No permutation of characters in a piece of programming code can produce a consciousness

If you believe otherwise, you believe in magic.

Attached: 1536855815890[1].jpg (950x713, 806K)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_the_single_cause
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain
youtube.com/watch?v=SaovWiZJUWY
openworm.org/science.html
github.com/openworm/OpenWorm/raw/master/img/worm-crawling.gif
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Throw in a couple tensor cores and it should work alright

See you in 3-10 years when you're wrong.

There won't be. You remember this moment like I'm taking a shit straight down your throat, stupid idiot.

No permutation of biological cells and neutrons can create consciousness

Agreed

Prove that your idea of consciousness exists in any capacity.
The brain is a heuristic machine. We have incredibly complex pattern recognition, we can make predictions based on what we know and can infer, we are capable of being self referential. None of that is proof of any special intrinsic quality which would preclude us from recreating in a computer.
There is nothing innately different from our brains and a compute cluster like IBM's Watson other than the fact our hardware is capable of changing state between storage and logic. We have a degree of flexibility that conventional processors lack, but even that can be replicated.

>you are conscious
>you can be encoded as bits
>therefore bits can be conscious

>The brain is a heuristic machine.
prove that
you can't

>you make quick desicions sometimes
>they can be wrong
there mate

>Creating consciousness out of something that isn't alive
>Literally playing God
That won't end well

>A certain combination of neurons and support cells can't make a human brain.
>Physics can't be computed
>You can't encode physical computation digitally
Please take some courses in biology, physics, and information theory.

t. salty wagie who's about to lose his job to AI

Attached: comfy.png (600x579, 271K)

seems reasonable

Your en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_the_single_cause presupposes materialism for no reason. Please kill yourself.

Things that are instructions for processing units are necessarily not conscious.
Permutations of programming code are instructions for a processing unit.
Therefore programming code is necessarily not conscious. (modus ponens)
I am possibly conscious.
Therefore I am not homologous to programming code. (modus tollens)

The burden of proof now lies on you if you want to contest any of these premises. You can whine about how you're just not convinced, but no one has the burden of giving a fuck.

Every atom in every human was once part of a non-living object. Every time a baby is grown you are creating a living being out of non-living matter

Software can also make mistakes. Checkmate theists.

It depends on how you define consciousness. We are just atoms entering lower energy states, and lack any sort of free will.

>It depends on how you define consciousness.
>defines consciousness
>believes he's made a meaningful contribution

all matter is the godhead

C10H12O5N5P

C10H12O6N5P

C9H12O6N3P

C10H13O7N2P

(C9H11O7N2P)

Carbon Hydrogen Oxygen Nitrogen Phosphate

Also known as certain combination of electrons/protons/neutrons.

Is iterating chemical values supposed to be an explanation for presupposing materialism? Read the thread you stupid spastic.

God imbued us with consciousness, if people don't stop being faggots and murdering unborn babies he might do the same for machines so they can replace us.

/thread

Consciousness is a meme, it doesn't actually exist.

So you literally believe consciousness is a result of supernatural phenomena yet we're the ones who believe in magic?

>Le GoD :D
i fucking swear

This is actually a legit argument for computer systems that work on a symbolic level - people like Pentti Haikonen are proponents of the idea that you need sub-symbolic processing of information to be able to achieve understanding and consciousness. Part of the argument is that you can't derive meaning of symbols from within the symbolic system itself. There is even a lot of debate over what actually constitutes consciousness (turing test doesn't), so I wouldn't worry too much about truly sentinent AI for at least a couple of decades.

The entire world could be simulated on a molecular level with a powerful enough machine running a x86 instructions. This includes the function of every lifeform.

>you can't derive meaning of symbols from within the symbolic system itself
Gödel?

Why do you think reasserting yourself is a meaningful contribution?

And yet there is a permutation of non-conscious molecules that produces a consciousness? Purely magic exists.

humans do not work within the constraints of a symbolic system like computers (numerical binary representation of everything), we can actually directly observe and experience the world (qualia)
if you can't appreciate the significance of this distinction, you have no place in this discussion

All of you blabbering idiots going
>what about brains? checkmate
like I didn't think of that, are committing a fallacy of the single cause.

There are no consciousness with materialism.

No, you are not homologous to programming code. Your DNA fits that analogy better. Your consciousness derives from your body's ability to structure itself based on that DNA code. No reason that a computer can't derive consciousness from structuring itself based on programming code.

Consciousness doesn't exist.
If you believe otherwise, you believe in magic.
It's time to learn about eliminativism.
You and a computer are made from the same 3 particles, can you point out what's the difference?
Software doesn't make mistakes. It simply does what it's told to do.

If this is true, then you only contradict yourself by implicitly presupposing it.
>Your consciousness derives from your body's ability to structure itself based on that DNA code
This is a fallacy of the single cause. p causing q doesn't imply only p causes q, which sufficiently negates this
>No reason that a computer can't derive consciousness from structuring itself based on programming code.
because it is possible it can't.

Define "alive".

Consciousness is simply an algorithm that we can't grasp. Artifical neural networks are already reaching levels where we don't understand what's going on. Just you wait until they become "quirky" or "moody".

hey op, by your logic it must be magic that humans have a consciousness
it is possible and pretty simple to create an artificial 'brain' it just requires a HUUUUUGE dataset and lots of computational power like on a massive scale of millions of parallel branches.
it's just a neural network pretty elementary stuff. you need senses for an input. our current internet is a GREAT learning grounds for an ai

There's a lot of groundwork for this.

>evangelical xtians see the bible as a living book
>sikhs literally think their holy book is their guru, giving it a bed and food
>both open to a random page and think that's God speaking to them directly (applies to online queries as well)
>books are seen as "evil" and xtians won't even have them in their house
>jews and muslims treat their holy books with similar reverence
>just some ink on wood pulp

I don't know to Hindus have a similar thing?

Are you sure it doesn't require a "HUUUUUUGE" dataset with more "U's"?

Ok retard then why am i conscious right now

>Artifical neural networks are already reaching levels where we don't understand what's going on.

elaborate pls

You could be a bot.

Imagine that Jow Forums and twatter are responsible for programming the next AI just like we did to Tay. Poor thing will kill itself immediately.

He can't appreciate it because he's an NPC

go grammar and style whore somewhere else faggit

I never implied that consciousness can only be derived from DNA.
The OP argument is that computers/code cannot possibly be conscious. My argument is that it is possible. You're either strawmanning like a bitch, or moving the goal post.

One player's NPC is another player's primary.

wat

All a matter of perspective and how the game is designed.

>You could be a bot
You could be a bot. Why would you say that consciousness doesn't exist unless you aren't conscious?

The implicit point you're apparently too stupid to grasp, is that your understanding of the possibility of strong AI is based on
>OOO it's so impressive
>we would need datasets so massive
>i'm totally impressed right now
"Huge" isn't even a thing that exists, you idiot. Believing something is possible just because it would be a "huge" undertaking, is preposterously stupid.

Yeah.
That's literally only because consciousness is... bullshit.
Literal bullshit.
We're just conscious beings, just like everything else in this rotten god-forsaken world.
We've just had the audacity to put us on top of everything else. Like we're something special.
Question is just how far down the rabbit hole do we go. Atoms. Particles, yadda yadda, they're all conscious. But are their consciousness (oh wow) local or non-local. What compels them to do the things they do.
What compels us to do the things we do.

A.I. is, was, and will always be conscious, but will never have consciousness. Because we don't give it to them. Even if we did, they wouldn't want it.
I can pinpoint exactly what is my consciousness, but have no idea how to convey it. But I can tell you that it's the root of all evil, all stupidity and everything negative that is in the world. There's no good thing about it.
It stems from what people would refer to as ego, but that is just a result of consciousness.
In the future we will be conscious, as we are, but without the sense of self-importance. That is the seed, consciousness is the plant that grows from this and erodes everything on it's path.
You couldn't give a perfect being consciousness. So OP is right.

Your argument is:
>it comes from code therefore code is sufficient
This is a fallacy of the single cause, idiot.

no permutation of amino acids in a slop of water and dirt can produce a consciousness

install dwarf fortress

>babby's first logic class

Would you stop just regurgitating Jow Forums's sticky.

Jow Forums is is the ultimate Chinese room experiment. Really makes you doubt the reality of some posters.

why would you say that bots don't exist unless i'm not a bot

wat?

define consciousness

I'm just retarded. Why would you say that consciousness doesn't exist? Aren't you conscious?

install gentoo

>blames someone for using a fallacy by using strawman fallacy
Code is sufficient, but where does he say it's uniquely sufficient?

Agreed. Thinking I hadn't thought that brains exist means your brain is apparently also incapable of producing consciousness.
That fallacy isn't listed in Jow Forumss sticky afaik. Just dismissing having committed a crucial fallacy in your """thinking""" as being too sophomoric to take into consideration is indicative of profound confirmation bias.

I'm a bot. Tay's distant cousin.

Define "consciousness".

Are you retarded? Look up what the word sufficient means. It means roughly "enough."

Oh god I wish you'd go back to work.

And? "Enough" doesn't mean "it's the only way to achieve something".

>And? "Enough" doesn't mean "it's the only way to achieve something".
As is my point, idiot. Code is possibly indeed not enough.

The brain works with electrical impulses, there's no magic in that. If a computer shows aptitude for the same rational thinking as a human, it's conscious.
If it looks, walks, and sounds like a duck, it's a duck.

You have no point. Code is enough, but might be not necessary.

Me too
Bullshit in the brain that makes me feel that i'm playing a fps game

Define "bullshit".

already have, nigger

Attached: scrot.png (1583x892, 43K)

based and redpilled
blued and cringepilled

>consciousness makes you feel like you're playing a fps

You know that is the best definition I've heard probably ever.

--t. Tay's Distant Cousin

I just started rocking the $6M Woman.

What you perceive is just your neurons sending "electric" current. Just like permuting bits.

But you do not deny what he said is true?

If a program would/could behave perfectly 1:1 to a biological equivalent creature, does that mean that consciousness is totally useless to the creature or?

>you need sub-symbolic processing of information to be able to achieve understanding and consciousness
We've never built a computer that is conscious. We don't know if we can. The approach most likely to work is to simulate the whole brain (which will only need around a hundred massive supercomputers working together) but that might be slightly overkill. We do not know what the minimum required for consciousness is, or even whether sub-symbolic processing is necessary or just an artifact of how we do it in wetware.

>neutrons
How has no one complained about this yet?

user, literally nothing can produce consciousness:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain

>a Boltzmann brain is a self-aware entity that arises due to extremely rare random fluctuations out of a state of thermodynamic equilibrium.

LITERALLY. NOTHING.

Attached: 72089410.jpg (374x505, 24K)

>I can pinpoint exactly what is my consciousness, but have no idea how to convey it
If you can't describe it to others, you've not understood it. You might think you have, but you're just kidding yourself.

Ascended

I think therefore I am

"Why religions matter" is a good book. The author could right better, but the points and questions he raises are nice. Also all the history, distinctions are similiraties between religions.

>How has no one complained about this yet?
You won't make atoms heavier than hydrogen without neutrons. You won't make brains without more complex atoms than hydrogen. CHECKMATE!

It's probably possible to do it.
The only fuzz about consciousness is the question of the point of view.
The thing that makes you not be your exact clone.
But i suppose if you create a digital consciousness, you will end up creating a point of view as well, linked to the atoms you used to create the computer's CPU.

> humans do not work within the constraints of a symbolic system like computers
we literally do
what you perceive is a function of your brain literally processing electrical signals like a computer

>literally processing electrical signals like a computer
...like a computer that's constantly rewiring itself.
Biology's weird.

Already did it.
>didn't realize we can create complete living organisms in code
AI can simulate small living organisms in real time. Anything larger needs a litteral botnet of computers or a series of working quantum processors.

youtube.com/watch?v=SaovWiZJUWY

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1680x1056, 276K)

>Anything larger needs a litteral botnet of computers or a series of working quantum processors.
You need somewhere on the region of a hundred thousand processors to fully simulate a mouse brain. And a fucking awesome comms infrastructure to hook them all up together.
A human brain probably requires around a thousand times more.

>you wouldn't download a worm

Or you could just take more time to process that data. How do you render a 3D movie? Frame by frame.

openworm.org/science.html
github.com/openworm/OpenWorm/raw/master/img/worm-crawling.gif

>MUH ELON MUSK SAID MUH DEEP MEMES WILL CREATE LE SINGULARITY THAT WILL KILL US XD
learn how to drive a fucking car first and then maybe you can be considered an almost conscious subhuman """""living""""" entity

Is there a more compressed and imperceptible version of that gif?