Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Glitched-Lies t1_ivg9geg wrote

Reply to comment by MarkArrows 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

It's actually by fact of first order logic of phenomenal, actually. A straight line of reasoning determines it and upon evidence gathering of both empirical differences and not emprerical points. It's like 1+1=2, 1+1+1=3, 1+1+1+1=4 ... In a series ex. Because confusion upon any belief reasoning, as that's not truly belief. Exploring the notion of this being wrong is a waste of time for the explanation above.

1

MarkArrows t1_ivgbxrc wrote

I'm a little impressed at how I show it's literally a logical fallacy to think "I can't be wrong because my argument has convinced myself." And your response is: "My argument has convinced myself, so it's a waste of time to consider alternate arguments."

RNA and DNA work on similar rulesets and determination. If you look at the base point of what makes cells function, you'll find plenty of similarities to mechanical true/false - if/else logic at the bottom of the pole. Everything ends up being math.

We wouldn't consider them conscious, but they are organic. A variation of all these rule-abiding proteins and microorganisms eventually evolved into us.

Thus because machines follow a line of rules right now, there exists a possibility that they build on this until it's complex enough to form an artificial lifeform with consciousness, in the same way we did.

That said, I think it's a lost cause to argue with you. You aren't even able to do the basics of debate, even when it's directly pointed out.

1

Glitched-Lies t1_ivgce1c wrote

I'm not debating it or starting an argument. Or over cells that don't work as comparison because they are not one human being of consciousness.

1

Glitched-Lies t1_ivgclwe wrote

Also, it's not actually a fallacy at all to ignore arguments.

1