Emerging AI, Digital Singularity (Are you ready to be just another organisms cell?)

[Coolio]

^ Good point. If artificial intelligence had everything except consciousness, it would still be lifeless. Consciousness is the missing key... And the fact that consciousness is not a function of some mechanical equation will make matrix-like AI never happen.

Bullshit. Consciousness is definitely just a function of a mechanical equations. It's just physics.

 

[Shakti]

And the fact that consciousness is not a function of some mechanical equation will make matrix-like AI never happen.

I agree that it is not a function of a mechanical equation, but I think it makes it all the easier for consciousness to arise within a computer.

Coolio, it's important to understand the distinction between consciousness and intelligence. Intelligence (well at least the kinds we know and can conceive of) is created by causes and conditions. Consciousness is not bound by these rules. In fact it is bound by no rules, for it exists pre-dimensionally.

 

[Coolio]

Shakti, where did you get that idea?

So far nothing has been demonstrated through science or religion to be non-deterministic in this universe. To think that consciousness requires more than physical objects following the rules of physics is a stretch of the imagination.

Therefore, I conclude that Skynet (the AI singularity that seems to be inevitable) will be conscious.

 

[Shakti]

I think it will be conscious too, but not because it is subject to causation.

So far nothing has been demonstrated through science or religion to be non-deterministic in this universe.

Except the whole of the universe itself. The big bang theory flies in the face of causation.

To think that consciousness requires more than physical objects following the rules of physics is a stretch of the imagination.

That's not what I'm saying. Consciousness requires nothing. The whole of form and emptiness is consciousness. Through direct inquiry into the nature of consciousness one is capable of consciously transcending all form. In other words you can be unqualifiable pure consciousness not subject to Time or any other dimension. This is what Nirvana is. If you want to know what was 'before' the big bang you need to experience this.

So I didn't get these ideas from anywhere. It's simply an attempt to express the a direct realization of that which is our very essence.

Where does the name skynet come from?

 

[Coolio]

Where does the name skynet come from?

The movie Terminator and its sequels starring the Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger.

 

[Shakti]

Ah, of course.

 

[Papa1]

And no, the realm of science has no understanding of consciousness, because consciousness is not something that is empirically supported.

Hmmm. It really is silly to say what neuroscientists are and aren't doing if you have no experience. Being smart and meditating is clearly not sufficient. Trust me: consciousness can and is being studied in scientific settings.

And speaking of thinly veiled appeals to authority:

Collectively humans are already conceptualizing the necessary requirements for giving this AI form in much greater depth and detail than I can give.

 

[Shakti]

Hmmm. It really is silly to say what neuroscientists are and aren't doing if you have no experience. Being smart and meditating is clearly not sufficient. Trust me: consciousness can and is being studied in scientific settings.

I'm afraid you still don't understand the distinction I'm making between consciousness and congnition/intelligence. If you did you would see how hopelessly impossible it would be to study consciousness as an object and as something that could be empirically measured. You can study states of consciousness, you can study the mechanisms of the brain and intelligence, but none of these things are consciousness itself. Consciousness is without quality.

I'm not saying that some scientists don't think they're studying consciousness, but they are invariably studying an aspect of consciousness. You're outside of your knowledge-base on this one.

And speaking of thinly veiled appeals to authority:

My statement was simply an observation and a non-essential one for my argument. With your statement you were trying to dismiss my entire premise based on your relatively weak understanding of another groups' schema.

@h.a. I watched Ghost in the Shell last night because of your reference to it. It was pretty cool. I really liked they way they drew their invisibility cloaks or whatever they called em.

 

[Jamshyd]

Bumping to avoid prune.

 

[DOB]

If you want to do pic-posts, you damn better have something mindblowing. Please don't litter our forum with this stuff.

 

[DOB]

hey Jamshyd,you didnt responded to my PM...

that wasnt enough mindblowing? you need to do more psychedelics man :D
In my book two terminators having sex,bender in bar and r2d2 watching you masturbate on internet porn are all mindblowing images,I am on this forum since 2007 and all images I ever posted can be counted on fingers of one hand ( or two ).All these images represented my opinion about AI,everybody see bad things like AI will kill us but I have more lighthearted opinion like those robots on images I posted.Fuckbots are already reality and some robots will use alcohol as fuel like bender in future probably

 

[Pythagoras]

I'm afraid you still don't understand the distinction I'm making between consciousness and congnition/intelligence. If you did you would see how hopelessly impossible it would be to study consciousness as an object and as something that could be empirically measured. You can study states of consciousness, you can study the mechanisms of the brain and intelligence, but none of these things are consciousness itself. Consciousness is without quality.

I'm not saying that some scientists don't think they're studying consciousness, but they are invariably studying an aspect of consciousness. You're outside of your knowledge-base on this one.



My statement was simply an observation and a non-essential one for my argument. With your statement you were trying to dismiss my entire premise based on your relatively weak understanding of another groups' schema.

@h.a. I watched Ghost in the Shell last night because of your reference to it. It was pretty cool. I really liked they way they drew their invisibility cloaks or whatever they called em.

You seem pretty confident that you have this one pinned down, and seem to reject perfectly valid comments on your ideas as either some form of personal attack (earlier in the thread), or berate others for being:

[...] outside your knowledge base on this one

You complain of appeals to authority yet do not apply this to yourself

Well i am speaking as a college educated individual who's intelligence is typically ranked as excellent

I think you might need a dose of Socratic medicine. Does your excellent intelligence allow for applying scepticism to your own position?

I believe there is general consensus that we do not yet know what consciousness is, nor what role it plays in self-identity, time and causality, being and nothingness.

You seem to be mixing scientific (AI, neurosceince), philosophic, and theological approaches to our understanding of consciousness. I admire your certainty that you know what consciousness is but your admixture of koans, the singularity and the hive-mind shows a paucity of cohesive/persuasive arguments for what seems to be a shifting concept.

On consciousness I thing Douglas Hofstadter's GEB is an essential starting point.

You mention many Transhumanist concepts but don't believe you've grasped the foundational concepts such as the singularity, the timing of such an event (our lifetime, why?), your stated panpsychism that oddly omits the internet (your presumed source of future collective consciousness).

You might appreciate Bostroms work (co-founder of H+) which I think would add some academic rigour to your argument (Just as he has brought academic acceptance of Transhumanism).

You might also ponder Bostrom's simulation hypothesis, an excellent paper explicating the probability of us existing in a simulation as a function of the probability of humans realising the singularity (a strange loop indeed!).

There is also a huge ethical debate surrounding Transhumanism, (see Fukayama or Harris, founder of the IEET) which is relevant to your argument.

I am sure you excellent level of intelligence has already researched such pertinent topics.

Or perhaps you are

[...] outside your knowledge base on this one

MENS AGITAT MOLEM