What a moronic take, we cannot prove consciousness (except our own of course) so it’d be you who must prove it can be implemented in a turing machine. Not me.
Statement: “There is no indication that the human brain cannot be modeled as a turing machine”
To disprove this, evidence to the contrary is required. It’s not at all the same as saying “The human brain can be modeled as a turing machine”. In that case they would need to prove that.
We simply do not know. Humans cling to their idea of somehow being “special” very hard with thought experiments like chinese room, and at all points neglect that there is no evidence that a human brain is actually different.
Generally I’d argue that the continuous nature of animal brains makes them quite fundamentally different from the very much discrete states of anything we program, but that still doesn’t mean it’d be impossible to simulate.
Many abilities and properties we thought to be exclusive to human consciousness were later proven in animals. Such as the capacity for empathy, thinking ahead, and recognizing yourself in a mirror.
Does that mean animals are partially conscious? Or can we accept that the definition is fuzzy at best, making this a moving target?
I personally suppose humans all (or 99%+, there are always statistical outliers) have a consciousness actually, but that doesn’t mean I can use it as a fact when making an argument. For example, if you do use it as a fact, then why doesn’t monkeys have a consciousness, pigs, cats, muskitoes, trees, planks, too, etc etc etc.
Math is based on the idea that 1+1=2 and you take that as granted. I can live with that, it seems reasonable. All humans have a consciousness? Not accepting that if you infer that just because a machine can mimic a human brain, it thus also will have even the possibility to have a consciousness.
Do you think a machine can have a quala, the experience we “experience” because we have a consciousness?
This was your position: “we have ‘quala’ (consciousness)” in regards to humans. That’s what I’ve challenged in my reply.
Now you’ve wildly moved the goalposts twice in just two comments. The first (solipsism) I’ve rejected, but gave you the benefit of the doubt that you just needed a reminder on your own position.
Now you did it again. I’m not playing this game. Stick to a point, anything else is just rudely wasting the time of people actually interested in having a good-faith exchange of ideas.
Which you can precisely define, right?
What a moronic take, we cannot prove consciousness (except our own of course) so it’d be you who must prove it can be implemented in a turing machine. Not me.
Statement: “There is no indication that the human brain cannot be modeled as a turing machine”
To disprove this, evidence to the contrary is required. It’s not at all the same as saying “The human brain can be modeled as a turing machine”. In that case they would need to prove that.
We simply do not know. Humans cling to their idea of somehow being “special” very hard with thought experiments like chinese room, and at all points neglect that there is no evidence that a human brain is actually different.
Generally I’d argue that the continuous nature of animal brains makes them quite fundamentally different from the very much discrete states of anything we program, but that still doesn’t mean it’d be impossible to simulate.
Except we have quala, consciousness. That’s a well recognised fact. How do you model something we cannot explain?
So yeah there are “indications” we cannot do it. Maybe we can and emerging properties is the way to go, but it might also not be that.
Do you believe we can?
Edit: the chinese room is a farce IMO, and won’t push anything either way.
Many abilities and properties we thought to be exclusive to human consciousness were later proven in animals. Such as the capacity for empathy, thinking ahead, and recognizing yourself in a mirror.
Does that mean animals are partially conscious? Or can we accept that the definition is fuzzy at best, making this a moving target?
That makes it probable I guess, but it absolutely does not prove it. We cannot prove humans are conscious (except ourselves).
I was clearly asking from the position of recognising consciousness in other humans. Or is that not your position?
Solipsism is pointless and boring. By that logic, nothing at all can be proven or disproven.
I personally suppose humans all (or 99%+, there are always statistical outliers) have a consciousness actually, but that doesn’t mean I can use it as a fact when making an argument. For example, if you do use it as a fact, then why doesn’t monkeys have a consciousness, pigs, cats, muskitoes, trees, planks, too, etc etc etc.
Math is based on the idea that 1+1=2 and you take that as granted. I can live with that, it seems reasonable. All humans have a consciousness? Not accepting that if you infer that just because a machine can mimic a human brain, it thus also will have even the possibility to have a consciousness.
Do you think a machine can have a quala, the experience we “experience” because we have a consciousness?
This was your position: “we have ‘quala’ (consciousness)” in regards to humans. That’s what I’ve challenged in my reply.
Now you’ve wildly moved the goalposts twice in just two comments. The first (solipsism) I’ve rejected, but gave you the benefit of the doubt that you just needed a reminder on your own position.
Now you did it again. I’m not playing this game. Stick to a point, anything else is just rudely wasting the time of people actually interested in having a good-faith exchange of ideas.