Nick Bostrom on the ethics of Digital Minds: "With recent advances in AI... it is remarkable how neglected this issue still is"Ratheka_Stormbjorne t1_ivdazau wrote
Reply to comment by Glitched-Lies 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
> Computers can't be; a machine being conscious would be different than digital computers.
How do you know that? What evidence has led you to this conclusion other than, "It's different."? Do you know that at various times and places various humans have been regarded as not being conscious because, "They're different."? What actual evidence do you have of this? Have you constructed a model of a conscious mind on a digital computer and have it fail to display consciousness? How did you discern whether it did or didn't? How do you know your model was accurate? How do I know any being in this universe aside from myself is conscious in a solid and grounded way, rather than just making the assumption?
Glitched-Lies t1_ivdc3j8 wrote
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.
Ratheka_Stormbjorne t1_ivdchkw wrote
Do you understand consciousness well enough to explain it such that no mystery remains?
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.
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?
Glitched-Lies t1_ivdenel wrote
Because a simulation cannot be conscious, otherwise it becomes semantics.
Ratheka_Stormbjorne t1_ivdgp2y wrote
So, there is no compelling reason that consciousness cannot exist within a digital system?
[deleted] t1_ivdql2g wrote
How can you objectively prove that you are consciousness? Spoilers you cant.
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.
[deleted] t1_ivh1tcu wrote
Do you believe that everything will eventually be explained ?
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.
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.
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.
Ratheka_Stormbjorne t1_ivgux9p wrote
I did not say "simulating". I said consciousness and exist.
Glitched-Lies t1_ivgvna4 wrote
Digital systems can only simulate.
Ratheka_Stormbjorne t1_ivh6vbf wrote
That is a claim. What is the evidence for that claim?
Glitched-Lies t1_ivhae93 wrote
That's what simulation means
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?
Glitched-Lies t1_ivhcnae wrote
That's what is means, otherwise it becomes semantics.
Ratheka_Stormbjorne t1_ivhfuki wrote
Okay, good talk. Be well!
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments