Desperate_Food7354 OP t1_j3lh5ch wrote
Reply to comment by a4mula in Arguments against calling aging a disease make no sense relative to other natural processes we attempt to fix. by Desperate_Food7354
The laws of physics allows us to exist, the smartest of us are the known minimum of intelligence that can exist, combining those two it can be hypothesized that we can create intelligence, given the nature of our biology we cannot simply add more brain, but we can add more computer to a computer. Even without adding more computer or more intelligence, an isaac newton in a computer would run 300,000x faster than his human self and have access to the entire internet. 300,000x figure coming from speed of light vs axon btw. If you don’t want to respond, farewell.
a4mula t1_j3lhicc wrote
Sure. Define that word you're using so loosely. Intelligence. Where does it come from?
Dunno? Guess what. It's another one that nobody fucking does. There's zero evidence that we generate it.
If we don't?
What then?
That's right, you wasted 30 fucking years because you were too fucking stupid to define the words you're using.
Desperate_Food7354 OP t1_j3lhpwp wrote
Whatever intelligence is, the laws of physics allow for it, meaning it can be replicated.
a4mula t1_j3li21y wrote
Yeah? Where's your evidence for that?
Is your consciousness allowed by the laws of physics too? What about Qualia? What about subjective experience in general?
Just show me the evidence bro, and I'll jump full steam ahead.
Don't dig too hard. Hell I'll help you out.
Desperate_Food7354 OP t1_j3lit1b wrote
I could have a kid, is that not me creating intelligence? Consciousness is a completely subjective experience, we can make definitions of what it means to be conscious but a chat bot could pull off being conscious to you if it gave the right answers, IRL you could talk to me and It would be impossible to know if there is a self aware ‘conscious’ thinker within your head as I am not inside of it, all I’ll ever know is what is inside of my own head so it’s extremely subjective and so I don’t really think it matters all that much as long as whatever we create produces results.
a4mula t1_j3lj6iu wrote
You could have a kid. Certainly. I'd even agree that you'd be creating a physical body that comes fully equipped with a brain.
But you're clearly not creating intelligence. Intelligence isn't a brain. It's not a body. It's the interactions of those things with information.
I can make a CPU, doesn't mean I can play favorite video game on it.
And that's just a simple analogy. After all, intelligence isn't software or a motherboard or memory or a psu either.
It's not even the video game itself. Because those are all simple concepts. Very simple concepts next to what we're talking about.
Again, Just define that word Intelligence for me. It should be easy. Fuck we've all said the word a million times. Surely we know what it is. Right?
Desperate_Food7354 OP t1_j3ljglu wrote
Defining intelligence to me is like defining consciousness to me and then trying to prove to me you’re conscious. As long as it produces results.
a4mula t1_j3ljt2h wrote
lol The Shut Up and Calculate method of AI. Sure. I like it. The difference is that the Copenhagen Interpretation produced results.
Funny how the concept of consciousness as a function of informational complexity has yet to.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments