Total Posts:71|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

artificial intelligence

philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2014 9:24:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I was thinking about how artificial intelligence is becoming more and more sophisticated. It seems like, given enough time, AI ought to get to the point that it can mimic real intelligence so well, that we won't be able to tell the difference. At that point, there'll be debates on whether or not computers are actually sentient or just mimic sentience really well. Inevitably, many people will think computers are sentient, while others will not. That will lead to debates on whether or not computers ought to be granted rights.

I have two questions for discussion. First, assuming AI gets that sophisticated, do you think there's any way to tell whether computers are actually sentient? If so, how?

Second, assuming it's possible for a computer to mimic sentience so well that it's indistinguishable from real intelligence, how do we know there are other minds besides our own? Couldn't other people just be highly sophisticated examples of artificial intelligence?
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2014 10:55:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/28/2014 9:24:03 PM, philochristos wrote:
I was thinking about how artificial intelligence is becoming more and more sophisticated. It seems like, given enough time, AI ought to get to the point that it can mimic real intelligence so well, that we won't be able to tell the difference. At that point, there'll be debates on whether or not computers are actually sentient or just mimic sentience really well. Inevitably, many people will think computers are sentient, while others will not. That will lead to debates on whether or not computers ought to be granted rights.

I have two questions for discussion. First, assuming AI gets that sophisticated, do you think there's any way to tell whether computers are actually sentient? If so, how?

Second, assuming it's possible for a computer to mimic sentience so well that it's indistinguishable from real intelligence, how do we know there are other minds besides our own? Couldn't other people just be highly sophisticated examples of artificial intelligence?

This pertains to "Zombies" in the philosophy of mind. For all you know, you could be the only one in the universe with consciousness, and we could all be 'zombies'. When you get burned, you feel the qualia of pain, and you say "ouch". Maybe when you 'burn' someone else they say "ouch" but they don't actually feel the qualia. Maybe, I am typing like you would, as a conscious person, but I don't experience like you do, I am just going through the motions. We could all be zombies for all you know.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2014 10:55:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/28/2014 9:24:03 PM, philochristos wrote:
I was thinking about how artificial intelligence is becoming more and more sophisticated. It seems like, given enough time, AI ought to get to the point that it can mimic real intelligence so well, that we won't be able to tell the difference. At that point, there'll be debates on whether or not computers are actually sentient or just mimic sentience really well. Inevitably, many people will think computers are sentient, while others will not. That will lead to debates on whether or not computers ought to be granted rights.

I have two questions for discussion. First, assuming AI gets that sophisticated, do you think there's any way to tell whether computers are actually sentient? If so, how?

Second, assuming it's possible for a computer to mimic sentience so well that it's indistinguishable from real intelligence, how do we know there are other minds besides our own? Couldn't other people just be highly sophisticated examples of artificial intelligence?

Basically, if zombies are metaphysically conceivable, then it follows that materialism is false.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2014 10:59:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/28/2014 10:55:53 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

Basically, if zombies are metaphysically conceivable, then it follows that materialism is false.

How does that follow?
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2014 11:06:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/28/2014 10:59:25 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 1/28/2014 10:55:53 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

Basically, if zombies are metaphysically conceivable, then it follows that materialism is false.

How does that follow?

Modal Logic + Leibniz Law

If A is B, then whatever if true for A, is true for B. If materialism is true, then mind states are material brain states. So, if mind states are the same as material brain states, then whatever is true for mind states is true for material brain states. Well, if you can conceive of a world where everyone are zombies, then this means you can conceive of a world where everyone has their brain states and material aspects in tact but not their mind states. However, you cannot conceive of a world where everyone has their brain states but not their brain states (that is a contradiction). So, there is something true for mind states, not true for material brain states, which is:

"conceivably exists without material brain states"

Thus, if zombies are metaphysically possible, mind states are not material brain states, and something extra, or immaterial exists.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 12:01:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/28/2014 11:06:42 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/28/2014 10:59:25 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 1/28/2014 10:55:53 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

Basically, if zombies are metaphysically conceivable, then it follows that materialism is false.

How does that follow?

Modal Logic + Leibniz Law

If A is B, then whatever if true for A, is true for B. If materialism is true, then mind states are material brain states. So, if mind states are the same as material brain states, then whatever is true for mind states is true for material brain states. Well, if you can conceive of a world where everyone are zombies, then this means you can conceive of a world where everyone has their brain states and material aspects in tact but not their mind states. However, you cannot conceive of a world where everyone has their brain states but not their brain states (that is a contradiction). So, there is something true for mind states, not true for material brain states, which is:

"conceivably exists without material brain states"

Thus, if zombies are metaphysically possible, mind states are not material brain states, and something extra, or immaterial exists.

Oh yeah. Alvin Plantinga made an argument like that. I'm not sure I buy it, though. The conceivability may be due to lack of knowledge. It may not be possible for a brain to be exactly like mine but without a mind.

Consider the morning star and the evening star. A person who didn't know that they were the same entity--Venus--would have no trouble conceiving of something being true of one but not of the other. But their ability to conceive of there being different properties had by both doesn't mean it's actually possible for one to have properties that the other doesn't have. The conceivability is only the result of ignorance.

In the same way, we may be mistaken to think it's possible for our brains to exist and to have all of the same physical properties without there being a mind attached to them. Our ability to conceive of our brains existing without our minds is just like somebody's ability to conceive of something being true of the evening star without it being true of the morning star. It's only conceivable because of our lack of knowledge. So conceivability doesn't necessarily mean possibility.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 12:39:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/28/2014 9:24:03 PM, philochristos wrote:
I was thinking about how artificial intelligence is becoming more and more sophisticated. It seems like, given enough time, AI ought to get to the point that it can mimic real intelligence so well, that we won't be able to tell the difference. At that point, there'll be debates on whether or not computers are actually sentient or just mimic sentience really well. Inevitably, many people will think computers are sentient, while others will not. That will lead to debates on whether or not computers ought to be granted rights.

I have two questions for discussion. First, assuming AI gets that sophisticated, do you think there's any way to tell whether computers are actually sentient? If so, how?

Second, assuming it's possible for a computer to mimic sentience so well that it's indistinguishable from real intelligence, how do we know there are other minds besides our own? Couldn't other people just be highly sophisticated examples of artificial intelligence?

I'm convinced that, no matter how advanced artificial intelligence gets and no matter how well they may be able to mimic human persons, AI's will never be "sentient" or "persons" for their "thoughts," as it were, would lack intentionality insofar as they would never be "about" something, they would simply be a series of ones and zeroes (or whatever).
Orangatang
Posts: 442
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 1:14:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'm convinced that, no matter how advanced artificial intelligence gets and no matter how well they may be able to mimic human persons, AI's will never be "sentient" or "persons" for their "thoughts," as it were, would lack intentionality insofar as they would never be "about" something, they would simply be a series of ones and zeroes (or whatever).

Why not? If our consciousness is just an emergent property of the matter in our brain I do not see how we can discriminate against an intelligent robot, which would have consciousness in the same exact way and probably has potential to be a lot smarter too (we are restricted by our evolutionary development.
Read and Vote Please! http://www.debate.org...
Orangatang
Posts: 442
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 1:40:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/28/2014 9:24:03 PM, philochristos wrote:
I was thinking about how artificial intelligence is becoming more and more sophisticated. It seems like, given enough time, AI ought to get to the point that it can mimic real intelligence so well, that we won't be able to tell the difference. At that point, there'll be debates on whether or not computers are actually sentient or just mimic sentience really well. Inevitably, many people will think computers are sentient, while others will not. That will lead to debates on whether or not computers ought to be granted rights.

I have two questions for discussion. First, assuming AI gets that sophisticated, do you think there's any way to tell whether computers are actually sentient? If so, how?

Do you think our consciousness is an emergent property of the material in our brains? If so then we are nothing more than favored outcomes of evolution which produces intelligent beings. AI can be conscious with a different material brain structure, who are we to say our consciousness is the only REAL consciousness.

Second, assuming it's possible for a computer to mimic sentience so well that it's indistinguishable from real intelligence, how do we know there are other minds besides our own? Couldn't other people just be highly sophisticated examples of artificial intelligence?

Seems like your treading on solipsistic grounds. We can never be absolutely certain that sentience exists outside our minds, we can only infer that it is not likely.
Read and Vote Please! http://www.debate.org...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 5:04:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/28/2014 9:24:03 PM, philochristos wrote:
I was thinking about how artificial intelligence is becoming more and more sophisticated. It seems like, given enough time, AI ought to get to the point that it can mimic real intelligence so well, that we won't be able to tell the difference. At that point, there'll be debates on whether or not computers are actually sentient or just mimic sentience really well. Inevitably, many people will think computers are sentient, while others will not. That will lead to debates on whether or not computers ought to be granted rights.

I have two questions for discussion. First, assuming AI gets that sophisticated, do you think there's any way to tell whether computers are actually sentient? If so, how?

Second, assuming it's possible for a computer to mimic sentience so well that it's indistinguishable from real intelligence, how do we know there are other minds besides our own? Couldn't other people just be highly sophisticated examples of artificial intelligence?

I think what will occur is that we will indeed create this artificial life, but most people won't recognize it as such.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 7:07:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/29/2014 1:40:58 AM, Orangatang wrote:

Do you think our consciousness is an emergent property of the material in our brains? If so then we are nothing more than favored outcomes of evolution which produces intelligent beings. AI can be conscious with a different material brain structure, who are we to say our consciousness is the only REAL consciousness.

Artificial Intelligence is, by definition, artificial. It merely mimics real intelligence. If a computer ever actually became conscious, then it would no longer be artificial intelligence. It would be real intelligence. But my question is how we could tell the difference, assuming AI becomes more and more sophisticated. How could you ever know that a computer had become conscious? Or how could you tell that a seemingly conscious computer really wasn't?

Seems like your treading on solipsistic grounds. We can never be absolutely certain that sentience exists outside our minds, we can only infer that it is not likely.

What could we infer that from? What line of reasoning leads us to believe that there are other minds besides our own?
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 7:16:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/28/2014 9:24:03 PM, philochristos wrote:
I was thinking about how artificial intelligence is becoming more and more sophisticated. It seems like, given enough time, AI ought to get to the point that it can mimic real intelligence so well, that we won't be able to tell the difference. At that point, there'll be debates on whether or not computers are actually sentient or just mimic sentience really well. Inevitably, many people will think computers are sentient, while others will not. That will lead to debates on whether or not computers ought to be granted rights.

I have two questions for discussion. First, assuming AI gets that sophisticated, do you think there's any way to tell whether computers are actually sentient? If so, how?

Second, assuming it's possible for a computer to mimic sentience so well that it's indistinguishable from real intelligence, how do we know there are other minds besides our own? Couldn't other people just be highly sophisticated examples of artificial intelligence?

Star Trek.............
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 7:22:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/29/2014 7:07:04 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 1/29/2014 1:40:58 AM, Orangatang wrote:

Do you think our consciousness is an emergent property of the material in our brains? If so then we are nothing more than favored outcomes of evolution which produces intelligent beings. AI can be conscious with a different material brain structure, who are we to say our consciousness is the only REAL consciousness.

Artificial Intelligence is, by definition, artificial. It merely mimics real intelligence. If a computer ever actually became conscious, then it would no longer be artificial intelligence. It would be real intelligence. But my question is how we could tell the difference, assuming AI becomes more and more sophisticated. How could you ever know that a computer had become conscious? Or how could you tell that a seemingly conscious computer really wasn't?

Maybe you/we are the so called "artificial" intelligence.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 7:26:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/29/2014 7:22:32 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:

Maybe you/we are the so called "artificial" intelligence.

It's not even possible that I could be artificial intelligence.

That raises another interesting question. Suppose that a seemingly intelligent computer tried to prove to us that it had real intelligence. What sort of things might it say? And how is that different than what we might say? After all, anything I could say to you to try to convince you that I had real intelligence, a computer with AI could just as well say.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 7:28:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/29/2014 7:26:23 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 1/29/2014 7:22:32 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:

Maybe you/we are the so called "artificial" intelligence.

It's not even possible that I could be artificial intelligence.

LOL, after watching battlestar you may rethink that.

Oh do tell, how can is it not even possible that you are an artificial intelligence ?

That raises another interesting question. Suppose that a seemingly intelligent computer tried to prove to us that it had real intelligence. What sort of things might it say? And how is that different than what we might say? After all, anything I could say to you to try to convince you that I had real intelligence, a computer with AI could just as well say.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 7:31:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/29/2014 7:28:23 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/29/2014 7:26:23 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 1/29/2014 7:22:32 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:

Maybe you/we are the so called "artificial" intelligence.

It's not even possible that I could be artificial intelligence.

LOL, after watching battlestar you may rethink that.

Probably not.

Oh do tell, how can is it not even possible that you are an artificial intelligence ?

Because I'm immediately aware of my own first person subjectivity. The mere fact that I'm experiencing or thinking anything at all proves to me that my intelligence is not artificial. I really am a sentient being. I can't be mistaken about it.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 7:34:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/29/2014 7:31:26 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 1/29/2014 7:28:23 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/29/2014 7:26:23 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 1/29/2014 7:22:32 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:

Maybe you/we are the so called "artificial" intelligence.

It's not even possible that I could be artificial intelligence.

LOL, after watching battlestar you may rethink that.

Probably not.

Oh do tell, how can is it not even possible that you are an artificial intelligence ?

Because I'm immediately aware of my own first person subjectivity. The mere fact that I'm experiencing or thinking anything at all proves to me that my intelligence is not artificial. I really am a sentient being. I can't be mistaken about it.

As I recall, the thing about some of those cylons is that they didn't know they were cylons. Hey, I think, I feel, I must not be a machine..........but they were.

Just because you have or think you have awareness, doesn't mean you not a kind of machine.

I dunno philo, I think I smell a cylon
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Jonbonbon
Posts: 2,743
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 8:08:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/28/2014 9:24:03 PM, philochristos wrote:
I was thinking about how artificial intelligence is becoming more and more sophisticated. It seems like, given enough time, AI ought to get to the point that it can mimic real intelligence so well, that we won't be able to tell the difference. At that point, there'll be debates on whether or not computers are actually sentient or just mimic sentience really well. Inevitably, many people will think computers are sentient, while others will not. That will lead to debates on whether or not computers ought to be granted rights.

I have two questions for discussion. First, assuming AI gets that sophisticated, do you think there's any way to tell whether computers are actually sentient? If so, how?

Second, assuming it's possible for a computer to mimic sentience so well that it's indistinguishable from real intelligence, how do we know there are other minds besides our own? Couldn't other people just be highly sophisticated examples of artificial intelligence?

Bro, we can't create something more complex or advanced than us. AI is a bunch of 1's and 0's rapidly moving about.
The Troll Queen.

I'm also the Troll Goddess of Reason. Sacrifices are appreciated but not necessary.

"I'm a vivacious sex fiend," SolonKR.

Go vote on one of my debates. I'm not that smart, so it'll probably be an easy decision.

Fite me m9
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 10:53:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/28/2014 9:24:03 PM, philochristos wrote:
I was thinking about how artificial intelligence is becoming more and more sophisticated. It seems like, given enough time, AI ought to get to the point that it can mimic real intelligence so well, that we won't be able to tell the difference. At that point, there'll be debates on whether or not computers are actually sentient or just mimic sentience really well. Inevitably, many people will think computers are sentient, while others will not. That will lead to debates on whether or not computers ought to be granted rights.

I have two questions for discussion. First, assuming AI gets that sophisticated, do you think there's any way to tell whether computers are actually sentient? If so, how?

Second, assuming it's possible for a computer to mimic sentience so well that it's indistinguishable from real intelligence, how do we know there are other minds besides our own? Couldn't other people just be highly sophisticated examples of artificial intelligence?

I would argue, that if the mind is just a projection of the brain, then the "mind" is nothing else other than the collection of mental states. But mental states are always changing. You can get angry, lose your memory, forget who you are, etc. but the self remains the same.

So with a computer "projecting" a mind, if that's even possible, it couldn't possibly project a "self."
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 10:58:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/28/2014 10:55:53 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/28/2014 9:24:03 PM, philochristos wrote:
I was thinking about how artificial intelligence is becoming more and more sophisticated. It seems like, given enough time, AI ought to get to the point that it can mimic real intelligence so well, that we won't be able to tell the difference. At that point, there'll be debates on whether or not computers are actually sentient or just mimic sentience really well. Inevitably, many people will think computers are sentient, while others will not. That will lead to debates on whether or not computers ought to be granted rights.

I have two questions for discussion. First, assuming AI gets that sophisticated, do you think there's any way to tell whether computers are actually sentient? If so, how?

Second, assuming it's possible for a computer to mimic sentience so well that it's indistinguishable from real intelligence, how do we know there are other minds besides our own? Couldn't other people just be highly sophisticated examples of artificial intelligence?

Basically, if zombies are metaphysically conceivable, then it follows that materialism is false.

This. It's a flip-side of Alvin Plantinga's conceivability argument, and I think it's more forceful. Some people may say that the mind cannot exist without the brain. Well this is the position that the brain can exist without the mind.

So the materialist must show that either... A. The mind is identical to the brain (materialist position). Or B. The brain always projects the mind (a sort of matter over mind position).

Both are notoriously hard to prove.

Unless we receive sufficient argumentation for one of these positions, it seems most plausible to accept the possibility of the brain existing without the mind (zombie argument), or the mind existing without the brain (Alvin Plantinga's argument), and thus they cannot be the same thing.

Either way, the materialist has to demonstrate that the mind and brain always exist together, whether it be because they're the same thing, or essentially related. So the materialist has an immense BoP.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 11:03:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/29/2014 12:39:25 AM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 1/28/2014 9:24:03 PM, philochristos wrote:
I was thinking about how artificial intelligence is becoming more and more sophisticated. It seems like, given enough time, AI ought to get to the point that it can mimic real intelligence so well, that we won't be able to tell the difference. At that point, there'll be debates on whether or not computers are actually sentient or just mimic sentience really well. Inevitably, many people will think computers are sentient, while others will not. That will lead to debates on whether or not computers ought to be granted rights.

I have two questions for discussion. First, assuming AI gets that sophisticated, do you think there's any way to tell whether computers are actually sentient? If so, how?

Second, assuming it's possible for a computer to mimic sentience so well that it's indistinguishable from real intelligence, how do we know there are other minds besides our own? Couldn't other people just be highly sophisticated examples of artificial intelligence?

I'm convinced that, no matter how advanced artificial intelligence gets and no matter how well they may be able to mimic human persons, AI's will never be "sentient" or "persons" for their "thoughts," as it were, would lack intentionality insofar as they would never be "about" something, they would simply be a series of ones and zeroes (or whatever).

This! While the whole thing about sensation, and qualia, and whatever, are interesting and easy to understand, nothing gets to the heart of the mind more than its thinking ability. Its ability to point beyond itself. Its ability to comprehend universals, not just particulars. Nothing physical, through virtue of itself, is able to represent something as complex as our thinking process. Nothing physical is a universal, it's all particulars.

So either we do have thinking processes "about" things, and our mind is immaterial, or our mind is actually material, and we never think "about" anything. That's about the most absurd position one could take.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 11:09:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/29/2014 12:01:33 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 1/28/2014 11:06:42 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/28/2014 10:59:25 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 1/28/2014 10:55:53 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

Basically, if zombies are metaphysically conceivable, then it follows that materialism is false.

How does that follow?

Modal Logic + Leibniz Law

If A is B, then whatever if true for A, is true for B. If materialism is true, then mind states are material brain states. So, if mind states are the same as material brain states, then whatever is true for mind states is true for material brain states. Well, if you can conceive of a world where everyone are zombies, then this means you can conceive of a world where everyone has their brain states and material aspects in tact but not their mind states. However, you cannot conceive of a world where everyone has their brain states but not their brain states (that is a contradiction). So, there is something true for mind states, not true for material brain states, which is:

"conceivably exists without material brain states"

Thus, if zombies are metaphysically possible, mind states are not material brain states, and something extra, or immaterial exists.

Oh yeah. Alvin Plantinga made an argument like that. I'm not sure I buy it, though. The conceivability may be due to lack of knowledge. It may not be possible for a brain to be exactly like mine but without a mind.

Consider the morning star and the evening star. A person who didn't know that they were the same entity--Venus--would have no trouble conceiving of something being true of one but not of the other. But their ability to conceive of there being different properties had by both doesn't mean it's actually possible for one to have properties that the other doesn't have. The conceivability is only the result of ignorance.

In the same way, we may be mistaken to think it's possible for our brains to exist and to have all of the same physical properties without there being a mind attached to them. Our ability to conceive of our brains existing without our minds is just like somebody's ability to conceive of something being true of the evening star without it being true of the morning star. It's only conceivable because of our lack of knowledge. So conceivability doesn't necessarily mean possibility.

Well, this is clearly shifting the goal posts. Whether Zombies are actually metaphysically conceivable or not based on conceivability is a separate issue. The point is that if Zombies are metaphysically conceivable (or metaphysically possible), materialism is false. That's all I was saying.

If X is true, Y is true, doesn't presuppose X is true. This is a conditional..

Also, there are two ways to respond to your objection. One is David Chalmer's rebuttal (who came up with the Zombie argument against materialism). He says there is secondary conceivability and primary conceivability. This distinction makes his argument sound [http://consc.net...]. Also, Richard Swinburne says that kind of skeptical reasoning leads to epistemological paralysis. Basically, it is not just conceivability claims that could be due to lack of knowledge, but anything! Any claim you can make, I could always say "But this could be due to lack of knowledge". If we go with your objection, we cannot say anything is true! This is because we could always argue that their conclusion was based on lack of knowledge of everything.

If x seems conceivable, that is a good reason to accept it as conceivable absent a defeater.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 11:12:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/29/2014 7:26:23 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 1/29/2014 7:22:32 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:

Maybe you/we are the so called "artificial" intelligence.

It's not even possible that I could be artificial intelligence.

That raises another interesting question. Suppose that a seemingly intelligent computer tried to prove to us that it had real intelligence. What sort of things might it say? And how is that different than what we might say? After all, anything I could say to you to try to convince you that I had real intelligence, a computer with AI could just as well say.

It isn't. That is the problem...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 11:17:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/29/2014 12:01:33 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 1/28/2014 11:06:42 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/28/2014 10:59:25 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 1/28/2014 10:55:53 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

Basically, if zombies are metaphysically conceivable, then it follows that materialism is false.

How does that follow?

Modal Logic + Leibniz Law

If A is B, then whatever if true for A, is true for B. If materialism is true, then mind states are material brain states. So, if mind states are the same as material brain states, then whatever is true for mind states is true for material brain states. Well, if you can conceive of a world where everyone are zombies, then this means you can conceive of a world where everyone has their brain states and material aspects in tact but not their mind states. However, you cannot conceive of a world where everyone has their brain states but not their brain states (that is a contradiction). So, there is something true for mind states, not true for material brain states, which is:

"conceivably exists without material brain states"

Thus, if zombies are metaphysically possible, mind states are not material brain states, and something extra, or immaterial exists.

Oh yeah. Alvin Plantinga made an argument like that. I'm not sure I buy it, though. The conceivability may be due to lack of knowledge. It may not be possible for a brain to be exactly like mine but without a mind.

Consider the morning star and the evening star. A person who didn't know that they were the same entity--Venus--would have no trouble conceiving of something being true of one but not of the other. But their ability to conceive of there being different properties had by both doesn't mean it's actually possible for one to have properties that the other doesn't have. The conceivability is only the result of ignorance.

In the same way, we may be mistaken to think it's possible for our brains to exist and to have all of the same physical properties without there being a mind attached to them. Our ability to conceive of our brains existing without our minds is just like somebody's ability to conceive of something being true of the evening star without it being true of the morning star. It's only conceivable because of our lack of knowledge. So conceivability doesn't necessarily mean possibility.

Basically, your rebuttal is self-refuting. You say that I may only think X is conceivable due to lack of knowledge, however, you may only come to that conclusion due to a lack of knowledge lol
sadolite
Posts: 8,834
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 4:22:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
"it can mimic real intelligence so well, that we won't be able to tell the difference." I could stump artificial intelligence in 5 seconds by using sarcasm.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Orangatang
Posts: 442
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 5:35:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/29/2014 7:31:26 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 1/29/2014 7:28:23 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/29/2014 7:26:23 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 1/29/2014 7:22:32 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:

Maybe you/we are the so called "artificial" intelligence.

It's not even possible that I could be artificial intelligence.

LOL, after watching battlestar you may rethink that.

Probably not.

Oh do tell, how can is it not even possible that you are an artificial intelligence ?

Because I'm immediately aware of my own first person subjectivity. The mere fact that I'm experiencing or thinking anything at all proves to me that my intelligence is not artificial. I really am a sentient being. I can't be mistaken about it.

You are presupposing that you are not artificially created. How can you know an artificially created being cannot experience or think in the same way you do? After all consciousness is an emergent property of brains and brains are just a specialized configuration of material.
Read and Vote Please! http://www.debate.org...
Orangatang
Posts: 442
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 5:51:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Artificial Intelligence is, by definition, artificial. It merely mimics real intelligence. If a computer ever actually became conscious, then it would no longer be artificial intelligence. It would be real intelligence. But my question is how we could tell the difference, assuming AI becomes more and more sophisticated. How could you ever know that a computer had become conscious? Or how could you tell that a seemingly conscious computer really wasn't?

First of all how do you define consciousness? If we take my assumptions that consciousness is a result of brains and brains are a configuration of matter, on what grounds can you say that an artificially created brain that can clearly think in every way that we can think, and experience things with mechanical sensors, does not have experiences or consciousness? Seems highly likely that these beings will have consciousness and can ponder their own existence even though their physical brains will probably be different. If we had the technology to make an artificial brain that is an exact copy of a real brain, would the artificial brain have consciousness? I say it is not possible to say it doesn't without making some metaphysical mind claims.

Seems like your treading on solipsistic grounds. We can never be absolutely certain that sentience exists outside our minds, we can only infer that it is not likely.

What could we infer that from? What line of reasoning leads us to believe that there are other minds besides our own?

Well we can see that people seem to think in the same way that you think. And we can arrive at the same conclusions using the same logical pathways. We can observe that everyone seems to be capable of the same sensory experiences and have consciousness as you do. We can also explore the motives and consequences of the possibility that we are the only mind that exists. Just doesn't seem to make any sense as to why we are specifically chosen to be a brain in a vat. What would be the goal of that?
Read and Vote Please! http://www.debate.org...
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 6:06:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/29/2014 7:34:59 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/29/2014 7:31:26 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 1/29/2014 7:28:23 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/29/2014 7:26:23 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 1/29/2014 7:22:32 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:

Maybe you/we are the so called "artificial" intelligence.

It's not even possible that I could be artificial intelligence.

LOL, after watching battlestar you may rethink that.

Probably not.

Oh do tell, how can is it not even possible that you are an artificial intelligence ?

Because I'm immediately aware of my own first person subjectivity. The mere fact that I'm experiencing or thinking anything at all proves to me that my intelligence is not artificial. I really am a sentient being. I can't be mistaken about it.

As I recall, the thing about some of those cylons is that they didn't know they were cylons. Hey, I think, I feel, I must not be a machine..........but they were.

Just because you have or think you have awareness, doesn't mean you not a kind of machine.

I dunno philo, I think I smell a cylon

I think you may have a misunderstanding about what I mean by "artificial intelligence." I don't mean intelligence created by a machine rather than a brain. Rather, I mean a computer that merely mimics the behavior or output of conscious beings without actually being conscious. If the cylons in Battlestar Galactica actually think and feel, then they are not examples of artificial intelligence. They have real intelligence. I may be mistaken about whether I'm a biological entity of a machine, but I cannot be mistaken about the fact that I'm a sentient being and not artificial intelligence.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 6:19:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/29/2014 11:09:50 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/29/2014 12:01:33 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 1/28/2014 11:06:42 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 1/28/2014 10:59:25 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 1/28/2014 10:55:53 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

Basically, if zombies are metaphysically conceivable, then it follows that materialism is false.

How does that follow?

Modal Logic + Leibniz Law

If A is B, then whatever if true for A, is true for B. If materialism is true, then mind states are material brain states. So, if mind states are the same as material brain states, then whatever is true for mind states is true for material brain states. Well, if you can conceive of a world where everyone are zombies, then this means you can conceive of a world where everyone has their brain states and material aspects in tact but not their mind states. However, you cannot conceive of a world where everyone has their brain states but not their brain states (that is a contradiction). So, there is something true for mind states, not true for material brain states, which is:

"conceivably exists without material brain states"

Thus, if zombies are metaphysically possible, mind states are not material brain states, and something extra, or immaterial exists.

Oh yeah. Alvin Plantinga made an argument like that. I'm not sure I buy it, though. The conceivability may be due to lack of knowledge. It may not be possible for a brain to be exactly like mine but without a mind.

Consider the morning star and the evening star. A person who didn't know that they were the same entity--Venus--would have no trouble conceiving of something being true of one but not of the other. But their ability to conceive of there being different properties had by both doesn't mean it's actually possible for one to have properties that the other doesn't have. The conceivability is only the result of ignorance.

In the same way, we may be mistaken to think it's possible for our brains to exist and to have all of the same physical properties without there being a mind attached to them. Our ability to conceive of our brains existing without our minds is just like somebody's ability to conceive of something being true of the evening star without it being true of the morning star. It's only conceivable because of our lack of knowledge. So conceivability doesn't necessarily mean possibility.

Well, this is clearly shifting the goal posts. Whether Zombies are actually metaphysically conceivable or not based on conceivability is a separate issue. The point is that if Zombies are metaphysically conceivable (or metaphysically possible), materialism is false. That's all I was saying.

If X is true, Y is true, doesn't presuppose X is true. This is a conditional..

The objection I raised is that you appear to be equating "metaphysically conceivable" with "metaphysically possible." My Venus analogy was meant to show conceivability does not amount to possibility.

I would agree that if philosophical zombies are possible, then materialism is false. But I don't see how you can get to the possibility of philosophical zombies from the conceivability of philosophical zombies anymore than you can get from the possibility of the evening star having different properties than the morning star to it being possible for the evening start to have different properties than the morning star.

Besides that, a materialist need not say that brain states and mental states are identical in order to maintain materialism. They could say that mental states are properties that supervene on the brain. After all, any materialist will admit that when you die, your brain still exists, but your mind does not. So it need not be the case for a materialist that whatever is true of the mind is true of the brain and vice versa.

Also, there are two ways to respond to your objection. One is David Chalmer's rebuttal (who came up with the Zombie argument against materialism). He says there is secondary conceivability and primary conceivability. This distinction makes his argument sound [http://consc.net...]. Also, Richard Swinburne says that kind of skeptical reasoning leads to epistemological paralysis. Basically, it is not just conceivability claims that could be due to lack of knowledge, but anything! Any claim you can make, I could always say "But this could be due to lack of knowledge". If we go with your objection, we cannot say anything is true! This is because we could always argue that their conclusion was based on lack of knowledge of everything.

That is a good point.

If x seems conceivable, that is a good reason to accept it as conceivable absent a defeater.

I agree.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/29/2014 6:20:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/29/2014 6:06:47 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 1/29/2014 7:34:59 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/29/2014 7:31:26 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 1/29/2014 7:28:23 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/29/2014 7:26:23 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 1/29/2014 7:22:32 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:

Maybe you/we are the so called "artificial" intelligence.

It's not even possible that I could be artificial intelligence.

LOL, after watching battlestar you may rethink that.

Probably not.

Oh do tell, how can is it not even possible that you are an artificial intelligence ?

Because I'm immediately aware of my own first person subjectivity. The mere fact that I'm experiencing or thinking anything at all proves to me that my intelligence is not artificial. I really am a sentient being. I can't be mistaken about it.

As I recall, the thing about some of those cylons is that they didn't know they were cylons. Hey, I think, I feel, I must not be a machine..........but they were.

Just because you have or think you have awareness, doesn't mean you not a kind of machine.

I dunno philo, I think I smell a cylon

I think you may have a misunderstanding about what I mean by "artificial intelligence." I don't mean intelligence created by a machine rather than a brain. Rather, I mean a computer that merely mimics the behavior or output of conscious beings without actually being conscious. If the cylons in Battlestar Galactica actually think and feel, then they are not examples of artificial intelligence. They have real intelligence. I may be mistaken about whether I'm a biological entity of a machine, but I cannot be mistaken about the fact that I'm a sentient being and not artificial intelligence.

Well they Cylons claim they think and feel. But do they ? or is that just part of their programming.

What is this "I" that you refer too. Is it one and the same as yourself, or is the "I" something different, and it just going for a ride............at your expense.

But but but, the "I" is one and the same as myself..................are you sure about that ? have you really questioned this ? or just accept this as an assumption.

How far down the rabbit hole do we go down today.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12