Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Glitched-Lies t1_ivdc3j8 wrote

Reply to comment by Ratheka_Stormbjorne in Nick Bostrom on the ethics of Digital Minds: "With recent advances in AI... it is remarkable how neglected this issue still is" by Smoke-away

Well it wouldn't be a model, and generally speaking that's why. And basically "it's different" is observed by the fact that it just isn't fizzling like neurons and there is more too.

−2

Ratheka_Stormbjorne t1_ivdchkw wrote

Do you understand consciousness well enough to explain it such that no mystery remains?

9

Glitched-Lies t1_ivdda4b wrote

No, but at this point there is still a knowledge of difference that could be described at many points of difference from cause and effect which is the important thing. Which is just scientifically knowing a difference in how the "AI" operate and "digital" apposed to what brains do.

1

Ratheka_Stormbjorne t1_ivdeg8p wrote

And a heavier than air plane will never fly. After all, how can it flap the wings fast enough?

What knowledge, exactly, are you claiming, that lets you be so certain of this?

7

Glitched-Lies t1_ivdenel wrote

Because a simulation cannot be conscious, otherwise it becomes semantics.

1

Ratheka_Stormbjorne t1_ivdgp2y wrote

So, there is no compelling reason that consciousness cannot exist within a digital system?

6

[deleted] t1_ivdql2g wrote

How can you objectively prove that you are consciousness? Spoilers you cant.

4

Ratheka_Stormbjorne t1_ivgv15d wrote

I can't, yet. I do not think that you have sufficient evidence to claim that it cannot be done, merely that we do not yet know a way to do so.

1

[deleted] t1_ivh1tcu wrote

Do you believe that everything will eventually be explained ?

1

Ratheka_Stormbjorne t1_ivh6xuq wrote

Will? The prior on that is not sufficient to rise to the level that I would call belief.

Can? Yes.

1

Glitched-Lies t1_ivdyvz2 wrote

That doesn't matter. Because for fact humans are, so it doesn't need "proving". Because that's just simply a fact.

0

Glitched-Lies t1_ivdi4ub wrote

It would be "settling" ethics at an incomplete place. As by the very nature of what it would mean by a computer simulating a consciousness and relative wording about computations or the math. But by very nature the differences are that itself. An identical system wouldn't be a computer. It should be obvious from cause and effect it scientifically begins from this fundamental difference.

0

Ratheka_Stormbjorne t1_ivgux9p wrote

I did not say "simulating". I said consciousness and exist.

1

Glitched-Lies t1_ivgvna4 wrote

Digital systems can only simulate.

1

Ratheka_Stormbjorne t1_ivh6vbf wrote

That is a claim. What is the evidence for that claim?

1

Glitched-Lies t1_ivhae93 wrote

That's what simulation means

1

Ratheka_Stormbjorne t1_ivhbln5 wrote

You are the one who keeps insisting that everything on a digital system is a simulation.

I keep asking how do you know everything on a digital system is a simulation?

Can you please answer my question, instead of reiterating your claim?

1