Tell me in 10 second why it is impossible to create artificial intelligence

an observation of a thing is not a thing itself

now fuck off.

This. AI's goalposts move faster than light, that's why it can't be created

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room

/thread

What a stupid fucking argument. It hinges on the (mistaken) belief that humans are "more" than an extremely complicated input/output system with memory and quite a bit of randomness thrown in.

Conscious thought is a matter of hormone fluctuations and neurons firing; a physical process. All physical processes can be simulated, given enough computing power. Perfectly simulated consciousness is exactly that; consciousness.

checked

also source?

Baseless assumption #1: Conscious thought is a matter of hormone fluctuations and neurons firing; a physical process.
Baseless assumption #2: All physical processes can be simulated, given enough computing power.
Baseless assumption #3: Perfectly simulated consciousness is exactly that; consciousness.

What a stupid fucking post. At least get cursory education on a subject before chiming in with your hot takes, retard.

Now, go ahead and tell everyone how you would go about designing a computer that understands the input it receives - in the same way humans directly observe the world around them. You are probably too dumb to even see the essential problem with this because your understanding of consciousness and world is a naive belief in the infallibility of computationalism.

We will have Artificial Intelligence when the machine we create can create Artificial Intelligence.

>what are NNs
binary artificial approximations of gradient biological networks that require a relatively high level of investment to create yet are only applicable in narrowly-defined use cases

It takes more than humans to create a human mind.

It's not impossible, but we just don't have the technical means to build one, yet. But I wouldn't be surprised if we get to see a singularity happen during our lifetimes.

>It hinges on the (mistaken) belief that humans are "more" than an extremely complicated input/output system with memory and quite a bit of randomness thrown in.
>mistaken
oh look. it's a make believe intellectual getting btfo.. on Jow Forums of all boards.. shocking turn of events.

Attached: UkpWru4_d.jpg (640x829, 48K)

>shitty reductionist argument

but we can't create artificial intelligence tho

AI cannot replicate perfectly well how stupid we are.

hail_kiko

>what are NNs
a bunch of if statements.

This. A singularity has to create itself just like we happened to be. An AI made by humans is just a sophisticated algorithm, nothing more.

>HooOmAnZ aRe JuST CoOmmPOOtaRs BRooo

Attached: 127-1270350_143kib-625x773-based-retard-brainlet-wojak-transparent.png (626x617, 82K)

Its wasn't possible, but they changed the meaning of AI so it was possible.

now goombas have ai
and searching for text is ai

arrogant freaks
it's like how they standardized the term fossil fuels when they never proved that it was actually made of fossils
they're liars
it's probably made from plants like sunflower oil

Doing of the jews. They want to give machines they code more rights than the living.

>All physical processes can be simulated, given enough computing power. Perfectly simulated consciousness is exactly that; consciousness.
No it won't. And the massive burden of proof is on the moronic Kurzweillian camp here. Consciousness emerges from a biological substrate, a simulation of brain activity will be running on a silicon substrate. You can also simulate the process of photosynthesis on a computer, but end of the day, the simulation will not result in the production of sugar. You can simulate rain fall on a computer, but you aren't getting wet.

Furthermore complicating matters is that brain activity isn't just about neuronal activity. Neurons can communicate over unrelated structures in the brain, dendrites don't act as passive wiring, like previously thought, but actively process information (and there's up to 100,000 dendrites per neuron, of which there are over 80 billion). Now glial cells are thought to play a very important role in cognition and they don't communicate via electrical activity, but through calcium waves (and again, "simulating" this activity isn't enough. The chemical calcium obviously plays an important role). Then there's the fact the body, the entire body with all its nerves, blood flow, cellular activity and other sensory organs, "your being in the world," plays a role in cognition. And you exist in the world, your brain is constantly firing and wiring new connections, dropping old ones, modulating electrical and chemical reactions. There's not some magic unchanging "mind algorithm" or architecture, translating into some futile search for a "neural code" that will make the prospect of simulating brain activity no different than writing an algorithm for a digital computer. The code is constantly changing in ways we can't measure or even observe. Take the Amoeba. It's less complicated than a neuron, but they behave much more intelligently than a neuron, seeking out food, having a sense of direction, etc.

1/2

Attached: AIBullshit.png (684x588, 327K)

because your artificial thing can't go college to learn something new, it can't became boss owner of a business, etc, etc.

Based on the Amoeba's simple architecture, it shouldn't behave "intelligently." But it does. So, again, simulation isn't as easy as mapping brain activity, digitizing it, and presto, you get a sentient machine. Dumb shit singulatarians also ignore the role the environment plays in cognition, likely because the environment's role further calls into question their belief system. Your mind/brain/body symbiotic exists with a dynamic environment that is constantly assault you with sensory stimuli that you "experience." A digital computer doesn't experience the environment. It has to translate information into binary, which the computer "sees" as electrical turning on/off. A computer doesn't taste, see, smell, feel, or hear. It responds to some on/off state combination. Boiled down, a computer doesn't "see" the world like an organism, so I'm not sure you get conscious experience from a machine that only understands information through binary impulse electrical impulses. This is why it's easy to confuse computer "vision" by altering even single pixel at a time that don't affect the content of the image. But yeah, since we have smart phones and are "so advanced now!" we'll figure this all out. Remember, "Heavier than air flight is impossible!"

Attached: object-recognition-7-638.jpg (638x479, 99K)

no AI could be as retarded as you are op.

If you define A.I. as a calculator being "smart" enough to crunch numbers, than we already have it.

If you define A.I. as Skynet or the machine god transhumanists think is imminent, then no, we're not even close to anything of that magnitude. Sure, it's hypothetically possible, but so is faster than light travel. Both of which are just as improbable. Computers are incredibly dumb and specialized machines that are still running 40 year old algorithmic techniques. The supposed "explosion" in A.I. efficacy isn't due to any new conceptual breakthrough in machine intelligence, but because these algorithms have much larger data sets to work with due to the digitizing of information over the past couple of decades.

Artificial Intelligence is simply something which can mimic human thinking, it is found in uncountable many places.

The concept you are talking about is GENERAL artificial intelligence, which is vastly beyond our capabilities.

You can not simulate consciousness, even if one is as pessimistic as you.
Because for your there is no consciousness, an input output system isn't consciousness.
Either you accept that human beings are more then the physical process which creates them, or you do not believe in consciousness at all.

Computer Science has no answer to true Heuristic problem solving. A computer can only be correct or a varying level of incorrect, it cannot "think outside the box" for improvements in effectiveness that may lay outside their training.

>Either you accept that human beings are more then the physical process which creates them
You'll get lashed for appealing to dualism, but you are right with your simple statement that humans are more than their sum physical processes, especially the phenomena of consciousness. And no, it's not a result of the supernatural, but the result of how we interact with information, namely through language.

Many believe our consciousness took the "next step" when we invented language, and from language, arose meaning. And this "immaterial" meaning interacts with your brain's physical processes. A simple thought experiment. Take two people who are identical down to the molecule, but one speaks French and the other English. You tell them a tragic story in French. From an objective measurement perspective, they are seeing your mouth move the same, the sound waves from your voice are vibrating their eardrums identically, so thus, the reductionist point-of-view would conclude that their interior brain activity will be the same. But it won't be. The French speaker's brain will show considerable more activity and physical response (i.e. sobbing, sadness, depression) than the English speaker who won't understand a word.

The pure physical properties of the story (sound waves) had little to do with the response. It was the meaning of the words. Your consciousness can both create and respond to immaterial phenomena, it's how we're communicating right now. We're not simply responding to light photons. So yes, cognition is more than just physical processes.

> And no, it's not a result of the supernatural
This is something which has always weirded me out, the supernatural does, by definition, not exist. If it existed it wouldn't be supernatural, but natural.
Whatever is the origin of consciousness, by definition, it is natural.

>Take two people who are identical down to the molecule, but one speaks French and the other English.
This absolutely doesn't work. Two people can't be identical and speak different languages.
Speaking a different language HAS to result in differences in the physical properties in your brain, it it did not, the case would be closed anyway and it would be clear that the brain (and the rest of the human body) isn't the object from which consciousness arises.

> the reductionist point-of-view would conclude that their interior brain activity will be the same.
No, the brains have to be different so the response has to be different

I finger peck so probaby won't ha

No objective definition of consciousness.
I'm not kidding there isn't one.

All those worthless humanity/philosophy/psychology ""researchers"" are so busy being woke they literally can't describe the object of their """research"""

So we basically have no idea what intelligence really is.

we can and I'll create AGI as my next startup

>Speaking a different language HAS to result in differences in the physical properties in your brain,
That's the point. Meaning, the meaning of French, altered the brain structure in different ways than their molecular identical twin. But it's a thought experiment that you're taking too literally. The point is that meaning isn't embedded in the physical property of the medium. Reading a tragic story in a book vs. hearing tragic story will produce similar responses of sadness, etc, despite the mediums being completely different (ink on paper made visible by their interaction with light waves vs. sound waves). Only the intensity of the response might be different, since having the story told to you by another human will produce more empathy. The point remains, though, that essentially the same response to the meaning of the words occurred despite it being communicated through two totally different physical properties.

Yeah, okay I see your point.

Biological systems can deal with unknowns through abstraction, mechanical systems cannot into abstract thinking.

because intelligence requires a level of artificial complexity that we legitimately do not have anything operating anywhere close to

we do not have the capability to artificially simulate small unintelligent animals and reductively looking at intelligence by separating it from the biological systems that sustain it requires even more complexity to simulate than biology itself, which is already far more complex than our ability to understand and simulate completely

i don't think its impossible, but i think people's understanding of what AI we have and how it stacks up to what nature has delivered is extremely naive

Neuroscience can't even explain Schizophrenia.

People are trying to create the fully-featured one right away. Start with something simpler, like an AI that tries to make paperclips more efficiently.

And the big hurdle to me is the substrate. I don't know why tech gurus (Kurzweil, et al) think you're going to magically achieve a 1 to 1 or even a 100 to 1 result by simply "unlocking the neural code" (which is another dumbass concept, since the brain doesn't have some neat, definable, and unchanging algorithm hidden somewhere inside) and brute forcing into a digital computer, and voila, sentience! Simulating neurotransmitters isn't enough. Computer science types seem to suffer from the "when you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail" conceit more than most, and think all physical phenomena can be reduced down it's informational component. No, it's not enough to simulate glutamic acid, it actually has to be glutamic acid. This is why you'll die of thirst if you think you can survive off of computer simulations of water.

And like you said. Nowhere close. It's amusing how people think that data analytics (that's all "A.I." is, folks) will somehow evolve into Skynet. I honestly think most of these Silicon Valley tech evangelists are charlatans. Kurzweil charges 25K per speaking engagement.

its because we're in the golden age of computers right now and even though the rate of change has slowed to a glacial pace in comparison to what it was like in the early 2000's we're still seeing year over year increases in performance that are predictable and clearly quantifiable.

we are going to hit a brick wall eventually and they are too short sighted to realize that even if they can get a simulation running with sheer computational brute force, what good is an accurate simulation when it needs an entire datacenter to run at a fraction of real time?

and if anyone brings up quantum computers as anything but an extension of cryptography then you know they're blowing smoke out of their ass

Just put in more transistors.

>the supernatural does, by definition, not exist. If it existed it wouldn't be supernatural, but natural.

the supernatural are things that exist that operate by rules that run contrary to the rules that you consider to be 'normal,' which is a completely subjective state that is not quantifiable.

consider will 'o wisps, ball lightning, st. emo's fire - they are phenomena that are so far out of ordinary expectations and ordinary explanation that people were completely unable to understand how or why they happened until our understanding of the natural world went deeper than our senses. How the hell do you explain to someone without any understanding of chemistry or physics how will 'o wisps are swamp gas igniting itself with a chemical reaction?

those phenomena are not supernatural, they are described and understood within our framework of understanding, but they are still so weird and out of the ordinary that people still see them as paranormal. but someone still went out there and figured out that it was just swamp gas. 200 years ago. food for thought.

Fantastic point. Just like people in the past might've tried to shove the existence of ball lighting into an Aristotlean framework (which dominated scientific thinking for centuries), I think it's a similar error to try and shove consciousness into the intractable bottom-up physicalist framework that dominates modern scientific thought. Nature doesn't have to be consistent (i.e. the pursuit of a theory of everything), translating into a neat and simple explanation for all phenomena. Even the laws of physics break down and get "strange" within a singularity. And classical and quantum mechanics still haven't been unified. Contradiction, paradox, and asymmetry (i.e. not every element of natural phenomena can be explained by the same model) just might be a feature of nature that we have to accept. If biology is the standard model, I think consciousness is something like the quantum model. They're related, but not wholly explained by either model. But we're still trying to explain consciousness by appealing to strict physicalism.

>that operate by rules that run contrary to the rules that you consider to be 'normal,'
So QM and GR is most definitely "super natural", but in that case the brain is also most likely "super natural".

But this is kinda my point, just because something seems super natural doesn't mean it has no scientific explanation.

>prove something is impossible

The only thing that you can prove is impossible is proving that something is impossible.

:^)

>it has no scientific explanation.
I think the problem here is that people think a scientific explanation will always conform to our current framework. Quantum mechanics turned classical mechanics on its head and required an overhaul to that model. Similarly, I think biology will require an overhaul when we start to understand a bit more about consciousness, and it won't conform neatly to the "physical stuff moving other stuff around" strict cause-and-effect model that defines the natural sciences. Basically, we need a quantum equivalent for biology. Some new way of thinking about the brain-mind problem rather than futilely searching for some bottom up causal chain that neatly fits in with physicalism. Emergent properties and downward causation (we're locked into thinking about causation as bottom-up, lower order systems creating higher order systems.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downward_causation) is probably a start.

>All physical processes can be simulated, given enough computing power
Or so do retards like you think, because it's the only tool we have available now.

To put it simply: "to a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail."

We are wasting gigawatts of energy, producing a shit ton of heat and wasting a ton of space and man hours to approximate what a rat can do with a .5 cm organ fed by a tiny electrical impulse created by a sophisticated system that can be sustained by a gram of cheese or a single peanut. So please, save yourself your delusions of humans having everything figured out.

Attached: Df8c2N_VQAAukqa.jpg (434x499, 40K)

if ( if ( if ( if ( ..

>So please, save yourself your delusions of humans having everything figured out.
We have smartphones though! We're so advanced now.

if we could tell you why it is impossible to create artificial intelligence then we would know what we have to do to create artificial intelligence. which is impossible.

Isn't this just an argument for artificial intelligence made of a different substrate than silicon? A nano/gene tech constructed super brain.

>We are wasting gigawatts of energy, producing a shit ton of heat and wasting a ton of space and man hours to approximate what a rat can do with a .5 cm organ fed by a tiny electrical impulse created by a sophisticated system that can be sustained by a gram of cheese or a single peanut.
This is a good point. If there's to be any super intelligence in the far off future, it will be biological. Trying to get sentience from a completely different property (silicon) that operates on different principles (computers don't experience the world, they respond to various patterns of electrical signals firing on/off. Where we see red, they just "see" a collection of those signals in a binary pattern) is like trying to transmutate lead into gold.

In my (ignorant) opinion, it is necessary new paradigms and maybe an entire new computing method, I'm not sure about the biological part though.
>transmuting lead into gold
Curiously, this one is possible to do thanks to modern science. It required an entirely new field and tools (radiation) to be possible isntead of the basic chemical reactions that were known back then.

>carbon hydrogen and oxygen can totally be conscious
>no way silicon can't be conscious that's impossible

If the universe contains some magic dust that enables solving uncomputable problems we'll just make computers out of it. If there's some other magic dust needed for conscious problem solving we'll put that in the computer too.

Yes, but it's the correct argument. As I said , if we're going to create a super-intelligence, it will be biological, and thus, not artificial. No idea how that will happen, but maybe we'll figure out a way to surgically optimize our brain architecture (the brain has massive amounts of hidden potential. Think Kim Peek, whose feats of memory are superhuman, but he was severely lacking in basic cognitive functions. Turns out he was missing nerves that connected either hemisphere of his brain. Maybe will figure out how to have Peek's memory without the side effects) add neurons, etc.

Or perhaps too much intelligence is harmful to the psyche. I can see that. I'm not sure I would want Peek's memory. The information overload might be overwhelming. This is another problem with "A.I.." People think it's going to magically be psychologically stable once it "awakens." Obviously I think A.I. as conceived by Hollywood and Science Fiction is bullshit, but it's not a stretch to imagine some hyper-intelligence going insane due to information overload. How often do we want to turn our brains off since thinking, obsessing, etc can be exhausting?

You're anthropomorphizing intelligence to a completely unjustified degree.

>just because these physical things do this, means all physical things will also do it.
Different physical phenomena behave differently. It's why you can drink water and not acid, despite both being "wet."There's no example of a conscious silicon lifeform in nature. They've had neural computing architecture for decades. It didn't "wake up." All the cats have been skinned, and now the futile hope is, "just gotta find the right algorithm, bro!" Though, to be fair, most people in A.I. don't really pursue building the magical machines of science fiction.

There's no life in nature not based on RNA or DNA because evolution is incapable of experimenting beyond it. To say that there is something specific about the materials used in natural life that enables consciousness is a baseless claim. I am not arguing against the idea that something beyond current computer architectures is necessary. I'm arguing against the hyper specific worship of earth animal intelligence.

No, that's what the Strong-A.I. crowd does, believing that an A.I. will simply operate like human but a million fold. This is bullshit because computers do not interact with the world anywhere close to the same way as organisms do. If you think a computer that can only see the world in binary patterns of electricity (do you really think when a computer "sees" an image, it sees the actual image like we do?). Tell me how we're going to get from that very limited digital framework that also exists in a completely different physical substrate to organism-like intelligence and sentience? There's a massive burden of proof here.

Now if you want to define intelligence as anything taking an input and producing a coherent output, like a calculator producing 4 from a 2+2 input, then sure, A.I. is here. If you're conceiving A.I. as Skynet, that is horseshit.

If you have a guy in a room who doesn't speak a language get cards with foreign-language sentences through a hole, and have him write down things based on what he sees, it's impossible he'll ever understand any of it. At best, an artificial intelligence will see patterns, but never be able to reason.

>new paradigms
before his early death von neumann was working on a new computer architecture more akin to the human brain with memory and computation being one and massively parallel. if only..

The burden of proof is on the person who would restrict intelligence to only the very limited exploration found in life on earth.

> tell me in 10 second why it is impossible to create artificial intelligence
we can't write such code by hand for a determinist turing machine
generate such code may be possible but it's not proven yet as EXPSPACE and EXPTIME are still outside our reach
deep learning is the first step we took into the advance generated code that is impossible to write for men
electricity is a blocking factor
silicon is a blocking factor
light is the only solution if we want to use non-organic matter but is it the solution to AGI?

even if we have the theory within this century, I highly doubt we would see one in action until atleast one or two century if civilization hasn't collapsed by then.

no it's not, the burden on proof is on the "believers". your argument is a like an evidence of god argument.

Life on earth is not evidence of any upper bound on the construction of intelligence it is proof of a lower bound. It's a claim with no evidence to say that humans are the peak possible intelligence. It's much more rational to believe that there is a possibility of intelligence beyond humans.

something to do with entropy

That's how intelligence is defined literally. What do you think "intelligent life" in other planets means? It means a species with a cognitive level similar to ours. If it was too high or too low there would be no way of stablishing communication and maybe even discovering each other.

That's why all the beacons and all the info sent to space are scientific constants: the hydrogen atom, binary code, simple math, etc. If it is ever found by another intelligent species (that is, similar enough to us to have found the basic principles of chemistry and math) they would understand that it was sent by another intelligent species. Otherwise the messages would be lost.

good post. something i noticed myself (as a layman in biology) is that for example in dna there seems to be more output than input for example the color of you eyes is determined by around just 15 genes but there seems to be an infinite combination of eye colors if you go into detail which seem to be not (or not meaningfull) influenced by radomness since twins have the exact same eyes.

The only thing we understand less in our bodies than our GI tract is our brain. It is still completely unclear how its complex functioning generates an intangible yet unmistakable intelligence with innate understanding of self.

>I'm arguing against the hyper specific worship of earth animal intelligence.
Iconoclasm is a petty motive for arguing. Earth animal intelligence deserves "reverence," because it's the only example in the known universe of intelligence and sentience, and none of our cute little toys come close to it. I can say I'm arguing against techno-worship that believes Strong-A.I. is a destined fact because an algorithm can play chess.

I'm not trying to be smug, but do you understand how algorithms and computation work? Turning made a chess playing algorithm on a piece of paper. Funny enough, given a enough time, a human being can do all the data analytic tricks with a pen and paper a super computer can do, it would just take centuries. Computers perform this rote, mind-numbing work with greater efficiency much like a car can travel more efficiently than a human, but that doesn't mean the car will then magically be able to best a human in a decathlon.

Point here is that Turning's chess algorithm on paper is conceptually no different than what computers do today. We're just credulously impressed by its "feats" because of the speed at which it performs tasks and the illusions of devices like Alexa "understanding" what we're saying, but again, conceptually, it's still an algorithm on piece of paper under the hood. Alexa doesn't understand words much like Turing's piece of paper didn't understand what a king was. And none of this will "wake up" much like Turning's paper didn't "wake up."

yeah it's possible, but is it possible on earth, to create, with our resources, in our lifetime, on computer hardware etc etc. there are always bounds.

I am not even slightly interested in justifying the idea that with enough graphics cards you could run a human brain. The idea I care about is the fact that intelligence and consciousness both materially exist in the universe and it follows that one could in principle be built. Whatever arrangement of matter gives human beings our special talents can be reproduced with a high enough level of technology. If it can be reproduced it can almost certainly be enhanced with no obvious upper bound. Remember that we are only intelligent and conscious because it was a convenient way to help us survive and reproduce. We were not engineered to be maximally intelligent or maximally conscious.

lel
thinking the substrate doesn't matter

>the supernatural are things that exist that operate by rules that run contrary to the rules
so like, quantum mechanics is supernatural?

>It's a claim with no evidence to say that humans are the peak possible intelligence.
We're not. But the issue here is that you're narrowly defining intelligence as something that can be measured by an I.Q. test. All this measures is our facility in doing human things for human goals. A squirrel wouldn't know what an I.Q. test is, but it's more intelligent at doing squirrel things than a human is at doing squirrel things, in terms of body control, balance, climbing, and even some feats of memory. And yes, being able to excel in the natural world via your body (like a squirrel adeptly jumping from branch to branch) is a form of "intelligence." Same with a shark being able to smell a drop of blood from miles away. This is where I agree humans aren't peak intelligence, since many creatures in the animal world perform feats that are beyond our natural ability, even for our machines.

This speaks to Moravec's paradox that the simplest reality is harder than the hardest games. Much of our brain activity is actually devoted to motor skill, meaning just walking around is a form of "intelligence."

>Rodney Brooks explains that, according to early AI research, intelligence was "best characterized as the things that highly educated male scientists found challenging", such as chess, symbolic integration, proving mathematical theorems and solving complicated word algebra problems. "The things that children of four or five years could do effortlessly, such as visually distinguishing between a coffee cup and a chair, or walking around on two legs, or finding their way from their bedroom to the living room were not thought of as activities requiring intelligence."

Pretty amazing that those capabilities can be packed into a head sized ball that only pulls 20 watts of power. Also pretty amazing that the evolutionary process happened to come across it using the few materials available to it. It's really amazing that our type of general intelligence was found as a convenient solution to survival and reproduction. Sounds like the laws of the universe are relatively friendly toward the construction of intelligence. If it can arise in those circumstances I wonder how many other possible methods there are for building it.

FWIW, taleb+friends are destroying the whole field of psychology (focussing on IQ) atm with stats and finding holes in the literature.

>The idea I care about is the fact that intelligence and consciousness both materially exist in the universe and it follows that one could in principle be built.
Sure, but it doesn't seem a silicon based, digital computer is the way to do it. That's my point of contention. Different substrates, different "cognitive" techniques. I don't see how you're going to "reproduce" the experiential qualities of consciousness (which informs intelligence) in a machine that reduces input to binary electrical impulses. You'd be better off claiming that this greater-than-current human intelligence will come from something like genetic engineering, surgical brain re-wiring (again, think autistic savants. Will there be a way to gain their mental feats but with none of the side effects?), smart drugs, increasing neuron count, etc. And no, I don't think any of that is "right around the corner."

I don't even buy the "in principle" argument because of the substrate problem. You can't "in principle" turn wood into a diamond (and no, nanotechnology isn't the saving grace since that is also a bullshit field).

>the supernatural are things that exist that operate by rules that run contrary to the rules that you consider to be 'normal,' which is a completely subjective state that is not quantifiable.
can you keep your religious backward thinking outside the discussion?
We don't understand how our brain works, are our brains super/para/whatever-natural?
Anything that happens in the universe is natural, end of the discussion.
Don't mix beliefs and reality, this is how you spread fud, religions exist for this very reason and have nothing to do with AI.
We CAN explain everything in the universe, the only point of interest is how much time and efforts it will take, nothing else.
>food for thought
No. People are afraid of what they don't understand and education is the only thing that matter, we know for a fact alexa is closer to being intelligent that most people that use it.
Researchers circlejerk because it's a pain in the ass to talk to people that judge your work based on fud found on the internet/street/2000yo_fiction_books

I'm not interested in making claims about the future development of human technology because it has been proven to be unpredictable. I'm only attacking your idea that life on earth is the way intelligence has to be. There are too many unexplored possibilities. The fact that the one possibility that has been explored by evolution did yield intelligence is evidence that some of the others will also.

>Conscious thought is a matter of hormone fluctuations and neurons firing; a physical process.
Prove that thought is anything other than the physical processes happening in your brain.

I'll wait.

>All physical processes can be simulated, given enough computing power.
Give me no fewer than one (1) examples of a physical process that absolutely can't be simulated. I say "one" because you won't be able to name any, at all.

I'll wait.

>Perfectly simulated consciousness is exactly that; consciousness.
Yes. An atom-for-atom 3D printing of an apple is an apple. It might be a "fake" apple but it's indistinguishable from the real thing; it's real.

Now try making any actual arguments, at all.

>Consciousness emerges from a biological substrate
>Either you accept that human beings are more then the physical process which creates them, or you do not believe in consciousness at all.
What the fuck does that even mean
>Or so do retards like you think, because it's the only tool we have available now.
Name a physical process that can't be simulated. Name one. A single one. You can't.

Fucking psuedo intellectuals from reddit, go back. Smart people see straight through your bullshit le eloquent language to the sub-100 IQ you have. Ain't nothing wrong with being stupid, but for fuck's sake, trying to act smart when you aren't is just pathetic.

mods should start moving these threads to /x/

Here. Jesus I thought Jow Forums was supposed to be the smart board.

Actually, reading through this thread, you people are fucking retarded. I can't believe I ever took Jow Forums's opinion seriously on anything, because you people are at the same level of dunning-kruger as reddit. You honestly believe you're smarter than the people around you.

Let me clue you in: you aren't. You are just as dumb as them.

Attached: 1507780363087.png (291x317, 19K)

>You are just as dumb as us.
ftfy
Don't exclude yourself please, you seem to check of the boxes on the retard checklist.

so how do you know that you're the smart one?