Nick Bostrom on the ethics of Digital Minds: "With recent advances in AI... it is remarkable how neglected this issue still is"
Submitted by Smoke-away t3_yo6jeu in singularity
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
So, there is no compelling reason that consciousness cannot exist within a digital system?
How can you objectively prove that you are consciousness? Spoilers you cant.
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.
Do you believe that everything will eventually be explained ?
Will? The prior on that is not sufficient to rise to the level that I would call belief.
Can? Yes.
That doesn't matter. Because for fact humans are, so it doesn't need "proving". Because that's just simply a fact.
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.
I did not say "simulating". I said consciousness and exist.
Digital systems can only simulate.
That is a claim. What is the evidence for that claim?
That's what simulation means
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?
That's what is means, otherwise it becomes semantics.
Okay, good talk. Be well!
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments