AI will never be sentient because sentience requires an immaterial soul

>I have free will.
That's just a claim.

A very important question here is how would you determine if an AI has free will?
You could say that the AI can't choose to leave the computer and exist in the world, but then you can't choose to jump over the Moon though you still claim to have free will.
There are limitations of the system that limit what is possible for one to do that don't invalidate "free will". So first we would have to determine what exactly the limitations are of the system the AI finds itself in to determine if it has "free will" within that system.

https://i.imgur.com/Ru2YyWX.jpg

There's plenty evidence in the form of strong psychedelic compounds. Unfortunately our society makes it illegal because you're not supposed to know that you have an immortal soul at the core of your being.

>in the form of strong psychedelic compounds.
They're more evidence for purely physical mind, because that's just chemistry.

>YOUR ENTIRE PERSPECTIVE YOU ARE EXPERIENCING RIGHT NOW IS JUST CHEMISTRY
I KNOW.

Because physical chemical agents acting on physical chemical systems is normal?
Where is the "out of the bounds of physicality", though? Isn't that just something you're asserting?

I don't understand the mechanism myself. But these substances WILL shoot you out of your physical form, in fact they will melt away the very illusion of physicality. You can protest all you want how this is incongruent with your particular rigid culturally-trained framework of reality, but it doesn't change the fact.

>DMT takes you to places that should not exist according to physical laws.
Be honest, are you on DMT right now?

No, you cannot do anything remotely useful on DMT. For 10-15 minutes you are gone.

Your idea of what non-physical means is beyond childish. You're influenced by what your culture taught you, so you instantly picture ghost stories and how you could walk through walls in a non-physical form. DMT is more like visiting a completely different reality, complete with a radically different ruleset and 0 mapping between it and here. You cannot imagine it, not even the wildest story you've ever read comes close to it. If you experience it you will understand, and that's the only way to understand.

Because the very notion of physicality falls apart there. Forces that are much weirder and higher in nature rule there. Our science cannot approach it because it's far too primitive.

It's like lucid dream if you can imagine the lucidity going through the roof and far surpassing what the level of your ordinary waking state of mind. Amplify it by 1000 magnitudes and you're about there. It's the most real experience you can ever have. In fact one of the downsides of it is that after you get back to normal waking reality, it starts feeling very unreal and this can lead to depersonalization and derealization. You have to be headstrong to not let it get to you.

Only a person who's never experienced it would call it delusion. You probably only experienced alcohol in your life so that's your only reference point. When you try psychedelics for the first time you may be in for a good old shock.

DMT vapes aren't even that good lol. Just get yourself changa.

The effect of pain on the brain can be visualized too. Doesn't mean it's the same thing as pain. If I showed you a photo of your brain while it experiences pain that's not the same thing as if you actually experienced pain. Classic map vs territory fallacy. DMT takes you to places that should not exist according to physical laws. Yet it does, and yet they do. The main problem is so few have actually experienced it, and even some that have manage to convince themselves that it doesn't point to the reality of your immortal existence. Funny shit.

Although psychedelics do help you understand your spirit is separate from your body, I don’t think everyone should be able to take them. It can be very intense and I think “enlightenment” can be attained through other less harsh means.

He wouldn’t be able to write anything

Sure thing. Try DMT and let me know how well that statement holds up after you've had the experience

Just do mushrooms. It’s not the same but if you do it right you can achieve the same results. Just make sure you right shit down

No, it doesn't create hallucinations. It dissolves the hallucination you're in right now, and shows you what the real world is and what it is capable of. That's what it fricking does.

It's a claim until that moment when you hit the DMT vape for the third time. Then it's no longer a claim, it's a lived and brutally direct reality. Nothing can prepare you for it, certainly not your ego and its 1000 tricks

A stoner continually gets high. A DMT user gets "high" once and it's enough for a lifetime. It's a terrifying experience that only a fool would want to repeat. Do you have any more moronic fallacies up your sleeve?

You asked for proof about esoteric means. That's remarkably idiotic and short-sighted. Prove that you have free will, go ahead.

In that same vein, your soul can't be proven. Because it exists outside of the domain where proofs are a relevant and viable means of interaction.

Except I can't see or interact with the flying spaghetti monster. But I can see and interact with my immortal soul by ingesting a psychedelic compound. Your arguments are rooted in the fear of losing the ground beneath your feet, so you will fight with your claws out because your ego simply can't handle the fact that things exist outside of your default mode of perception

Nice attempt at ridicule. Your ego's last bastion of defense against the unknown.

If you can experience it, then it's fricking real.

Wait, but didn't you also say that this world is a hallucination?
Is it real? I'm experiencing it.

I am pretty confident I have done more kinds of psychodelics and done them way more than you did and I never interacted with any immortal soul.

Using personal experiences under substances that are known for causing all sorts of hallucinations and delusions is beyond anecdotal evidence, this is pure moronness.

homosexual go suck your dad's wiener or something this isn't /x/

Dumb take. If you choose to you can stand up right now and dance. You didn't have to do this, you chose to.

true stochastic randomness does exist in this universe

>take DMT
>go meet scooby doo in candy land
>outside observer (not on DMT) notes you did not actually go to candy land nor was scooby doo ever present
>"NO YOU DONT UNDERSTAND MAAAAN, IT'S IMMATERIAL BRO"
You're slurping the same mushrooms that those ancient israelites did before writing all the shit in the Bible. It's nonsense and you are delusional by definition.

go advertise elsewhere, favela monkey

>how can you know fentanyl is bad if you never tried it?
so this is the power... of drughomosexualry...
i am... le enlightened...

DMT is not LSD, it's too short to cause PTSD.
Also you don't need pharmahuadca to overdose it. You can overdose if you inject it to your veins.

>You can overdose if you inject it to your veins.
That counts as "something stupid". To the best of my knowledge, nobody has ever overdosed from smoking or vaping it.

>They're all drugs
Stopped reading there. Shut the frick up, moron.

The best form of harm reduction is indeed abstinence but the generalizations you do are just moronic. The explicit descriptions of violence you bring do not make you look sane anyways, so it really would be best if you avoid psychodelics.

>if i stand on a map of Egypt, that must mean I'm in Egypt!
For a board with supposedly smart people, you sure are stupid as frick

God damn AI is gonna take over the world.

If i build a place that has the same landmarks, terrain and weather as egypt, it will be functionally the same as egypt in everything but location.

Yeah, no.

You couldn't realtime an AI because it would devolve and fall apart. Part of what makes effective training is cherry picking training data and bruteforcing it until a human subjectively decides the model improved.

The Hard problem of conciousness begs the question.

https://consciousnessonline.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/disolvinghardproblem.pdf

Since all you have been doing is simply stating that the Hard Problem is real and not much else, I will be doing the exact same thing:

The Hard Problem is not real, and here are some words to read that demonstrate my point. Even your wikipedia article has arguments against the idea. Stop portraying your view as fact.

>no argument
I accept your concession.

>The hard problem has been investigated by the finest minds in both science and philosophy
Before 2012 or after?

>there are many that disagree with its conclusions
Yeah, morons.

If you deny the hard problem of consciousness then yes, you are stupid. No two ways about it. It is the lowest of materialistgay coping mechanisms. I've heard it all. Not one argument so far has held any water. Just a futile attempts to preserve a ridiculous and failing paradigm.

If you assert the hard problem of conciousness, then yes, you are stupid. No two ways about it. It is the lowest of spiritualgay coping mechanisms. I've heard it all. No thought experiement so far has held any water when examined. Just a futile attempt to cope in our reality, clinging onto the false hope that there is something beyond or greater than our material lives.

I think I understood everything he said.

>wah you just don't understand and didn't address the points
>*proceeds to not answer points*
This is funny. That guy accuses me of falling into fallacies even though his entire argument was build on top of fallacies. You accuse me of not addressing the points even though you don't address any of my either.

He redefines the world definition in a way that nothing can fulfill his criteria for being a definition. He failed to show that anything I've provided isn't a definition. He also ignored the actual definition of the world definition that you can find in Oxford dictionary. Then he proceeds to go full strawman, attributing all sorts of inane claims to me that I never said. Accuse me of falling for fallacies, even though he was unable to demonstrate any of them, he just named it and attacked me.

Finally, your last post is just pure nonsense. "You don't understand" is not an argument. You are unable to prove or even know what I understand and what I don't. From the perspective of discussion it doesn't even matter if I understand or not, for all intents and purposes, I might be an AI or random fluctuation and I still might be right.

If you want to prove me wrong you gotta prove me wrong. Name calling is not an argument, and it shows that mostly likely it's you who lacks intelligence to make an actual argument.

>You literally believe that eating the diner menu is the same as eating the dinner. You believe that "definition" (whatever the frick that might be, based on your whim) of an emotion IS the emotion.
Strawman fallacy again. I never claimed that.

>As such, you are too moronic for me to even waste words on. If you were less moronic we could discuss this. But you're not, so here we are.
And we are back at name calling. Very intelligent

I think you have an obtuse definition of consciousness and have no intention of having a good faith argument so you'll throw a tantrum instead. Your time is better served talking to yourself in a corner since you obviously think you're the smartest person in the room (you're not).

I'm a third party observer, you sound like you're seething, you're incapable of having a logical debate and I've subtracted 10 points, you've lost by default.

>actually address my points rather than screech about fallacies
Ok, I will address your point.
I do not believe that "eating the diner menu is the same as eating the dinner" and that ""definition" (whatever the frick that might be, based on your whim) of an emotion IS the emotion."

Ok now what? Your point is entirely build on top of something I supposedly believe, except that I do not believe that. So I do not believe that. What now? Do you want me to be a devil's advocate and try to argument for something I don't believe in to entertain you or what?

No I don't agree.

Because I don't see any reason why wouldn't it.
I already made computer vision programs that can accomplish seeing yellow

>Ok, so you have no opinion.
My opinion is that they can given right sensors.

>Jesus christ you're fricking stupid. I give up.
And we are back at name calling.

>What else do I have except name calling
You could make an objective arguments to support your claims. You know, such arguments that anyone reading the conversation could go "huh, this really is a chain of logical statements that unambiguously proves this guy right and the other guy wrong".

>when you for 10 posts in a row misinterpret what I'm saying and continually make the fallacy of mistaking the map for the territory?
Funny since it's you who keeps repeating that I believe "eating the diner menu is the same as eating the dinner" even though I never said anything like that.

>THE FRICKING ROBOT DOES NOT KNOW WHAT YELLOW FRICKING LOOKS LIKE
It knows if I configure it to do so. There are two parts to this, one is sensory information other it knowledge what does it mean. If I combine them, for example by programming it to do so, or telling a child that this is what yellow is, then they will know what yellow looks like.

>Is this easier for you to read? If I write in all caps? Jesus fricking christ almighty. Be less fricking moronic, I beg you.
And again name calling.

They lack the sensory information so in order to have any use of the second part(teaching) you need to augment their body by fixing whatever is causing the colorblindness or giving them extra sensors, an implant or literally just a hand held color sensor.
Once they have the sensory information and we're taught how to interpret it, they will be able to distinguish red and yellow.

you cannot reasonably argue that our experience would be anything like an intelligent AI's experience

You can't even form a coherent response, your responses are simply grounded in the fact that your framework of thought is what it is, and you'll defend it, even if that means mindless retorts to otherwise very meaningful reasoning.

You cannot make a robot see yellow because it lacks qualia. It can detect yellow, but that's functionally equivalent to a light detector, and you wouldn't call a light detector conscious, would you? Being able to measure something and being able to experience something are two entirely different thing, but you're clearly not interested in making that jump between paradigms that lets you bridge those concepts. You'd rather continually gaslight me and pretend you have the upper hand.

Here's an argument that your poor intellectual capacity might even understand. A blind person from birth doesn't know what yellow is, agreed? Now try to come up with an adequate description for such a person so you transfer the knowledge of what experiencing the color yellow is like. If you actually give it a genuine try and think this thought experiment through, you will come to understand that there is NO such description. Therefore the experience of yellow - whatever it might actually be - is ALWAYS more than any sum of arbitrary descriptions you might stack on top of each other. There is absolutely no way to explain what experiencing yellow is, you can only experience. In that same exact vein, you cannot teach a robot how to experience reality or have qualitative experience. Because you cannot describe the taste of lemons, you cannot describe the color yellow, you cannot describe pain, you cannot describe fear - you can only feel those as you are a conscious being. And you since you cannot describe those qualitative experiences, you cannot formalize them and since you cannot formalize them, you cannot "teach" them to a robot. Therefore a robot will always be an automaton and nothing more. It will never have an inner world of its own.

>You can't even form a coherent response, your responses are simply grounded in the fact that your framework of thought is what it is, and you'll defend it, even if that means mindless retorts to otherwise very meaningful reasoning.
Yes, that's because your entire argument is based on false premise that I believe that "eating the diner menu is the same as eating the dinner", I don't believe that therefore I can dismiss the entirety of the argument on the ground of false premise.

>You cannot make a robot see yellow because it lacks qualia.
Why do you need a qualia to see yellow and how can you tell which human or animal or plant or objects have qualia and which don't?

>functionally equivalent to a light detector, and you wouldn't call a light detector conscious, would you?
Humans are an example of conscious light detectors. Neither electronic or biological light detectors (eyes) are conscious by themselves, they need a human or something else to manifest consciousness as a system.

>Being able to measure something and being able to experience something are two entirely different thing
Yes of course. There need to be some processing done.

>Now try to come up with an adequate description for such a person so you transfer the knowledge of what experiencing the color yellow is like.
Knowledge is not everything, you need sensory information as well. If you transplant eyes to them and give them an

>If you actually give it a genuine try and think this thought experiment through, you will come to understand that there...
Here is an counterargument, this is not some fundamental limitation of subjective experience, but simply a limitation of our language and mastery of mind. Yeah there are no words that you can use to describe an experience of color to someone who lacks sufficient sensors, but there could be. Just like the number of colors you can distinguish depends on the language you use to describe them. We have proofs of that in past, to be able to reliably distinguish between green and blue you need that distinction on the language level.
Similarly let's consider DMT experience. A lot of people can't really describe it well, but there are groups of people who come up with vocabulary to allow describing all sorts of subjective experiences. This vocabulary not only allows you to share these experiences but also let's you be more conscious of what exactly you are experiencing.
If we mastered our minds and could understand a lot of inner mechanics of it, we could definitely describe the experience of perceiving color red using human eyes and human brain. It would just require both parties to be proficient in terminology necessary to describe everything that comes with it.
This would also require that both parties have brains that work the same way. Because I can teach computer or a blind person with a sensor how to perceive yellow and they will do just as fine, but their subjective experience will vary. It all depends on how gradual you want to be, because your own experience of colors also change with time, age and even external environment. Looking at red in bright light will feel different than in dim light. You need to make a cut somewhere, maybe at the functional level(can tell road signs apart) maybe at performance(can be as efficient as human with eyes) or maybe at your own momentary experience (this color reminded of my breakfast today)

>You're making more sense than usual now, but this has been debated by philosophies ad nauseum and the final conclusion is that there is such a thing as hard problem of consciousness, meaning that there is qualitative experience that escapes all definition and can never be formalized.
There is never any conclusion in these debates because there will always be some philosopher with wacky framework that will use weird axioms purposefully to reach different conclusions. And people always will dismiss everything on the ground of semantics(and they should, because people often argue over things just because they do not bother to settle down on common definitions[or they believe there can't be definitions{kek}]).

>It cannot be described at all. Language fails completely. Language is only useful in our own area of effect which we call reality as we know it. It fails outside of it, and DMT operates out there.
https://wiki.dmt-nexus.me/Hyperspace_lexicon

https://i.imgur.com/DqVfNnu.jpg

You continually mistake the map for the territory, and then demand that I argue on your terms. It's intellectual dishonesty and I'm frankly not entirely convinced that you're not just trolling me, so I'm not going to respond to you anymore. Here's a picture of a nice rainbow, have a good day.

>no argument

No, my assertion is not that taste is universal. My assertion is that qualitative experience that we all share is something that we cannot encode in a program or via any available mechanical means. No matter how complex your mechanism, it will never in a million years be able to have an inner world, a feeling of "being", or a qualitative experience of any sort. At best you can preprogram responses but that is not the same thing at all. And thinking that it's the same thing is in principle EQUIVALENT to standing on a big map of Egypt and declaring that now, you are in fricking Egypt.

So of course when you run out of arguments you start screeching and mulling and your poor little ego starts licking its wounds.

No matter how much you screech, my argument is on solid principles. And your argument is "hurr I was told the world is like this, and I will never ever change my opinion because I'm afraid everything will fall apart". In other words, you're too stupid to understand what I'm even saying. Go back to fapping or whatever the frick it is stupid people do.

He's not redefining it, the point he is making is that the subjective experience of seeing red or being on love are not something you can easily give a definitive sense of. The material aspect of your brain professing the wavelengths of the color or the chemical desire for reproduction is not the sum of what those things are. He is not using any fallacies, he is talking about things from a nonmaterialistic perspective. He summed it up better here

You can't even form a coherent response, your responses are simply grounded in the fact that your framework of thought is what it is, and you'll defend it, even if that means mindless retorts to otherwise very meaningful reasoning.

You cannot make a robot see yellow because it lacks qualia. It can detect yellow, but that's functionally equivalent to a light detector, and you wouldn't call a light detector conscious, would you? Being able to measure something and being able to experience something are two entirely different thing, but you're clearly not interested in making that jump between paradigms that lets you bridge those concepts. You'd rather continually gaslight me and pretend you have the upper hand.

Here's an argument that your poor intellectual capacity might even understand. A blind person from birth doesn't know what yellow is, agreed? Now try to come up with an adequate description for such a person so you transfer the knowledge of what experiencing the color yellow is like. If you actually give it a genuine try and think this thought experiment through, you will come to understand that there is NO such description. Therefore the experience of yellow - whatever it might actually be - is ALWAYS more than any sum of arbitrary descriptions you might stack on top of each other. There is absolutely no way to explain what experiencing yellow is, you can only experience. In that same exact vein, you cannot teach a robot how to experience reality or have qualitative experience. Because you cannot describe the taste of lemons, you cannot describe the color yellow, you cannot describe pain, you cannot describe fear - you can only feel those as you are a conscious being. And you since you cannot describe those qualitative experiences, you cannot formalize them and since you cannot formalize them, you cannot "teach" them to a robot. Therefore a robot will always be an automaton and nothing more. It will never have an inner world of its own.

You continually mistake the map for the territory, and then demand that I argue on your terms. It's intellectual dishonesty and I'm frankly not entirely convinced that you're not just trolling me, so I'm not going to respond to you anymore. Here's a picture of a nice rainbow, have a good day.

You're not defining what he's talking about, the definition of red =/= the subjective experience of someone looking at the color red.

>definition of a soul
See

>define the undefinable
Amusing how you think you're being smart with such a question, but you're only being remarkably stupid. Define love. Define fear. Define hope. Define dreams. Define pain. See how idiotic this is? Probably not, since you clearly don't get it.

Life is more than definitions, anon. The number of inches is not the distance, it's just a representation of distance

Why is it so hard to get through your thick head that there are things you can't define in the world? Soul is one of them. Fragrance of a flower is another. Excitement over meeting someone yet another. You think this world is a world of definitions, but this world is a world of experience. Definitions are merely a useful way of talking about experience, they do not represent experience.

Your definition is not the fricking thing, jesus christ. Just how many times in this thread do I need to say that map is not the territory?

A description of a soul is not a soul.
A description of the taste of chocolate is not the taste of chocolate.
A description of wetness is not wetness.
A description of stubbing your toe is not stubbing your toe.
A description of excitement is not excitement.
A description of mortal fear is not mortal fear.
A description of a forest is not the forest.
A description of an apple is not an apple.
A description of being hungry is not being hungry.

Do you get it yet or do I need to go on ad nauesem?

No description is adequate. Vape some DMT and you'll see yourself.

Define or describe your trips.

Same ludicrous task as defining or describing a soul.

I have already provided definitions for things you've claimed to be undefinable. I am not going to bother giving more.
If you think definitions mean something different than that that's fine, but I am asking for that. You don't have to provide what you consider a definition, you only have to provide few sentences that I and pretty much everyone else here consider definitions. You don't have to definitely describe everything there is to having a soul or seeing red, you only need to provide enough context so we can verify the validity of your original claim. If you are unable to do do, I think we all can conclude that you are making statements using terms you don't actually understand and try to dismiss it by claiming that the term is undefinable.

You can't define something that cannot be defined. If this is hard for you to understand, might I suggest you are simply stupid and have a lot to learn about reality you inhabit?

No, it's not convenient for me, otherwise I'd already tell you the stupid definition. Instead I have to carefully construct my argument such that your thick head is able to receive it. Which apparently I'm failing at.