It has been proved that, according to known physics, a universal computer can emulate any physical system exactly. It's not odd, it's reality. — tom
How does the brain depend on computations? — Anthony
I've thought it, computations, the hammer of mathematicians which treats of everything in existence like its nails. — Anthony
Even though many phenomena can be analyzed mathematically doesn't mean math was required to bring them into existence. — Anthony
we could actually create a being — Arne
Mathematicians are human computers...or mentats if you like. Once there was only the abacus for a computer.Computational universality has nothing to do with mathematicians — tom
What does that question even mean? — tom
I didn't know human brains differed that much from other mammal's brains, functionally? The human mind is what differs most patently, not the brain. As to why we are so self aware compared to other organisms is a question we should be very careful in limiting to any sort of computation.Humans have something other animals do not - a computationally universal brain, and a self aware mind. — tom
Our brains cannot be more than computers, according to physics. — tom
Definition of being. 1 a : the quality or state of having existence. — Arne
Many people - presumably including yourself - simply assume that it is obvious what the word 'being' refers to, and that computers and beings are pretty much the same kind of thing. — Wayfarer
I do believe it would be a bit more philosophical if you were to ask some questions regarding my understanding of something rather than presume my understanding is shallow. — Arne
Being is that upon the basis of which human being renders intelligible the always already existing world into which it is thrown. And that is my definition. — Arne
you and that other guy are arguing with yourselves. I have never denied that we are "unique." So stop thinking you need to persuade me that we are "unique." And now in addition to "unique" you are claiming that we are "special". Fine, we are "unique" and "special". We are "unique" and we are "special" and therefore. . . . . . . . . . . . WHAT? When are you going to fill in the therefore. . .? Your own examples are absurd. We are so good at art that we can paint a picture that looks almost as real as the machine we built to take pictures. We can go to concerts and listen to musicians play music that sounds almost as good as their latest studio album. Did it ever occur to you that we are so "unique" and "special" that we could actually create a being that is more "unique" and "special" than we are? We are "unique" and "special" and therefore WHAT??? Make a freaking argument!! — Arne
what does it say about the question of whether computers are conscious subjects of experience? Because I take that question to be central to the OP. — Wayfarer
Well, to start, I don't really know who you mean by the other guy. I guess someone else found the fallacy as well. — TogetherTurtle
I doubt all reasonable people would agree that my dog has a sense of self awareness — Arne
Did it ever occur to you that we are so "unique" and "special" that we could actually create a being that is more "unique" and "special" than we are? We are "unique" and "special" and therefore WHAT??? — Arne
Now imagine a being x who is completely self-aware in every respect from the atomic realm to the macroscopic world we're familiar with. Such a being is what I call truly self-aware. — TheMadFool
Now imagine a being x who is completely self-aware in every respect from the atomic realm to the macroscopic world we're familiar with. Such a being is what I call truly self-aware. — TheMadFool
I think this is problematical, as I think that 'complete self awareness' of that kind is a logical impossibility. So the hypothetical 'being X' is not something that could ever exist, which renders the entire OP rather pointless, in my opinion. So, nothing further to add, at this point. — Wayfarer
To be frank, you should have more pride in being human. — TogetherTurtle
Seriously? Perhaps you should place your pride in who you are rather than what species you were born into. The former depends entirely upon your choices while the latter has absolutely nothing to do with anything you have ever done. — Arne
Wrong.
You may rest assured that the others guy's mistakes are not as "unique" and "special" as yours.
How fallacious of me to expect people to actually make arguments in support of their claims.
When will I ever learn? — Arne
Perhaps you and the poster have a different understanding of imagine. It never occurred to me that imagination must be limited to the logically possible. Oh well.
I am going to bed now. — Arne
I am done. I can be no clearer. — Arne
and please define "experience".
I will wait here. — Arne
Quite to the contrary. The species I was born into is the whole reason I can be who I am. The human intellect is unmatched. If I was a dog, I would not be here typing this I assure you. — TogetherTurtle
This one is interesting because you still never explain why you thought I saw someone else's argument against you — TogetherTurtle
He of course meant the experience of living, of seeing, feeling, hearing, touching, tasting. Have you ever heard of the term "I experienced ____". It's really the only way you can take that. If I'm wrong I would gladly take an alternate explanation, but I know you wouldn't, so I'll stop here. If anyone reads this far, this man is a lunatic. Give him no more attention, he only thrives on it. — TogetherTurtle
I am done. I can be no clearer.
— Arne
You mean someone doesn't understand your idea? That couldn't be evidence that you are spouting nonsense and refuse to reason could it?
Are algorithms physical? — apokrisis
In what sense are you using the term physics to mean a scientific model of both hardware and software? — apokrisis
You can start with a Turing machine if you like. — apokrisis
In what sense are you saying that all that rather mental stuff is reduced to the same materialistic physics used to imagine the hardware? — apokrisis
Therefore, yes, we have self awareness, yes, machines can be self aware, and no, animals are not self aware. That was my argument from the beginning and it seems that is the argument I will have at the end as well. — TogetherTurtle
I argued in another thread that algorithms are not physical - they are logical. — tom
My argument is that animals are not self aware because they simply aren't aware of themselves. — TogetherTurtle
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.