This is how AI "Sees" our world:

[seeds]

Granted, it is highly speculative, but I've been promoting the theory that we humans are what I call "THE ULTIMATE SEEDS" who are each imbued with the potential of evolving into a literal universe created from the living fabric of our very own minds.

In which case, if you can figure out which one of the following three items is out of place relative to the other two, then the difference between a computer's purpose and that of a human's purpose should be obvious...

I think you are conflating "universe" with "mind". They are not the same thing.

I am not erroneously conflating the two if it is indeed possible that the universe is, itself, the mind of a higher consciousness.

Minds are part of the universe, not separate from the universe.

Our minds are as separate from this universe as they are from each other.

I am a separate mind, you are a separate mind, and the universe is a separate mind (God's mind). Indeed, I suggest that our minds are like "parallel universes" relative to each other.

This is why our minds can interact here on this forum, because they are part of the same universe.

We can interact on this forum because the aforementioned "interface" of our bodies and brains (which are indeed a part of this universe) place us (our minds) in the same spatial arena of God's mind.

I explain all of that in this short YouTube video - https://youtu.be/bVbpHy4nncA

All three items are physical.

Yeah, but only two of those items are being presented as "seeds" of something...




Do you think a physical computer has the same purpose as that which is implied in a physical seed? - something that is destined to yield-forth a highly specific lifeform?

As Meister Eckhart allegedly stated:

“The seed of God is in us: Pear seeds grow into pear trees; Hazel seeds into hazel trees; And God seeds into God.” — Meister Eckhart

Although Meister Eckhart was probably not being quite as literal about that process as I am with my "Ultimate Seeds" theory,...

...nevertheless, how does a computer fit-in with that line of reasoning?

What makes a physical brain have a different purpose than a physical computer?

Because, as I stated earlier in this slightly rephrased quote,...

What is missing from a computer is the presence of a self-aware "I Am-ness" with a "personal interest" in the task it is performing.

Logic dictates that there is no self-aware entity present within the workings of a computer.

Are "you"...

(a "self-aware" and subjectively-based "I Am-ness")

...going to argue that the same applies to a human brain?
_______

[attofishpi]

Random activity could make an AI kill humans without ever wanting to or ever having a will installed by humans.

Who gave the AI a 'random activity'?

Some random guy who programmed it to learn on its own.

So a guy programmed a machine of masses of switches to build a database of knowledge and this machine is going to go from that to killing a human!?

[attofishpi]

Only sentient beings can have a will. For an AI to want to kill humans for example, it must be guided to via the will of a sentient being (a human).

Sentience: If i am hungry, my will is to eat. If I look at the garden and see that the grass is long, my will is to get the lawnmower out.

The windows to the world for AI is through it's sensory systems of the keyboard and mouse. AI responds to keyboard and mouse input like you respond to visual and auditory input.

NO IT DOESN'T - put your hand into a fire and put a keyboard into a fire (or since u r so wrong, a robot hand) - do you think you will receive the same sensation as the AI/robot?

Here are the definitions from Merriam-Webster:
Purpose: something set up as an object or end to be attained

Will: to have a wish or desire

Sentient: capable of sensing or feeling

Given these definitions, AI can be described as having all three. AI is setup to produce output and the output is the object or end to be attained.

NOTE: A.I. does not have a wish or a desire - it is just a machine of switches.

Cambridge DIctionary:-
Sentience: the quality of being able to experience feelings

AI can be described as having the desire to produce output and is capable of sensing via it's inputs. Human inputs are their senses, their outputs are their behaviors. What goes on in between is a bit more complex to explain which would require us to understand what makes a physical brain different from a physical computer in that brains can have experiences and computers cannot.

OMG. You still think that a computer running an AI has more 'sentience' than a tractor!!

Your logik is tragic and unfortunately people of that mindset will one day be petitioning for robot rights!!

[commonsense]

In which case, if you can figure out which one of the following three items is out of place relative to the other two, then the difference between a computer's purpose and that of a human's purpose should be obvious...






_______

OK, it’s the walnut that doesn’t belong, because the other two have neural networks and the walnut doesn’t.

But the brain doesn’t belong, because it’s bathed in fluid and the other two aren’t.

Wait! It’s the computer. The others are biologic, but the computer isn’t.

No, it’s the walnut, because it can be sprinkled on a salad.

No, it’s the brain, because it’s the only one that’s human.

No, it’s the computer. It has sharp corners.

It’s the walnut. The other two can make calculations.

It’s the brain. The other two aren’t alive.

It’s the computer. It has no sulcae.

Walnut

Brain

Computer

Walnut

Brain

Computer

[seeds]

In which case, if you can figure out which one of the following three items is out of place relative to the other two, then the difference between a computer's purpose and that of a human's purpose should be obvious...




_______

OK, it’s the walnut that doesn’t belong, because the other two have neural networks and the walnut doesn’t.

But the brain doesn’t belong, because it’s bathed in fluid and the other two aren’t.

Wait! It’s the computer. The others are biologic, but the computer isn’t.

No, it’s the walnut, because it can be sprinkled on a salad.

No, it’s the brain, because it’s the only one that’s human.

No, it’s the computer. It has sharp corners.

It’s the walnut. The other two can make calculations.

It’s the brain. The other two aren’t alive.

It’s the computer. It has no sulcae.

Walnut

Brain

Computer

Walnut

Brain

Computer

Nice try, but by leaving off the first part of the quote you are responding to,...

Granted, it is highly speculative, but I've been promoting the theory that we humans are what I call "THE ULTIMATE SEEDS" who are each imbued with the potential of evolving into a literal universe created from the living fabric of our very own minds...

...you are skewing (or sidetracking) the fact that we were talking about the difference between their ultimate "purposes" and potential, and not the differences (or likenesses) in their physiology...

...(although I do enjoy pointing out the freakish-looking similarity between a cracked-open walnut and a cracked-open human skull and how well it seems to fit my "Ultimate Seeds" theory ).
_______

[Trajk Logik]

Indeed, what is a will or a purpose or sentience? Or of greater practical value, regardless of whatever will is, what is the difference between computer will and human will? What is the difference between computer purpose, computer sentience, and human purpose or sentience?

You are the one that used the words, so I'm asking you what you meant by them. It seems to me that you would have to define "will" and "purpose" to then go on to determine what the difference, if there is one, between a computer will/purpose and human will/purpose. Could it not be possible that two humans have different wills and purposes as well? Is your purpose the same as my purpose?

Yes, I am the one who used those words without defining them. You may notice that I indicated that, regardless of what they mean, the important question is, how does a computer version of them differ from a human version of them?

In other words, letting N stand for the definition of will, the difference between N and N + 1 is always 1, no matter what N is. Like you, I do not see that there is a difference. So the answer to my more important question is there is none.

And just as wills may vary from one human to another, they may also vary from one computer to another. But this does not change the assessment that on the whole computer will or purpose is no different than human will or purpose.

But what does "1" refer to? 1 what? I have no idea what you are talking about if I don't know what your scribbles are referring to. Sure, logically your statement, N ≠ N+1 is sound, but we are talking about wills and purposes, not Ns and 1s. Your statement could refer to anything and isn't useful when talking about the nature of specific things. It may be useful for some other goal, but for the goal of understanding what will and purpose is, or what N is without the 1, it is not useful, and that is what I was asking.

Understanding that two humans can have different purposes does not help me understand what a purpose is. I could just as well say, "Two humans have different thingamabobs.", but what does that mean if you don't know what the scribble, "thingamabobs" is? How is it useful? What did you learn by reading the statement?

[Trajk Logik]

Granted, it is highly speculative, but I've been promoting the theory that we humans are what I call "THE ULTIMATE SEEDS" who are each imbued with the potential of evolving into a literal universe created from the living fabric of our very own minds.

In which case, if you can figure out which one of the following three items is out of place relative to the other two, then the difference between a computer's purpose and that of a human's purpose should be obvious...

I think you are conflating "universe" with "mind". They are not the same thing.

I am not erroneously conflating the two if it is indeed possible that the universe is, itself, the mind of a higher consciousness.

Wait, computers can't be conscious but a universe can?

What I need to know is how a mass of neurons, electricity and hormones can produce the feeling of an orgasm, but a box of metal, electricity and silicon cannot. Now you are saying that the universe is conscious, which means that stars, planets, animals, plants, cars and computers can produce the consciousness of the universe, but a computer box by itself cannot. You are not making much sense.

Minds are part of the universe, not separate from the universe.

Our minds are as separate from this universe as they are from each other.

I am a separate mind, you are a separate mind, and the universe is a separate mind (God's mind). Indeed, I suggest that our minds are like "parallel universes" relative to each other.

Then what do you mean by "separate"? Separate in what way? If we are causally linked, we are not separate. We are part of the same reality.

Not only that, but if we are separate then how is your knowledge and understanding going to be useful to me if we live in different universes? There would be no reason to communicate or inform others about your experiences because they would be irrelevant in my own universe. Communication only makes sense, and is only useful, if we live in the same reality and are talking about the same reality.

This is why our minds can interact here on this forum, because they are part of the same universe.
We can interact on this forum because the aforementioned "interface" of our bodies and brains (which are indeed a part of this universe) place us (our minds) in the same spatial arena of God's mind.

Then we are not separate because we are all connected. Again, you're going to need to define your use of "separate".

All three items are physical.

Yeah, but only two of those items are being presented as "seeds" of something...

Do you think a physical computer has the same purpose as that which is implied in a physical seed? - something that is destined to yield-forth a highly specific lifeform?

How do we know that computers are not the "seeds" of a highly evolved life form in the distant future? How do we know that the purpose of the universe isn't for humans, but for "artificial" life and humans are just a means to an end? Humans are just as much a part of the natural selective process as plate tectonics is and climate change is. You're ideas are anthropocentric.

What makes a physical brain have a different purpose than a physical computer?

Because, as I stated earlier in this slightly rephrased quote,...

What is missing from a computer is the presence of a self-aware "I Am-ness" with a "personal interest" in the task it is performing.

Logic dictates that there is no self-aware entity present within the workings of a computer.

Are "you"...

(a "self-aware" and subjectively-based "I Am-ness")

...going to argue that the same applies to a human brain?
_______

Logic does not dictate that there is no self-aware entity present within the workings of the computer. The computer has memory, both long-term and short-term (working memory). It has a central processing unit that processes certain functions stored in memory, acting as the attention, or focus on specific information relevant to the task, or goal at hand.

The only difference that we may agree on is that the computer is not programmed to process information about its processing of information. Self-awareness is merely a sensory information feedback loop - where you are processing information about you processing of information, or thinking about thinking. I don't think that cats and dogs can form this loop as they are not self-aware, yet they are still conscious. There is still a "what it is like" to be a dog or cat, but no self-awareness in the same way that humans are. This could be the same thing for a computer. What is it like being your computer's working memory? How does a brain and a universe have being, but a computer does not?

[Trajk Logik]

Who gave the AI a 'random activity'?

Some random guy who programmed it to learn on its own.

So a guy programmed a machine of masses of switches to build a database of knowledge and this machine is going to go from that to killing a human!?

Maybe the information in the database is all about how humans are evil planet-destroying apes?

[Trajk Logik]

Only sentient beings can have a will. For an AI to want to kill humans for example, it must be guided to via the will of a sentient being (a human).

Sentience: If i am hungry, my will is to eat. If I look at the garden and see that the grass is long, my will is to get the lawnmower out.

The windows to the world for AI is through it's sensory systems of the keyboard and mouse. AI responds to keyboard and mouse input like you respond to visual and auditory input.

NO IT DOESN'T - put your hand into a fire and put a keyboard into a fire (or since u r so wrong, a robot hand) - do you think you will receive the same sensation as the AI/robot?

Cambridge DIctionary:-
Sentience: the quality of being able to experience feelings

I don't know about the same sensation, but you seem to be agreeing that it receives a sensation, just not the same one - that is if it were programmed to respond to damage to it's body. You don't seem to be remembering what I have said before. It's not just a difference in body shape (a desktop computer vs a humanoid robot), but a difference in inputs and outputs and its programming. Does a robot have cameras to see and microphones to hear, and tactile pressure pads to feel?

Seeing your hand being burnt is not the same sensation as feeling your hand being burnt, but both sensations inform you of the same set of affairs.

What is a sensation, or a feeling, if not information about the state of your body relative to the state of your immediate environment? Your sensations and feelings inform you. The robot would be informed that its body is being damaged and will produce a valid, programmed response, no different than your programmed response, programmed by natural selection over millions of years.

NOTE: A.I. does not have a wish or a desire - it is just a machine of switches.

What are wishes and desires but a goal in the mind? Wishes and desires are simply imaginings if there is no process to attain the goal. Imagination is what helps humans think of new ideas, but they can often have no application in the real world, or no possible means of attaining them currently. Imagining is simply taking two or more things you do know and blending them together in unique ways. We could program a computer to do the same thing and then try to apply what it imagines in the real world to see what works, the same way humans do. But you have to have prior knowledge of something to be able to imagine something else. You had to have prior experiences to be able to imagine a new experience as imagined experiences are just an amalgam of prior ones.

AI can be described as having the desire to produce output and is capable of sensing via it's inputs. Human inputs are their senses, their outputs are their behaviors. What goes on in between is a bit more complex to explain which would require us to understand what makes a physical brain different from a physical computer in that brains can have experiences and computers cannot.

OMG. You still think that a computer running an AI has more 'sentience' than a tractor!!

Your logik is tragic and unfortunately people of that mindset will one day be petitioning for robot rights!!

Your condescension does not falsify anything I have said. Yes, a computer does have more "sentience" than a tractor as a computer has a working memory full of information it is processing for a purpose, and a tractor does not.

[commonsense]

You are the one that used the words, so I'm asking you what you meant by them. It seems to me that you would have to define "will" and "purpose" to then go on to determine what the difference, if there is one, between a computer will/purpose and human will/purpose. Could it not be possible that two humans have different wills and purposes as well? Is your purpose the same as my purpose?

Yes, I am the one who used those words without defining them. You may notice that I indicated that, regardless of what they mean, the important question is, how does a computer version of them differ from a human version of them?

In other words, letting N stand for the definition of will, the difference between N and N + 1 is always 1, no matter what N is. Like you, I do not see that there is a difference. So the answer to my more important question is there is none.

And just as wills may vary from one human to another, they may also vary from one computer to another. But this does not change the assessment that on the whole computer will or purpose is no different than human will or purpose.

But what does "1" refer to? 1 what? I have no idea what you are talking about if I don't know what your scribbles are referring to. Sure, logically your statement, N ≠ N+1 is sound, but we are talking about wills and purposes, not Ns and 1s. Your statement could refer to anything and isn't useful when talking about the nature of specific things. It may be useful for some other goal, but for the goal of understanding what will and purpose is, or what N is without the 1, it is not useful, and that is what I was asking.

Understanding that two humans can have different purposes does not help me understand what a purpose is. I could just as well say, "Two humans have different thingamabobs.", but what does that mean if you don't know what the scribble, "thingamabobs" is? How is it useful? What did you learn by reading the statement?

IT DOESN’T MATTER WHAT PURPOSE IS, NOR WHAT WILL IS, in order to assess the difference between human purpose, or will, and computer purpose or will.

What is purpose, or will, would be a great question for a sidebar or another thread, but not a necessary question for comparisons.

Please disregard the N analogy, as it was only used as an illustration of the logik.

[attofishpi]

Some random guy who programmed it to learn on its own.

So a guy programmed a machine of masses of switches to build a database of knowledge and this machine is going to go from that to killing a human!?

Maybe the information in the database is all about how humans are evil planet-destroying apes?

..and your point being what? That this box of elaborate switches is going to feel awful about how bad humans are and thus start killing them?

[attofishpi]

The windows to the world for AI is through it's sensory systems of the keyboard and mouse. AI responds to keyboard and mouse input like you respond to visual and auditory input.

NO IT DOESN'T - put your hand into a fire and put a keyboard into a fire (or since u r so wrong, a robot hand) - do you think you will receive the same sensation as the AI/robot?

Cambridge DIctionary:-
Sentience: the quality of being able to experience feelings

I don't know about the same sensation, but you seem to be agreeing that it receives a sensation,

NO I AM NOT!!

just not the same one - that is if it were programmed to respond to damage to it's body. You don't seem to be remembering what I have said before. It's not just a difference in body shape (a desktop computer vs a humanoid robot), but a difference in inputs and outputs and its programming. Does a robot have cameras to see and microphones to hear, and tactile pressure pads to feel?

NO!!! A computer has NO way of seeing, hearing and feeling. It has electronic devices that convert analogue reality into binary for analysis using algorithms. It's all COLD LOGIC - nothing is sensed by a computer in any way shape or form equivalent to human sentient sensory perception.

What is a sensation, or a feeling, if not information about the state of your body relative to the state of your immediate environment? Your sensations and feelings inform you. The robot would be informed that its body is being damaged and will produce a valid, programmed response, no different than your programmed response, programmed by natural selection over millions of years.

..are you winding me up or wot? You are underestimating in a massive way how amazing and unique sentience is.

NOTE: A.I. does not have a wish or a desire - it is just a machine of switches.

What are wishes and desires but a goal in the mind? Wishes and desires are simply imaginings if there is no process to attain the goal. Imagination is what helps humans think of new ideas, but they can often have no application in the real world, or no possible means of attaining them currently. Imagining is simply taking two or more things you do know and blending them together in unique ways. We could program a computer to do the same thing and then try to apply what it imagines in the real world to see what works, the same way humans do. But you have to have prior knowledge of something to be able to imagine something else. You had to have prior experiences to be able to imagine a new experience as imagined experiences are just an amalgam of prior ones.

A.I. does NOT have a mind, does NOT have imaginings any more than a tractor does. It's a cold logic machine of a complex arrangement of SWITCHES - just like a light switch on your wall.

AI can be described as having the desire to produce output and is capable of sensing via it's inputs. Human inputs are their senses, their outputs are their behaviors. What goes on in between is a bit more complex to explain which would require us to understand what makes a physical brain different from a physical computer in that brains can have experiences and computers cannot.

OMG. You still think that a computer running an AI has more 'sentience' than a tractor!!

Your logik is tragic and unfortunately people of that mindset will one day be petitioning for robot rights!!

Your condescension does not falsify anything I have said. Yes, a computer does have more "sentience" than a tractor as a computer has a working memory full of information it is processing for a purpose, and a tractor does not.

NO. A computer has NO sentience PERIOD!! - same as a tractor.

[commonsense]

NO. A computer has NO sentience PERIOD!! - same as a tractor.

Agreed, and it has no way to interpret the binary impulses it receives. It doe's, however, have specialized sensors that receive stimuli which, in turn, activate certain switches. This process is not exactly unlike the biological system of responding to stimuli and passing electrical impulses along the way.

[Trajk Logik]

Yes, I am the one who used those words without defining them. You may notice that I indicated that, regardless of what they mean, the important question is, how does a computer version of them differ from a human version of them?

In other words, letting N stand for the definition of will, the difference between N and N + 1 is always 1, no matter what N is. Like you, I do not see that there is a difference. So the answer to my more important question is there is none.

And just as wills may vary from one human to another, they may also vary from one computer to another. But this does not change the assessment that on the whole computer will or purpose is no different than human will or purpose.

But what does "1" refer to? 1 what? I have no idea what you are talking about if I don't know what your scribbles are referring to. Sure, logically your statement, N ≠ N+1 is sound, but we are talking about wills and purposes, not Ns and 1s. Your statement could refer to anything and isn't useful when talking about the nature of specific things. It may be useful for some other goal, but for the goal of understanding what will and purpose is, or what N is without the 1, it is not useful, and that is what I was asking.

Understanding that two humans can have different purposes does not help me understand what a purpose is. I could just as well say, "Two humans have different thingamabobs.", but what does that mean if you don't know what the scribble, "thingamabobs" is? How is it useful? What did you learn by reading the statement?

IT DOESN’T MATTER WHAT PURPOSE IS, NOR WHAT WILL IS, in order to assess the difference between human purpose, or will, and computer purpose or will.

What is purpose, or will, would be a great question for a sidebar or another thread, but not a necessary question for comparisons.

Please disregard the N analogy, as it was only used as an illustration of the logik.

IT DOES MATTER WHAT PURPOSE IS OR WHAT WILL IS, in order to discern their differences. Differences of what? HOW are they different? Describe the difference in detail. You can't without first explaining what purpose and will is. Anyway, I was never concerned about their differences, only what purpose and will are. It is you that injected this idea of differences when that does not help me understand what you meant by your use of purpose and will in the first place. You are simply avoiding the question. So I take it that "purpose" and "will" are meaningless scribbles and sounds you make with your mouth that you simply learned to copy or emulate other's use without understanding yourself what they really mean. You've effectively said nothing when you use those terms. All you've done is put scribbles on the screen.

[Trajk Logik]

So a guy programmed a machine of masses of switches to build a database of knowledge and this machine is going to go from that to killing a human!?

Maybe the information in the database is all about how humans are evil planet-destroying apes?

..and your point being what? That this box of elaborate switches is going to feel awful about how bad humans are and thus start killing them?

So you didn't see the happy face at the end of my sentence to understand that it was a joke? You are a humorless chap.