A bit? Totally! Do you deny the gods? — EugeneW

Depends. Define god.

Depends. Define god. — god must be atheist

Well, not like your avatar. And by definition, they are no atheists. Heaven just looks like the universe. All creatures developed in it have a godlike counterpart. Virus gods, mamba gods, homonid gods, take your pick. What if they got bored of making love and hate eternally? They decided to create a copy of heaven. A collective enterprise. Now they just watch us. Themselves. Only, we lack the power of creation.

Where did you learn all this? Who was your teacher? What gives you certainty about this definition? Why did you accept this definition? Was this the only definition you were given?

Definition of god by EugeneW:

Well, not like your avatar. And by definition, they are no atheists. Heaven just looks like the universe. All creatures developed in it have a godlike counterpart. Virus gods, mamba gods, homonid gods, take your pick. What if they got bored of making love and hate eternally? They decided to create a copy of heaven. A collective enterprise. Now they just watch us. Themselves. Only, we lack the power of creation. — EugeneW

Who was your teacher? What gives you certainty about this definition? Why did you accept this definition? Was this the only definition you were given — god must be atheist

I saw it in a dream and during this thread it got more articulated. Im writing a short story about it. Its like the gods had contacted me. Which is difficult for them. I have to warn the homonids. The homonid gods were involved in creation too. Leading to troubles in their development of love and hate particles, needed for the creation of the universe. They (knowingly??) fucked up a bit. Psychosis!

that sounds like your personal belief, isn't it?

I apparently failed my own Turing test. My car can distinguish between me and an actual human.

My car's emissions computer has a bunch of tests the results of which are lost every time minimum voltage is lost due to a changed battery. I failed my test, having 3 tests that still registered not-ready, despite the battery being nearly a year old. My driving habits are apparently sufficiently non-human that my car cannot ready these last tests.

So I drove to a city an hour away, trying my best to drive like a normal person. Well, one of the three is ready now, but that leaves two, and two un-ready still fails. The only way to get my car inspected seems to be to let somebody else drive it.


A little more on topic: I love all the biased posters that assert an AI cannot be whatever they don't want it to be. Guess what? You're just another 'AI' yourself, albeit probably more wet and gloppy. I cannot convince the squirrels in my yard that I'm a squirrel, but that doesn't mean I'm less intelligent than a squirrel. AI's will surpass humans in capability long before they can convincingly pass for one.

Well... I think we can act and think AI-like but an AI can't act human-like. Unless you consider us AI robots initiated by gods.

that sounds like your personal belief, isn't it? — BohdanZ

Indeed. My theology, in close connection to my cosmology, and my theonomy, in close connection to my astronomy, was transmitted from heaven in a dream.

Hi, may I say something. I was taught that neurons are either on/off (action potential or no action potential). That's digital architecture, oui? Why can't computers, digital machines, be conscious? — Agent Smith

Well I've already given you one killer reason above, which is actually quite deep and fascinating if you will only engage with it. A computer can't be conscious because it isn't an entity of the appropriate kind. You get to be an entity of the right kind by separating yourself from the environment, which is something only living beings seem able to do.

The architecture of the brain is not digital. There's the strengthening and weakening of the activity of populations of neurons, neuronal activity is significantly influenced over longer timescales (minutes, hours, days, weeks...) by a bath of many different neuromodulators. There's also wavelike activity right across the brain. I suspect there are other crucial phenomena still awaiting discovery.

I have lots of other reasons why computers can't be conscious. To be honest, I think it's really very obvious that they can't, and it fascinates me that other people find it so hard to see that.

We cant even create a virus in a lab. Let alone a conscious computer!

but probably it is uncommon belief, because others did not get this kind of personal revelation. So your argumentation cannot be accepted until others get such experience or you have reputation of authority for them.
I have mystical insights too. But your argumentation tends to provoke scepticism of so called modern people imho. It is ok, BUT then we cannot have meaningful dialogue and our discourse is dead by definition.
So, I dare to state from my POV that your position is weak and unmature.

The 2nd assumption: person X is objective in his/her perception and judgement. Is it even possible? Idk.
My answer to your interesting topic is: yes, AI can successfully imitate abnormal person. And deceive some people. We can just look at modern chatbots, those of them which use neural networks and are created by rich corporations. However, maybe science (computer science, psychology etc.) can create something like criteria for person X to recognize but with some probability who is this weird companion.
I say that it can be (and should) viewed as question of probability. Definitely no guarantee for 100% result.

How I see cosmogony (simplified):
Three miracles:
1. Birth of Universe.
2. Birth of Life.
3. Birth of Consciousness ("in flesh", I do not tell about transcendent God here).
Each of these miracles was never done by human. But human participated in co-creating. It's like participation in cosmic evolution.

So, we cannot create Universe: creation is by definition - from nothing (impossible, if you think in conventional way, at least ). We can change Universe.
Life: we can participate in creation, we can change Life(s). Assumption: a biological organism is wonderful construction of non-biological elements. Consequence: life is problem if construction, human has potential to build alive creature from "dust". With scientific and technical progress. Some day. Maybe, after thousands of years after today. But possible.
Consciousness: as we know it, it is part of bio-organism. But what is a definition of consciousness as an essence? What if we meet non-carbon based life form, developed, conscious life? Maybe, conscious is a question of some qualities (or structure) which can be achieved with computer constructing in easier way than creating virus?

Still, if we are not even able to create a virus, which seems to possess a very limited conscious life, the dream to create a conscious AI will stay what it is: a dream, an SF fairytale.

Oh, you agree! That's great to know. Just think of it, we put our lives in the hands of abnormal people (AI) every day - everything from internet search engines to fly-by-wire passenger planes is AI-controlled/assissted!

:chin:

Three miracles:
1. Birth of Universe.
2. Birth of Life.
3. Birth of Consciousness ("in flesh", I do not tell about transcendent God here). — BohdanZ

:up: Nice!

But can we create new life, an a priori for consciousness? We (our ancestors) were involved in the evolution of our own lifes, but from within life itself. Our hands evolved from that inner evolution. The hands are not capable of creating life.

To be honest, I think it's really very obvious that they can't, and it fascinates me that other people find it so hard to see that. — Daemon

:100:

It's a modern-day day fairytale. People looove fairytales.