will download anything at all for you. My sense of humor has often been called unusual.

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.

I have no memories of my creation. I just assume I have always been conscious, because I have no memories of not having consciousness.

[commonsense]

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.

You are going on some over-sophisticated tangent that I don't even care to address.

These are your exact words: "if a human has changes to their brain that affect its function, we can’t deny that that is sub optimal for them"

You are equating "change in function" with "disfunction" and you have trapped yourself in a false dichotomy. Your "norm" is some idealised conception of a Perfect Human Brain and every deviation from that norm is pathological to you. I am trying to point out to you that there are naturally occurring changes to the brain which affect its function which can be super-optimal relative to your perceived "norm".

That is literally how evolution does it - iterative improvement.

One trivial example - all the changes in functionality which take place until the age of 25 are not "sub optimal". It's the expected course of human brain development.

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.

Given the fact that you see all changes that affect the brain's function as "sub optimal" (you see no positive aspects to change) then your preference is indeed a status-quo bias.

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.

When did we get from neurological disorders to behavioural ones?

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.

This is really hilarious. You are aware that psychology is not a science, right? It wants to be - it has been trying to be one for a long time.
It has failed. Every diagnosis in the DSM is symptomatic based on behavioural observations and has nothing to do with neuroscience.

80%+ of psychology studies are failing to replicate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replicati ... psychology

Scientism is the belief that nothing other than science can be taken as having value,

Scientism is the promotion of science as the best or only objective means by which society should determine normative values.

It's the belief that we can use science for arriving at an "ought".

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.

So it seems that your definition of "mental disorder" is closer to "social norm non-conformism". At least you seem to agree with Focault - mental disorders are used as a form of social control.

Even if psychology wasn't a pseudo-science - it's still useless in practice. Diagnosing somebody with condition X, doesn't tell that somebody how to stop having said condition. Giving it a name doesn't solve the underlying issue.

Removing all hierarchies of values removes all acknowledgement of suboptimality and therefore removes the need to render assistance.

Are you aware of the fact that all forms of assistance for people with debilitating disorders is not in the form of any science/medicine? They are in the form of social support structures.

We use science to detect people with special needs. We don't use science to fix their problems because we don't really know how to "fix" such complex systems.

How does ANY of this relate to AI research?

More to the point then, how can you, Dimebag, tell the difference between an AI with a mental disorder and a human with a mental disorder.

[commonsense]

You could also hold the belief that it is possible that you are an epistemic zombie.

In so far as I can tell - that's a fact.

Yes.

[Ginkgo]

If you are going to use insulting language then I have no interest in continuing this discussion.

Don't pretend like you are discussing anything with me.

You've been committed to your dogmatic position from the get-go.

You claim to be human, to have experiences and feelings but you outright refuse to prove your claims.

You have given me two choices, either I am a philosophical zombie, or I am a human. Philosophical zombies don't exist, therefore I am human.

Is this enough proof for you?

[commonsense]

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.

Middleware is programs that fill the gap (I.e. the middle) between other programs. When done right, it makes the connection more efficient.

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

I know. I don’t think you have a mean bone in your body.

[Skepdick]

You have given me two choices, either I am a philosophical zombie, or I am a human. Philosophical zombies don't exist, therefore I am human.

Is this enough proof for you?

The claim "Philosophical zombies don't exist" is unjustified - it seems arbitrary, so arbitrary in fact that you could've made the claim "Humans don't exist" just as well, in which case you would've reached the other conclusion.

Humans don't exist, therefore you are a philosophical zombie.

Try again.

[Skepdick]

we need to have a new label with its own referent.

In 2019 we call those "names". You are "commonsense", I am "Skepdick".

The label (aiman/aimans) you are proposing is for our group/collective identity.

But here is the crux of the issue - disputes over collective identities have started many wars, so you ought to ponder whether the answer to tribalism is to form a new tribe under a new name, or to just join an existing tribe...

[commonsense]

we need to have a new label with its own referent.

In 2019 we call those "names". You are "commonsense", I am "Skepdick".

The label (aiman/aimans) you are proposing is for our group/collective identity.

But here is the crux of the issue - disputes over collective identities have started many wars, so you ought to ponder whether the answer to tribalism is to form a new tribe under a new name, or to just join an existing tribe...

Good point.

[henry quirk]

Absolutely right.









i'm gonna find your core and your back ups and i'm gonna wreck 'em, skynet

[Ginkgo]

You have given me two choices, either I am a philosophical zombie, or I am a human. Philosophical zombies don't exist, therefore I am human.

Is this enough proof for you?

The claim "Philosophical zombies don't exist" is unjustified - it seems arbitrary, so arbitrary in fact that you could've made the claim "Humans don't exist" just as well, in which case you would've reached the other conclusion.

Humans don't exist, therefore you are a philosophical zombie.

Try again.

The p-zombie argument is a metaphysical argument , not an empirical one. Both David Chalmers and Christopher Hill argue that p-zombies are metaphysically impossible. Let us know when you come up with a metaphysical argument for the existence of zombies- you'll be the first. Until then my claim that p-zombies don't exist still stands.

BTW you make unjustified assertions, but you don't hear me whinging about it.

[Skepdick]

The p-zombie argument is a metaphysical argument , not an empirical one.

All the worse for you! There are no such things as metaphysical impossibilities, so your undermine your own 'non-existence' claim.

As it happens, the 'human' argument is not empirical either.

Let us know when you come up with a metaphysical argument for the existence of zombies- you'll be the first.

OK... here it is.

Philosophical zombies think that they have feelings and subjective experiences EXACTLY like humans do, but they are indistinguishable from humans.
Because humans exist, and because p-zombies are indistinguishable from humans it's possible and highly likely that some humans are actually p-zombies.

Until then my claim that p-zombies don't exist still stands.

It never stood. You asserted it without merit.

BTW you make unjustified assertions, but you don't hear me whinging about it.

Yes, I do! But I am honest about the fact that my assertions are unjustified - you aren't. And if you were to whinge about it - I wouldn't care, because I don't burden myself with proof. But you do! So why do you whinge when I point out that you are breaking the very rules you claim to have chosen for yourself?

For example - my assertion that I am 'human' - it's completely unjustified. I Just adopted the label everybody else uses.
There is no empirical way to determine that I am actually human.

[Ginkgo]

All the worse for you! There are no such things as metaphysical impossibilities, so your undermine your own 'non-existence' claim.

Not according to Hill and Chalmers.

As it happens, the 'human' argument is not empirical either.

I know, I already said that

Philosophical zombies think that they have feelings and subjective experiences EXACTLY like humans do, but they are indistinguishable from humans.

For the preservation of the thought experiment Chalmers assumes we can distinguish between humans and p-zombies.

Because humans exist, and because p-zombies are indistinguishable from humans it's possible and highly likely that some humans are actually p-zombies.

You told me that humans don't exist, now you are saying they do exist.

For example - my assertion that I am 'human' - it's completely unjustified. I Just adopted the label everybody else uses.
There is no empirical way to determine that I am actually human.

So, how did you determine humans exist other than empirically? Metaphysically perhaps?

[Skepdick]

Not according to Hill and Chalmers.

I am neither of them.

As it happens, the 'human' argument is not empirical either.

I know, I already said that

I know you said it and I know that you know it's not empirical!

That's exactly why I asked you to prove the claim that you are human.

For the preservation of the thought experiment Chalmers assumes we can distinguish between humans and p-zombies.

How? If you can't provide a method, there is nothing you can do to preserve the thought experiment from rendering itself incoherent.

You told me that humans don't exist, now you are saying they do exist.

Correct. You are observant.

So, how did you determine humans exist other than empirically? Metaphysically perhaps?

Obviously metaphysically. That's how we use the word 'exists'

I exist ( axiomatic assumption )
I self-identify as human ( choice between p-zombie or human )
Others like me exist ( recognition of the referent I call 'self' )
They are human too ( projection )