Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Gmroo OP t1_iz4h2ru wrote

I can't be a 100% sure, but we have our own experience and evidence from convergence in evolution in our cases, verbak reports and the whole rest. In the case of simple calculators that did not evoove to think and feel like us, we don't. And it's a rather specious suggestion. The positive feedback loops in the CNS, receptors and signalling, etc., are a whooe different machine than simple electronic devices or even any Von Neumann architecture. Our brain is an analog piece wetware.

1

ConsciousLiterature t1_iz67rbk wrote

>n the case of simple calculators that did not evoove to think and feel like us, we don't.

I said nothing about thinking or evolving. I am merely talking about experience.

>Our brain is an analog piece wetware.

Irrelevant to the discussion.

3

Gmroo OP t1_iz6nhqf wrote

How something is built and what sort of input it receives, how it's processed is of course relevant to the discussion. Making random claims that anything that receives input has subj. experience is silly.

−1

ConsciousLiterature t1_iz80uzk wrote

>How something is built and what sort of input it receives, how it's processed is of course relevant to the discussion

No it's not. The mere fact that processing happens is the only thing that matters.

>Making random claims that anything that receives input has subj. experience is silly.

Why is it silly?

3

Gmroo OP t1_iz848rd wrote

Handwaving with a word like processing is meaningless. I personally am looking to engineer not just AI but synthetic minds. Properties of the materials and the physics matter.

It's silly because it assumes subjective experience as some sort of magic that happens regardless of the design.

1

ConsciousLiterature t1_iz87o78 wrote

>Handwaving with a word like processing is meaningless.

Is it though? How is it worse than handwaving with a word like consciousness or experience or qualia?

>I personally am looking to engineer not just AI but synthetic minds.

Good luck with that. Let me know when you know what a mind is and how you would recognize one.

>It's silly because it assumes subjective experience as some sort of magic that happens regardless of the design.

It's not magic at all. It's just chemical reactions.

2