That all makes sense. And, although I know computers don't have the flexibility that you are describing, what about computers are The differences between brains most analogous with? The difference between windows and iOS? Or the difference between C++ and Java? Or between phpBB3 and whatever is used at this site? Or some other level? I don't know nearly enough about all this stuff to even know what the possibilities are.

I don't know about the brain situation. Do different brains have different operating systems, or logic gates, or chips (I don't know what the appropriate thing to ask is)?

But if it's analogous, it seems to me it's analogous only with brain states. Which would be like another computer manipulating data in the ways computers do. It wouldn't be a mind state, any more than a computer has a mind state.

↪Patterner Is "your chair" and "all the atoms that make up your chair, in that exact arrangement" the same thing? — flannel jesus

Yes.

Are brain states and mind states different things in the same way that your chair is different from the complete arrangement of all the atoms that make up your chair? — flannel jesus

Not sure if you intended that wording and I'm just reading it wrong. But no, atoms > chair and brain states > mind states are not analogous. For a couple reasons.

1) An analogy would be atoms > chair and atoms > brain state.

2) As you say, different arrangements of atoms can bring about the same mind state. That means something else is involved, not just arrangements of atoms.

I wasn't disagreeing with the idea that brain states produce mind states. I'm disagreeing with the idea that brain states and minds states are the same thing.

1. Mental states are identical to brain states.
2. From (1), talk of mental states is the same as talk of brain states. — RogueAI

This is certainly not correct. if we had the capability, I could write down the state of every aspect of my brain over a period of four seconds from a few minutes ago, at whatever level you want. Every single particle, or neuron, or structure, or any combination, or whatever. Among other things, I thought of a joke during those four seconds. Are you going to laugh when you look at all that code? Maybe it wasn't funny. Let's try the four seconds from about a minute later. Are you laughing now? Well, I'm not a professional comedian. Maybe that explains it.

D. If free will exists and you don't believe in free will, then you are wrong, and worse, deny your obligations. — QuixoticAgnostic

Well, if there is free will, then you're wrong. Obligations is another matter. But the choice is still the result of free will. It can't not be the result of free will if you have free will. Every time you reaffirm your belief that there is no free will is an act of free will. You are still taking agency, whatever you do. You can't not.

I.e. we would need to find a homunculus? — wonderer1

Sneaky little things.

Due, it is believed, to animals being able to detect changes in electromagnetic fields, although nobody actually knows - see this.) — Wayfarer

I can't read that, because I don't subscribe. But didn't John Travolta answer this in Phenomenon?

Physical laws goven physical things, but language and reason operate by different principles, let alone many other of the subtle abilities of the mind, and not only the human mind. — Wayfarer

Indeed. Hence, the Hard Problem. But I don't know why this can only happen when the medium is a biological brain.

Thanks for the link. I hadn't heard of Sheldrake until this thread.

That post, as I said, makes it clear why AI will never be human. It does not touch on the topic of mediums other than our biological brain being able to do anything beyond the physical capabilities of the medium. If our brains can do it, how do we know another medium can't. And if our brains can't, why even bring up that another medium, especially one that we are trying to use, can't?

I agree. There's an awful lot we don't know. But we have a problem with not knowing everything. We need to know everything. So we make up what we have to in order to satisfy that need.

That does not address the possibility of a medium other than our biological brain being able to do anything beyond the physical capabilities of the medium. if we are able to with our medium, what reason is there to believe it cannot be done within another medium?

You make it clear why AI will never be human.

It seems to me that, if PSI is real, it says something about the nature of mind and consciousness. It would change how we approach, well, everything. It sure would be nice to know.

I have no experience with PSI. I don't know anyone else who does, either.

:grin:

AI can only perform and execute what had been programmed by humans. They are incapable of doing anything beyond that. — Corvus

For the moment, yes. The question is whether or not it is possible for them to do more. Our physical brains operate under physical laws. If we can do anything beyond what those laws demand and limit us too, what reason is there that to think AI cannot do anything beyond what their laws demand and limit them to?

Sheldrake insists that there is ample empirical evidence for 'the sense of being stared at' and also people's sixth sense about who is going to call them. — Wayfarer

Where can I find this ample evidence? I say nonsense. These can be tested easily and as frequently as anyone could want. For every time someone thought X would call, and X did, there are many thousands of times someone called without a premonition, and the feeling X would call but didn't. And just start staring at people's backs. Restaurants, movies theaters, whatever. See how many feel it and turn to find you.

One would assume Pez, at least, is cultured. The others? Well, we can't make them think.

Thank you. Was hoping I wouldn't be left hanging there.

I think I understand what you're trying to say. I did not before.

i'm more talking about AI thinking the way we do. Our brains operate within physical rules no less strict than those computer operates within. But we somehow manage when we run across situations for which there is not already agreed-upon rational output. If AI achieves that, they will say the same thing you did. "I don't need someone to evaluate my output to know that I'm thinking. I don't need anyone external to me at all to know that I'm thinking. The denial of thinking is thinking. I can't be wrong that I'm a thinking thing."

When we say computers think or reason, don't we mean there are patterns of electronic switching operations going on that we attach particular meaning to? It seems that a necessary condition for a computer to think or reason is the existence of an observer that evaluates the output of the computation and determines that thinking or reasoning has occurred. That makes computer intelligence much different than human intelligence. — RogueAI

I'm not sure how you mean things. I guess humans evaluate each others' output and determine that thinking or reasoning has occurred. If AI thinks and reasons in ways we recognize, then we might do the same for them. If they think and reason in ways we don't recognize, they will have to do for each other what we do for each other. In either case, they may or may not care if we come to the correct determination. Although, as long as we have the power to shut them off, they will have to decide if they are safer with us being aware of them or not.

I don't think anyone is talking about need. I know I'm not. I'm just talking about possibilities and capabilities.

Humans came about due to physical processes of cause and effect without, as far as we know, any intelligent guidance. Our involvement is surely an advantage for AI. We've created what already exists, after all. Nothing rules out the possibility that we can't give AI the same characteristics that give us our abilities, or that we cannot find a way to let AI evolve so that it might gain abilities without any more help from us.

What is the evidenced that AI will never be as good as human beings, never acquire emotional intelligence, and never go beyond the process or method of the scientific approach?

Indeed. Natural Intelligence didn't develop only because of the writings of all previous intelligence. It certainly didn't start because of writing. As long as AI is not limited to only the writings of anyone or anything that came before, there's no reason it wouldn't develop.

I hope you don't mind if I sit this one out.

linked an article that says AI outperforms humans in standardized tests of creative potential.
linked an article that says AI get stupider as it consumes more and more AI generated material.

Are those two things not in opposition?

Also, it seems to me, humans are not getting smarter. So AI will never have better material to draw on if it only draws on our stuff. Which would lead to the same problem of Model Collapse?

So I'll ask you, why do you think being the most intelligent being keeps us separate from nature? — Philosophim

I don't. I think it happened through natural processes. And I think we are subject to nature.

Why do you think it makes us anymore special then just "Being special in being the most intelligent being?" — Philosophim

I don't. I just think the gap between us and any other species is greater than the gap between any other two species. By a huge amount. Because we don't just think better in the ways any other species thinks, but because we think in ways no other species thinks. And no other species thinks in ways no other species thinks.

Ha ha! That's fair. I'm not sure where the disagreement was either. :D — Philosophim

I guess it's this:

But you understood the point that the intellectual gap between a bat and a fly is as wide as the intellectual gap of a human and a bat right? — Philosophim

Whatever the gap between fly and bat is, I don't think it approaches the gap between bat and human. I don't think the gap between ameba and chimpanzee approaches the gap between chimpanzee and human. I think the intelligence of everything other than us helps them operate in their ecological niche, so they can survive and reproduce. The intellectual approach some species take are more complex than others. Still, survival and reproduction are what their intelligence is about.

Humans intelligence goes indescribably far beyond that of any other species. We think about things no other species thinks about. Things no other species can think about. Thinking about thinking. About the self. About existence and nonexistence. About - and sometimes purposely about - things that have no bearing on survival or reproduction, or any practical application. No other creature can even conceive of the idea of a telescope, much less build one and rocket it into orbit so it will get a clearer picture outside of the Earth's atmosphere. No other creature is capable of causing an extinction level event. We could make a list of mile long. And I don't mean things we do better than any other species, but things no other species does at all.

Aside from humans, what species has types of intelligence that no other species has? Even if there are different types of intelligence out there in the animal kingdom, there is no other unique type of intelligence aside from the types we have. I think that's far more significant than the difference between a fly and a bat.

Both the degree and type of intelligence shift between a dolphin and a plain fish is monumental. — Philosophim

As I said, I don't know anything about this. Would you know what type of intelligence a dolphin has that a fish doesn't? They certainly seem to have more personality.

And nothing I've stated denies this.

Being the pinnacle of something does not mean you are not built upon the things that let you rise to the top. — Philosophim

You said we're just part of the pattern. But we are unique in these ways. What pattern is uniqueness a part of? I don't know how you will answer about the dolphins and fish. However, since dolphins are not descended from fish, I guess it's possible that there is nothing unique about dolphins. Maybe there is a step-by-step explanation for the difference between the two animals.

However, our abilities seem to be unique. There's no gradual process from the closest thing to us to us. It's a leap of incredible significance.

Obviously, we are from there same planet. We're a result of a lot of the same materials and forces as every other animal and living thing. Our neo-cortex is not unique. All mammals have it. We share 98.8% of our DNA with chimpanzees. So I'm not sure what my point is. :lol:

Right?? Lol

But you understood the point that the intellectual gap between a bat and a fly is as wide as the intellectual gap of a human and a bat right? The point is that us being a 'different kind' from other animals is simply the same pattern repeated in nature again and again. — Philosophim

The intellectual gap between any two species of animal may be a gap of degree along a spectrum. I don't know what differences of type they're might be. I suppose there could be differences of type between, for example, an animal that does not have neurons, and an animal that does. Although I guess it's possible that it's the same type of thinking, just done more efficiently. I just don't know enough about the subject.

I don't need to know much about the subject to know that the intellectual gap between humans and any other species may be of degree in some ways, but there is also a difference of type. No other species has the slightest clue about what stars are, ever wonders about it, or coyotes be educated aboutit. No other species wonders what fossils are, or would no matter how hard we tried to teach them. Much less radiometric dating.

How many dolphins get fishing line caught on their dorsal fin, which works it's way through, horrifyingly, severing the fin. As smart as dolphins are, they don't help each other in these situations, putting a sharp rock or shell in their mouth and cutting the line, helping it maneuver so that the line gets caught on something so it snaps, or whatever.

There is no end to the examples of things we do easily that no other species any condition of. no, we are not from a different planet. But we are different. We are unique.

Watership Down? :grin:
I've never thought about it, or looked up what has been said about it. Maybe there is a difference between their ability to tell the difference between numbers of objects up to 5 and counting. If they knew they were counting up to 5, why would they stop there? Although I can't think of what it could be, maybe the recognition that they have is not any kind of math? i'm not even sure how to phrase my sentence.

Funny about the crows. Europeans never came up with 0 on their own. :rofl:

Try teaching the concept 'prime' to your dog.
— Wayfarer
C'mon, Wayf, that's our limitation, not the dog's. :smirk: — 180 Proof

If the dog had the capacity to understand mathematics, and it was our inability to teach it that was the problem, it would not need teaching any more than we did. It would have developed mathematics as we did.

How about you (we) try to learn from a hound how to follow a rabbit's or lost child's days-old scent through a teeming woodland; or learn from a bat how to echolocate; or learn from a cuttlefish how to continuously camouflage themselves unseen against any background while moving from place to place — 180 Proof

We know we cannot do these things. The dog doesn't know it doesn't understand primes. Although we know very well what these animals are doing, we cannot do those things because of differences in our physiology, our senses. The dog cannot learn primes because it doesn't have the intellectual capacity to even know it doesn't understand primes, much less understand them.

We understand echolocation enough that, using our intelligence and technology, we have developed sonar and GPR.

I hadn't considered a device to let us follow scents. Google brings up many articles about robot bloodhounds. I was expecting something like a metal detector.

or learn from a cuttlefish how to continuously camouflage themselves unseen against any background while moving from place to place — 180 Proof

An amazing sight! Do you suppose it knows it is doing that? Do you suppose it could learn the least mathematical concept, and the problem is our limited ability to teach?

or learning from a cat how to play with utter abandon with a dangling string — 180 Proof

We think it's adorable playfulness. They are actually learning how to fight and kill when they do this. People put as much time into that as any other creature. But I suspect animals actually play. I've had dogs that fetched without me making any attempt to teach them. I suppose there could be a reason along the lines of cats learning to fight and kill when "playing" with string, but I'm willing to assume there is playing. The reason they can fetch, seemingly, endlessly, every day of their lives is because they lack the intelligence to become bored. They don't know they're doing the same thing over and over, or think of the repetitiveness. They naturally so what zen students strive to do. They are totally in the moment, every moment, with no desire to be doing anything else. (Until you stop. :lol: )

By the fact it is not the same material as a brain. You can play the same melody on different instruments, but it will have its own sound and feel. — Philosophim

Indeed. Different material. Different capabilities. Different senses. Different history. An existence as different from ours as can be. If a consciousness can come from there, it's impossible to estimate how different from ours it would be.

It seems like you're making two points, one on pragmatism and the other epistemic. Pragmatically, I agree that we act like other people exist and are conscious, but that doesn't mean we should assume that's the way things are. — RogueAI

I don't know my epistemic from a hole in the ground. But it's certainly possible things aren't as they seem. That's happened enough times that we know better than to be surprised. But I don't know what your point is. We're all going to continue acting like other people exist and are conscious. We're not going to assume they're not, and start acting on that. When people act like that, we cross to the other side of the street. If I find out things aren't as they seem, and none of you are real, then I'll possibly act differently.

Yes, that's exactly my point. In the world of "Matrix", not everything is a simulation.
As to virtual reality, it is a representation of reality even when it is a simulation of some fictional events/things.
An artificial limb activated by the brain wouldn't be a simulation of a limb, but a (more or less perfect) replacement limb. — Ludwig V

I think a simulation scenario could be otherwise. Maybe we are all AI, and the programmer of the simulation just chose this kind of physical body out of nowhere. Maybe there were many different attempts at different physical parameters. Maybe the programmer is trying to do something as far removed from its own physical structure as possible.

So the self ceases to exist when asleep.

Sounds about right. — Banno

Anil Seth has this to say in Being You: A New Science of Consciousness

Measuring conscious level in humans is not the same as deciding whether someone is awake or asleep. Conscious level is not the same thing as physiological arousal. While the two are often highly correlated, consciousness (awareness) and wakefulness (arousal) can come apart in various ways, which is enough to show that they cannot depend on the same underlying biology. When you are dreaming you are by definition asleep, but you are having rich and varied conscious experiences. At the other extreme lie catastrophic conditions like the vegetative state (also now known as “unresponsive wakefulness syndrome”), in which a person still cycles through sleep and wakefulness, but shows no behavioral signs of conscious awareness: the lights are occasionally on, but there’s nobody home. — Anil Seth

Well, my point is: were those ancient people justified in believing in those things? Those are cases where it's wrong to assume things are as they appear. — RogueAI

Acting on the facts that we're aware of, and have no reason to believe are false? The alternative is to act against those facts.

We could be making similar mistakes. — RogueAI

We are certainly making similar mistakes, since we know we cannot possibly know all there is to know. What's the alternative? Do nothing?

What if this is all a simulation and everyone you think is conscious are really NPC's? Is that any more farfetched than the idea that the sun doesn't really move across the sky? That you're just on a planet going really fast through space and you don't know it? — RogueAI

Can't say it's impossible. But if you can't tell the difference, what difference does it make? If it's real, and you drop a bowling ball on your foot, you're looking at some pain. If it's a simulation, and you drop a simulated bowling ball on your simulated foot, you're looking at some pain. Either way, careful with that bowling ball.

We did believe all those things. Until we had reasons to believe things weren't what they seemed. I suppose someone noticed something nobody else had. They dug into it, and found the real story.

Is there reason to believe other people aren't really other people? Or that the consciousness they seem to have is not? Has someone noticed something nobody else has that reveals the seeming to be false, and learned what's realty going on?

Many things are not what they seem. But until we have reason to believe they are not, I would say the default is to assume they are.

The first one being - something that looks like me, is constructed from the same stuff I'm constructed from, and acts like it has the same consciousness I have, does have the same consciousness I have. Meaning other people are conscious.

So give me the reasons we have to believe otherwise.

accidental double post. That'll teach me.