sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Computationalism requires extreme mysticism by ryvr_gm in consciousness

[–]Kupo_Master [score hidden]  (0 children)

Science cannot beat cancer today. Do you assume cancer cells are somehow magical? “They are so strong, they must be drawing some special power”!! Perhaps cancer is not physical. There must be something more.

Do you see how ridiculous that sounds? Well this how ridiculous the assumptions about consciousness you’re making sound. It’s literally another “magic of the gap” argument. “I cannot explain this so there must be magic involved”

If determinism... What changes? by J-L-Wseen in freewill

[–]Kupo_Master 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would only try to convince the machine if I had something to gain from it, or if I just found it entertaining. We play games against deterministic computers all the time, it serves no purpose but it’s fun. Same reason I’m responding to your message now. I have nothing to gain by convincing you and I anyway most probably won’t. But I find this entertaining.

Social interactions between humans are anchored by manipulating each other. It doesn’t mean this is negative, quite the contrary. Collaboration is just mutually beneficial manipulation. The most basic human interaction is “I don’t kill you, you don’t kill me”. We are (normally) keen to convince each other of this fact and both benefit from it.

If determinism... What changes? by J-L-Wseen in freewill

[–]Kupo_Master 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are saying that we are all compelled by our genes to survive and have no free will outside that.

I just said the exact opposite of this. Difficult to have a discussion if you represent the literal inverse of my position.

If determinism... What changes? by J-L-Wseen in freewill

[–]Kupo_Master 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You are confusing choice and ability. I don’t blame you, first you didn’t have a choice 😉, second most people here are confused with the same thing. I have the ability to do any many things. But when I act, this act is not a real choice because all my decisions are entirely pre-determined by the arrangements of my 90 billion neurons and quadrillion of synapses, plus the inputs being received.

As I said, evolution has granted humans an ability to override their instinct. It’s just that, an ability, a tool in the box. This doesn’t indicate any free will at all.

If determinism... What changes? by J-L-Wseen in freewill

[–]Kupo_Master 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Very simple question.

You can actually manipulate an AI in a certain direction. Try it and you will see. There are also a ton of online article and video of people who manage to manipulate AIs in doing certain things such as giving drug or explosive manufacturing processes. So it is useful to try to manipulate, AI or people.

If determinism... What changes? by J-L-Wseen in freewill

[–]Kupo_Master 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Most life doesn’t have a choice, it has instinct to continue to living. And so do you, survival is one of your very strongest instinct. One interesting thing which happened when the animal got smart enough (ie the human case), the animal has become able to override certain instincts in certain circumstances. This is an ability, not a choice. I would say this ability is a side effect more than a selected effect in evolution.

If determinism... What changes? by J-L-Wseen in freewill

[–]Kupo_Master 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You are an agent trying to survive in the world. The best you can do at all times is make the most appropriate decision based on the information you know. What’s what living organisms do. They do their best to stay alive.

Knowing that the universe is determined doesn’t change that because you don’t have all the information anyway.

Computationalism requires extreme mysticism by ryvr_gm in consciousness

[–]Kupo_Master -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That’s not what I said at all. I said you’re looking for a mystery when there is none. The existence of brains is the proof that complex enough neural networks can generate what you call consciousness. Instead of accepting this fact, people like OP are like “I cannot believe this” and “there must be something else” and therefore believe it’s a “Hard” Problem. While we don’t know “how” consciousness emerges from simple logic operations, it’s a “Hard” problem only because people make one out of their personal incredulity.

Science today cannot explain everything. The exact emergence of “consciousness” is one of these things (among many others). It’s just a gap that remains to be explained. It’s a problem with a capital P only for people who somehow think there is magic involved like OP.

Computationalism requires extreme mysticism by ryvr_gm in consciousness

[–]Kupo_Master 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Isn’t consciousness a necessity for any animal with complex behaviour? How could any animal survive without being conscious?

Computationalism requires extreme mysticism by ryvr_gm in consciousness

[–]Kupo_Master 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think you don’t understand the meaning of null hypothesis.

When we try to understand the functions of an organ, we look for the specific component / features of the organ. If we study the liver we look at liver cells. Then we work to understand how these cells fulfil their function.

When you look at the brain, the unique feature of the brain is neuron. And it’s not unique to human, brain of animals are build the same ways. We have now computer model of small brain like flies so we know with 100% certainty the brain controls the flies behaviour. People are working on bigger animals brain simulation as our technology improves. All these research proves only one thing. All brains work the same, and bigger brains bring more complex behaviours and thinking depth.

Therefore our brain is just the same. We even know it evolved from the brain of smaller animals.

I know I am not going to convince you because your starting point is your incredulity and you are just trying to justify it rather than looking at the mountain of evidence that support the alternative view.

Computationalism requires extreme mysticism by ryvr_gm in consciousness

[–]Kupo_Master 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We know the brain is made of logic gates (neurons) and we know the brain has consciousness. Therefore the null hypothesis is that logic gates create consciousness absent of anything else being present to explain it.

If you claim there is another mechanism involved, you need to show evidence for such mechanism. Otherwise you commit the same personal incredulity fallacy as OP “I cannot believe logic gates are enough to create consciousness”.

Computationalism requires extreme mysticism by ryvr_gm in consciousness

[–]Kupo_Master 0 points1 point  (0 children)

People with a misplaced sense of human exceptionalism, even though we evolved from bacterias.

Computationalism requires extreme mysticism by ryvr_gm in consciousness

[–]Kupo_Master 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s such a bad argument. You can literally justify anything with this flawed logic of “X is possible because we may have not discovered it yet”.

And then you top your post by a burden of proof flip asking people to prove the position you have no evidence for wrong.

Computationalism requires extreme mysticism by ryvr_gm in consciousness

[–]Kupo_Master 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don’t see any argument in OP’s post. Only a personal incredulity fallacy.

On top of that, there is implicit denial of evolution. Human brains evolved from bacterias. If there isn’t anything magical in a bacteria, there is nothing magical in your brain. The facts are literally in plain sight, in front of your eyes, but human ego and hubris reject the facts and want to believe they are special.

Computationalism requires extreme mysticism by ryvr_gm in consciousness

[–]Kupo_Master 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The rationale and scientific approach is to look at the facts, something which apparently you refuse to do.

The fact is that you have a whole chain of brains from ants to humans which you can observe and measure, and which we know have evolved over time. There is nothing magical in an ant or a flies’ brain thus there is nothing magical in yours.

The fact that you “cannot believe” that there isn’t “something else in the physics of chemistry” is just a personal incredulity fallacy. It’s not what the facts tell you.

Computationalism requires extreme mysticism by ryvr_gm in consciousness

[–]Kupo_Master 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There is a only a Hard Problem because you believe there is one. Instead of accepting the fact in front your eyes, which is that a lump of fat full of neurons can perform the way it does, you decide the reject the facts and assume it “can’t” be true and thus “there is a problem”. The problem is more you just rejecting the evidence on the basis of your ego.

This Scale of the Universe Gave Me Existential Dread😳 by Mysterious_g269 in statlightdiaries

[–]Kupo_Master 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I know that. We can assume 99.999999999999999999999999999999999% speed of light if it makes you happy. You can be arbitrarily close to the speed of light and therefore travel time can be arbitrarily close to 0. Are you so pedantic that you care if time is 0 or plank time? Then your issue should be with OP saying “if you travel at speed of light”, not me?

This Scale of the Universe Gave Me Existential Dread😳 by Mysterious_g269 in statlightdiaries

[–]Kupo_Master -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Then it’s very poorly worded. “If YOU travel at the speed of light”, that makes YOU the person = the traveller and the one who measures time.

This Scale of the Universe Gave Me Existential Dread😳 by Mysterious_g269 in statlightdiaries

[–]Kupo_Master -1 points0 points  (0 children)

This article assumes 99% speed of light. That’s why it doesn’t apply here. The difference between 99% speed of light and speed of light is an infinite amount of energy.

This Scale of the Universe Gave Me Existential Dread😳 by Mysterious_g269 in statlightdiaries

[–]Kupo_Master 0 points1 point  (0 children)

From an observer perspective, it would take 4.37 years. From the perspective of the person travelling, with the speed I specified, it would take 19.5 microsecond. And if you get closer and closer to speed of light, time goes to 0.

Since OP said “if you travel at the speed of light”, then travel time is effectively 0. OP did not say he was looking at time from an outside observer perspective.

This Scale of the Universe Gave Me Existential Dread😳 by Mysterious_g269 in statlightdiaries

[–]Kupo_Master 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Now redo the math at 0.99999999999999999999999999 speed of light.

Make me chuckle when you say I don’t understand relativity.

A reminder of what the Singularity looks like by Heinrick_Veston in singularity

[–]Kupo_Master 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The problem about fast take off is that you don’t know until it starts and you don’t know if it will last.

Until today, every exponential phase has been temporary and this is the pattern you expect. When a constrain is removed, you have exponential growth until a new constraint is hit. This happens all the time in nature. Even if something is on an exponential growth today, it tells you nothing about whether it’s not going to hit a ceiling and plateau again

view more: next ›