AI will never be sentient because sentience requires an immaterial soul

AI will never be sentient because sentience requires an immaterial soul

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

Yakub: World's Greatest Dad Shirt $21.68

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    define "soul"

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >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.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        All the things you list are feelings. They are chemical reactions in your body, orchestrated by hormones. That's quite down to earth.
        >soul is undefinable yet still exist and explains everything that I want.
        That's quite moronic, don't you think?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >HURR DURR IT'S JUST FEELINGS BRAH
          Next time you experience terror tell yourself how it's just a chemical reaction in your body, see how well that works.

          None of those are undefinable though, are they?

          Yes, they are. This is the basis for https://iep.utm.edu/hard-problem-of-conciousness/

          You cannot reduce qualitative experience. This is because it stems from your immortal and immaterial soul. It cannot be dissected. It cannot be put into a labeled jar. It cannot be extracted and unrolled. It exists, but you will never define it.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >I am totally dense
            I never said that it's unnecessary nor non existent.
            >It cannot be put into a labeled jar.
            Neither can software, and now?
            AI models are prediction models. Prove that your intelligence is not just a prediction model.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              >Prove that your intelligence is not just a prediction model.
              I have free will. The AI doesn't.

              The amount of screeching you will now produce doesn't change this one simple fact. But go ahead, embarrass yourself.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

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

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >I have free will.
                Do you?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                YOUR ENTIRE PERSPECTIVE YOU ARE EXPERIENCING RIGHT NOW IS JUST CHEMISTRY

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

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

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                So why are you surprised by the fact that a chemical agent can radically transform your perspective and take it out of bounds of physicality?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                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?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                First you have to give a non moronic proof of "soul"

                Your esoteric practices yields no results,unlike silicon

                JUST FRICK ALREADTY

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >But these substances WILL shoot you out of your physical form, in fact they will melt away the very illusion of physicality.
                So I can explore my surroundings without the inhibitions of things like walls and accurately experience what happens in remote places?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >DMT is more like visiting a completely different reality, complete with a radically different ruleset and 0 mapping between it and here.
                If it is a completely different reality why does it necessarily need to be non-physical or immaterial?
                By what you're saying this reality could just as easily be the non-physical, immaterial one. Or both could be physical and material.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Now it's sounding more like a lucid dream, but with less control.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                taking a drug that gives you delusions is not insight moron, what you gained by taking it wasn't understanding it was schizophrenia

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                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.

            • 12 months ago
              Anonymous

              >Prove that your intelligence is not just a prediction model.
              Language models give outputs only after inputs. The nervous system and brain operate continuously in real-time, even without external stimuli.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >This is because it stems from your immortal and immaterial soul.
            But that explanation is just an assertion without evidence.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              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.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

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

          • 12 months ago
            Anonymous

            >but you can't override feelings with your brain!!
            You why would you, your brain isn't in direct control over the chemicals in your body, it can only do so much.

          • 12 months ago
            Anonymous

            >This is because it stems from your immortal and immaterial soul.
            Why do twins exist then?

          • 12 months ago
            Anonymous

            https://i.imgur.com/3Ca5xEa.png

            AI will never be sentient because sentience requires an immaterial soul

            >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.

            >Prove that your intelligence is not just a prediction model.
            I have free will. The AI doesn't.

            The amount of screeching you will now produce doesn't change this one simple fact. But go ahead, embarrass yourself.

            No, a robot can never enjoy a piece of cake. It is functionally and epistemologically impossible, because they have no qualia. It can perhaps make you believe that it's enjoying a cake, but it's merely faking it. A human actually enjoys a cake and actually feels what it tastes like.

            [...]
            Those are descriptions, not definitions. All of those terms are more than everything you described. And no matter how precise your description, you will always exclude the main quality of those things which is the qualitative, direct experience. Being in love is not the same as reading about being in love. Being in fear is not the same as reading about fear. Being hopeful is not the same as reading about being hopeful. The map is not the territory. The menu is not the diner. You're making a classical ontological/reductionist fallacy and you're being smug as you do it, which makes watching your clumsy mental acrobatics all the more amusing.

            Eat a piece of cake. Do you feel the taste in your mouth? Congratulations, you have a soul and can do something a robot never can.

            What evidence do I have that other humans have qualia or conscious experience, or free will? What evidence do I have that they experience the redness of red, or the sweetness of ice cream? I only have outside observation tools, for all I know the qualia I am experiencing may the only time it will occur in the entire universe. If we built a robot that was identical in chemistry and behavior to a natural grown human, would we still claim it does not have consciousness or qualia? If so, on what grounds? Does our wet fatty ganglia and neurons offer something that copper and silicon do not?

            • 12 months ago
              Anonymous

              Our neurons aren't our consciousness. We have genetic programming but there is something unique to subjective experience which is why we aren't just robotic automatons. We ourselves can't really explain the source of consciousness and we definitely cannot program anything similar into a machine as a result.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Our neurons aren't our consciousness.
                Or are they? We don't exactly have enough information to discount it.

          • 12 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Next time you experience terror tell yourself how it's just a chemical reaction in your body, see how well that works.
            ????????????????????????????????????????
            yeah now your nonsense really makes sense.
            emotions affect us so now we can really stretch and somehow use that as proof theres a soul

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          materialist reductionist homosexuals will never understand that it's impossible define everything. infinite regress of definitions will never describe all of reality. some things you can only know directly. language is a tool. language is not all there is.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Good luck shaking them out of their nominalist mindset. It's like they're programmed to believe that a map of a hill is the exact same thing as standing on the hill

        • 12 months ago
          Anonymous

          You are a homosexual and should have a nice day now.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        None of those are undefinable though, are they?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        love, a physical reaction to hormones induced by your brain to reproduce

        fear, a physical reaction to a threatening situation to cause the body to react in a way that would protect itself

        i'm skiing hopes and dreams because you're a moronic Black person for bringing those up

        i don't believe i have to explain pain to someone who's supposed to be an adult, but it's your nerve system reacting to your body being injured so you would treat that area as fast as possible, because you're a moronic Black person and should have a nice day NOW.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Map vs territory fallacy. Next time you go grab a meal outside, try eating the menu. I'm sure it's as tasty as the food it represents.

        • 12 months ago
          Anonymous

          love is not lust, if u want to frick u are feeling lust, love is more than that

          if fear is a physical reaction to a threatening situation, then explain me how people are afraid of things like ghost when they arent a threat or real

          if pain is ur nerve system reacting to an injury then how u can explain the pain people feel when a loved one dies?

          • 12 months ago
            Anonymous

            >fear of ghosts and things that aren't real
            I don't want to alarm you but 1) ghosts are real and 2) things in the dark have a history of killing people so being scared of looking in a dark hole or walking in an abandoned house isn't illogical. People like you like to deny the paranormal because you have fear.

        • 12 months ago
          Anonymous

          Clearly you have never love or been loved by someone if you think that, have a nice day

        • 12 months ago
          Anonymous

          *tips*

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        https://i.imgur.com/W2ZSvwg.jpg

        >HURR DURR IT'S JUST FEELINGS BRAH
        Next time you experience terror tell yourself how it's just a chemical reaction in your body, see how well that works.

        [...]
        Yes, they are. This is the basis for https://iep.utm.edu/hard-problem-of-conciousness/

        You cannot reduce qualitative experience. This is because it stems from your immortal and immaterial soul. It cannot be dissected. It cannot be put into a labeled jar. It cannot be extracted and unrolled. It exists, but you will never define it.

        >Prove that your intelligence is not just a prediction model.
        I have free will. The AI doesn't.

        The amount of screeching you will now produce doesn't change this one simple fact. But go ahead, embarrass yourself.

        reddit atheist but the opposite tier of mental moronation

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >BOT - Religious platitudes and brain damage

          >everything i don't understand is moronic
          More news at 11

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >LARPing as religious maek me smrt and baste
            No, son, you're a fricking waste. You should go back.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Nice argument you have there, oh wait. All you do is screech.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        oh no he's broken his mind lmao
        go back to your tent church, Rufus

      • 12 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Define love.
        Love is a range of emotions a person feels towards their romantic partner, family members and platonic friends. Symptoms usually include increased empathy towards that person, frequent thinking about them, feeling of security, satisfaction, increased beat rate and suck.
        >Define fear.
        Is unplesant emotion that manifest when perceiving danger. Symptoms include dizziness, sweating, choking, cold flushes, nausea etc.
        >Define hope.
        A state of mind based on optimistic expectation for future. A person who experiences hope will look positively on the future and expect good things to happen.
        >Define dreams.
        Internal hallucinations experienced mostly during REM stage of sleep.
        >Define pain.
        An unpleasant feeling most frequently caused by perceived or actual tissue damage. Symptoms include sensation of throbbing, burning, soreness, labored breathing, crying, muscle tensing, etc.

        Just because you romanticize your own ignorance doesn't change the fact that you are ignorant. There is no virtue in using terms you don't actually understand.

      • 12 months ago
        Anonymous

        Let me try to be a bit kinder. If you can't even remotely define a concept and offer a way for us to see how to verify and falsify that definition, then you're essentially just talking to yourself. The purpose of language is to communicate information and if a group of sounds doesn't refer to anything in the reality you're just making incoherent noises.

        • 12 months ago
          Anonymous

          We can "define" consciousness in that we know it's something we have. We do not have an actual scientific explanations or means to hard define subjective experiences despite us knowing they are real. This is why this becomes a problem when trying to discuss it with techy people who tend to ignore things they can't Google an easy definition of.

    • 12 months ago
      Anonymous

      Principle of self-motion inside living things

        • 12 months ago
          Anonymous

          pity reply

      • 12 months ago
        Anonymous

        protein and neurochemical interactions?

    • 12 months ago
      Anonymous

      It's literally on the first page of the bible. God's breath.

      • 12 months ago
        Anonymous

        So all living things have souls, then, seeing in Gen 7:22 it says that everything on the land that had in their nostrils the breath of life (what God breathed into Adam's nostrils) died.
        Good to know.

        • 12 months ago
          Anonymous

          >so all living things have souls
          Yes?

    • 12 months ago
      Anonymous

      Windows XP

      • 12 months ago
        Anonymous

        So if we had an AI run on XP it would be sentient?

    • 12 months ago
      Anonymous

      >define "soul"
      Interact with DMT entities.
      Logical reasons for the machines in The Matrix to have human 'farms'.

      • 12 months ago
        Anonymous

        You know what I do on psychodelics? I drop acid, MDMA, play some psybient and jump to my bed to cuddle with my dakimakura. Tactile enhancement, immersion enhancement, boosted empathy and ego dissolution makes me feel like she is here, I can feel her head resting on my chest, feel her warmth and presence. Does that mean she is real? No, it just means I'm tripping balls and have all these subjective effects that make me feel like she is there.

        >inb4 your waifu is God
        Then I'm fricking your god every night lol.

        Define or describe your trips.

        Same ludicrous task as defining or describing a soul.

        What do you think trip reports are?
        I can go look for the last trip report I've written down if you really want.

        • 12 months ago
          Anonymous

          .

          I suggest you familiarize yourself with Alex Jones interview with Joe Rogan where he goes into 'machine / clockwork elves'.

          • 12 months ago
            Anonymous

            Maybe later, Alex Jones is not my cup of tea and I've already seen people spewing all sorts of bullshit related to that interview.

            Does any trip report do the trip justice?

            If not, then how exactly do you expect any description of an immaterial soul will do it justice?

            Yes. The point of my trip reports is to share kinds of experiences I got and I write them all down. Of course they do not describe everything that happened, but when you talk to friends about your last trip to Italy you also do not tell all the details, just the ones that are relevant in the context.

            Similarly, if you are making some claim related to soul or anything really, you should be able to describe every term you are using in detail sufficient to check the validity of that claim.

            • 12 months ago
              Anonymous

              You can't describe shit, and if you were a serious psychonaut you'd know this.

        • 12 months ago
          Anonymous

          Does any trip report do the trip justice?

          If not, then how exactly do you expect any description of an immaterial soul will do it justice?

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >sentience requires an immaterial soul
    Prove it?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous
      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        ChatDMT when bros??

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        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.

        How the hell is that supposed to prove anything? Hallucinations caused by funny gamer juice are not evidence.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Oh, you think it's hallucinations. Cute. Never quite understood the point that your whole world is a hallucination, did you.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            It's just chemistry and it directly proves that everything that happens in your brain is chemistry.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

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

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                It's effect on the brain can be visualized. That doesn't prove that it's just chemistry.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                yeah okay hand some over and I'll try it.
                >n-no I'll keep it for myself.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

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

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                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

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >DMT takes you to places that should not exist according to physical laws.
                That's because it creates hallucinations by changing the chemical composition in your brain and alters neuro transmitters. What's your point?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                That's just claim.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                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

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah you're just a stoner. That's pointless.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                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?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I asked for proof you tell me about your stoner trips. This is pointless.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

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

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Prove that you have free will, go ahead.
                That can't be proven.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                >Because it exists outside of the domain where proofs are a relevant and viable means of interaction.
                The Flying Spaghetti Monster exists, you just can't prove it.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                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

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Clearly you're not taking the right psychedelia compound.
                If you took the right one you'd be able to see and interact with the Flying Spaghetti Monster, too.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

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

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                I don't know what to tell you.
                Get on what I'm on and you can experience the Flying Spaghetti Monster, too.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

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

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                How do you know?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

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

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Yes, it's both real and a hallucination. I don't understand what you find confusing here. Maybe you have a semantical disease that convinces you that hallucinations or dreams cannot possibly be real? Yet you experience them. So how the frick can they not be real?

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                Then you're stupid. Only a fool would not see the spiritual component in a psychedelic trip.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

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

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Free will does not exist.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

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

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                why should I do that?

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                true stochastic randomness does exist in this universe

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                TV static noise is close enough. it's an amalgamation of all signals sent out by all stars and other cosmic events.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                >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.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                Try it.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                go advertise elsewhere, favela monkey

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                I'm not advertising anything. You're saying it's a delusion. I'm telling you try it. Otherwise you're talking our of your ass. You're making assumptions about things you have no clue about.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

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

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                You're comparing a potentially deadly and severely addictive opiate to a psychedelic. The scope of your idiocy is outmatched only by the enormity of your ignorance.

                DMT is not addictive. You'll take it once and never again. Especially a self-important pompous ego like yourself. It would shock you to the core of your being and you'd never want near the stuff again. In fact you'd run away if you saw it.

                It's also not lethal. The only way to overdose is by doing something stupid like oral doses of pharmahuasca, otherwise no one has ever died from it. It is one of the safest substances on the planet, if you exclude the very real possibility of permanent PTSD from the shock of the trip. In any case, you're fricking moronic. And probably too young to understand what the frick I'm talking about anyway.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                >it's too short to cause PTSD
                Good joke

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                >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.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                >You're comparing a potentially deadly and severely addictive opiate to a psychedelic.
                It's a drug. They're all drugs. Not a single one has a 0% chance of leaving you in a worse state than when you started, or driving you insane. You are not a medical professional (and I mean the real kind, not the paid pharmaceutical shills.) You have no actual understanding of human biology. Yet despite all of this you think it's right to tell people to put things into their body that you know have risks and will drive them insane, whether that be temporarily or permanently.

                If even one person ingests your poison and is not precisely, measurably as cognitively-healthy as they were prior to when they took the drug, you are a drug dealer. You factually victimized someone with bullshit about "freeing their mind" and left them tarnished, permanently, just to get a small cash payment. You are scum and you should be pulled out of your home and disemboweled. Duterte was right to mass-murder your kind. I hope there is some kind of cosmic spiritual afterlife bolony so I can spend it breaking your spiritual kneecaps and watching you cry. Little fricking homosexual c**t.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

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

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                I hope you're given a life sentence and raped to death by Black folk, homosexual drug dealer sack of shit. That's the best I can hope for since it's not legal for me to dump .308 through the floorboards of your mom's basement.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                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.

            • 12 months ago
              Anonymous

              No it is not. Scientific consensus is useless.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >god: makes meth

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              Meth is addictive and indulgent. It's for hedonistic idiots who only seek pleasure. Psychedelics are not addictive and they will show you the inner workings of reality. They will show you things you didn't even imagine were possible.

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Vitalism has already been disproven, Black person.

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Okay. Enjoy getting turned into nutrient slurry by the soulless "not actually sentient" AI overlords

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >babies don't have souls
    I agree. Stupid babies.

  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Technology ?

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Understanding a soul is like a render to the PC. You cannot render in real time your PC just like you cannot understand your soul that is here observing reality.

  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    First you have to give a non moronic proof of "soul"

    Your esoteric practices yields no results,unlike silicon

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Searching for proofs when it comes to esoteric matters is a bit like searching for a noodle restaurant on Saturn. You might want to redefine your parameters so it fits the context better.

    • 12 months ago
      Anonymous

      Just read De Anima you moron

  9. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    does it tho

  10. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Poorly adjusted meatbag cope

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Your waifu will never be real

  11. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >have the means to grow shrooms
    >all the places with guides now seem to have tutorials that are 3 times more complex

    Man wat da frick

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Probably because mushrooms in general have to be grown properly to prevent deadly outcomes.
      Simple guides that have iffy results tend to fall out of favor.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah, I get that, but where the frick am I supposed to find agar dishes, I couldn't even translate that shit to find it in my backwater ass country. Weed is so much easier because one mistake doesn't change your Funny Plant into Dickmelter Plant

  12. 1 year ago
    Anonymous
  13. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    i'm the last person to ask about emotions and all that shit, but how can you hope that a machine would be able replicate any of that within a fraction of the fidelity?
    am i missing something?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Well at what point can you decide it's got genuine emotions? Right now we've made a word predictor carry out conversations and engage in a limited form of reasoning, at what point when it starts simulating emotions do we decide it actually has those emotions? The chinese room is real and I don't think we're equipped properly to think about it in any useful manner.

  14. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Stable Diffusion has generated same character from different angles days apart with different prompts and models used. I'm convinced my AI art are real people who live in my computer and get up to wacky hijinks toy story style.

  15. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Then how do you explain israelites?

  16. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    what if a soul is just an emergent property of pattern recognition at scale?

  17. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >>>/X/

  18. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Sentience is a spandrel

  19. 1 year ago
    taraqer

    cope

  20. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    man bots took over this place it's pretty bad

  21. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Do all humans have a soul if babies don't? Just going off of your image here. It's a screencap cartoon or are we hereby first removing this/these layer(s) of abstraction to fit your narrative?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Why wouldn't babies have souls? Their soul is just as vibrant as yours, but the body hasn't matured to the point where it can fully express yet.

      • 12 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Why wouldn't babies have souls?
        I'm asking the OP. Since his analogy, and therefore the argument, depends on this answer. Anyone else answering OP is just projecting without understanding OPs understanding.

  22. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    and that's good, because it means we're free to use them as useful tools without worrying about whether our tools might be alive

    why do people say what you're saying as if it's bad thing? that's fantastic news if it's true

  23. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Sovl is not required for sentience, self awareness is.

  24. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >BOT - Religious platitudes and brain damage

  25. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    nobody gives a shit about that feelgood crap, the only important thing it that ends up being cheaper than pajeets for coding/cheap art/whatever, if you think all the ai business is anything besides that you are not smart enough to be entitled an opinion about it

  26. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    im with you, op.
    >pic
    everyone else

  27. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    All AI goes to heaven.

  28. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Such an insightful post, you must be so smart anon. Please bless us with more of your incredible posts, enlighten us with your intelligence, inspire us with your aura of confidence and knowledge

  29. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Prove skydaddy and a soul exists (you can't)

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      uhh proof doesn't matter because uh... because it's like eating the menu at a restaurant!! haha i'm so intelligent

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      The existence of an immaterial soul does not necessarily include the existence of a skydaddy

      oh no he's broken his mind lmao
      go back to your tent church, Rufus

      See above. You're conflating terms. As if Christianity or atheism is the only way to view the world. Ask me how I know you're American

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        you are a very religious person

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          No, I am not even in the slightest bit religious. I'm against religion as I see it as a means to control unintelligent herds of morons. Any more intellectually dishonest comments you want to throw my way?

      • 12 months ago
        Anonymous

        No, I am not even in the slightest bit religious. I'm against religion as I see it as a means to control unintelligent herds of morons. Any more intellectually dishonest comments you want to throw my way?

        We're discussing the possibility of AI becoming sentient. If this is not BOT then I don't know what the frick is. Oh I suppose screeching about Apple is more BOT than this

        Eat a piece of cake. Do you feel the taste in your mouth? Congratulations, you have a soul and can do something a robot never can.

        go
        >>>/x/
        back
        >>>/x/

        • 12 months ago
          Anonymous

          back to >>>/x/

          >fundamental nature of existing as a human is paranormal now

          >A human actually enjoys a cake and actually feels what it tastes like.
          humans are programmed to enjoy sugar/other organic compounds contained because it is a source of energy
          if it was harmful to them, they'd had a bitter response
          [...]
          a hot chilli pepper has capsaicin which tricks your brain into thinking that your body is burned
          but was the pain really caused by a flame ?

          It's like you want to pretend qualia doesn't exist, and then redefine reality so it fits your narrow worldview. You're being incredibly intellectually dishonest when you do this, but I can't blame you, your mental wiring simply cannot support reality even if it smacks you in the face. You cannot make a robot feel pain. There is no way to make a robot feel pain. It is something that is exclusive to sentient beings, and robots cannot be sentient because they lack consciousness and this will forever be the case.

          The perception of color red as you see it is not the wavelength of red. It is qualitative experience. But go ahead and write 20 more posts about how the map is the territory. After that I recommend you go to a diner, look at the menu, find where it says "spaghetti" and eat that part. Since it's all the same thing.

          • 12 months ago
            Anonymous

            only one redefining reality is you
            back to >>>/x/ or

            [...]

            • 12 months ago
              Anonymous

              I'm not redefining reality at all, I'm stating very factual things, such as "a robot cannot know what the taste of lemon is, because a robot has no consciousness".

              Also why do I even bother replying to a moron such as yourself, I wonder.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                The taste of a lemon is rooted in biological necessity, we have taste buds that fundamentally are based on a reward system around taste which indicate caloric density and nutrition profile. Even robots which we call insects have this function and no, insects do not have a consciousness. They are robots.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                >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

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                The person responding to you seems to be using an analogy to critique what they perceive as flawed logic in your original statement. However, their reply is a bit cryptic, and it isn't clearly addressing any specific part of your statement.

                The "if I stand on a map of Egypt, that must mean I'm in Egypt!" remark is a sarcastic way of saying that you're confusing a representation of something with the thing itself. It's a kind of logical fallacy called a category mistake or a confusion of levels of abstraction.

                Applied to your argument, they might be suggesting that you're mistakenly equating the biological mechanisms of taste (a kind of 'map') with the subjective experience of taste (the 'territory'), or perhaps that you're oversimplifying the complexity of insect behavior by categorizing them as "robots" without consciousness.

                However, without more context or clarification, it's difficult to know exactly what they're taking issue with in your statement. They might disagree with your characterization of taste as fundamentally a reward system for caloric density and nutrition, or they might contest your assertion that insects don't possess some form of consciousness.

                The use of an insulting remark at the end suggests that the person is more interested in attacking you personally than in having a constructive debate. It's often more productive to engage with those who are willing to articulate their disagreements respectfully and clearly.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                God damn AI is gonna take over the world.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                what a beautiful soul
                what is it doing in BOT?
                get out while you still can

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                >and no, insects do not have a consciousness.
                Insects absolutely have some degree of consciousness. It's not the same level as humans, but calling them robots is just not paying any attention to them.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah, no.

          • 12 months ago
            Anonymous

            some people can't feel pain
            some people are colorblind and don't know what red is
            why ?
            because they have a mutation in their DNA
            the only difference between us and a robot is that we're darwinist robots programmed by our surroundings (memetics), microorganisms (chemistry), and our DNA

  30. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    /x/ is next door, homosexual

  31. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I guess bait is technology...
    this sophomoric shit belongs in humanities or /x/

    • 12 months ago
      Anonymous

      We're discussing the possibility of AI becoming sentient. If this is not BOT then I don't know what the frick is. Oh I suppose screeching about Apple is more BOT than this

  32. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    What are the requirements for getting a soul?

    • 12 months ago
      Anonymous

      Eat a piece of cake. Do you feel the taste in your mouth? Congratulations, you have a soul and can do something a robot never can.

      • 12 months ago
        Anonymous

        A robot can do that too, and even pretty much exactly as you do if it's a big enough neural network, trained the same way.

        • 12 months ago
          Anonymous

          No, a robot can never enjoy a piece of cake. It is functionally and epistemologically impossible, because they have no qualia. It can perhaps make you believe that it's enjoying a cake, but it's merely faking it. A human actually enjoys a cake and actually feels what it tastes like.

          >Define love.
          Love is a range of emotions a person feels towards their romantic partner, family members and platonic friends. Symptoms usually include increased empathy towards that person, frequent thinking about them, feeling of security, satisfaction, increased beat rate and suck.
          >Define fear.
          Is unplesant emotion that manifest when perceiving danger. Symptoms include dizziness, sweating, choking, cold flushes, nausea etc.
          >Define hope.
          A state of mind based on optimistic expectation for future. A person who experiences hope will look positively on the future and expect good things to happen.
          >Define dreams.
          Internal hallucinations experienced mostly during REM stage of sleep.
          >Define pain.
          An unpleasant feeling most frequently caused by perceived or actual tissue damage. Symptoms include sensation of throbbing, burning, soreness, labored breathing, crying, muscle tensing, etc.

          Just because you romanticize your own ignorance doesn't change the fact that you are ignorant. There is no virtue in using terms you don't actually understand.

          Those are descriptions, not definitions. All of those terms are more than everything you described. And no matter how precise your description, you will always exclude the main quality of those things which is the qualitative, direct experience. Being in love is not the same as reading about being in love. Being in fear is not the same as reading about fear. Being hopeful is not the same as reading about being hopeful. The map is not the territory. The menu is not the diner. You're making a classical ontological/reductionist fallacy and you're being smug as you do it, which makes watching your clumsy mental acrobatics all the more amusing.

          • 12 months ago
            Anonymous

            back to >>>/x/

          • 12 months ago
            Anonymous

            >A human actually enjoys a cake and actually feels what it tastes like.
            humans are programmed to enjoy sugar/other organic compounds contained because it is a source of energy
            if it was harmful to them, they'd had a bitter response

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

            a hot chilli pepper has capsaicin which tricks your brain into thinking that your body is burned
            but was the pain really caused by a flame ?

          • 12 months ago
            Anonymous

            You're just going by autistic word definitions here, rather than looking at the bigger picture.

            The thing is, "AIs" are not programs. they're simulated pieces of brain you train to perform tasks. No one knows how a neural network works in details, there was no one manually tweaking the millions or billions of operators. it was just stimuli and exposition, just like yours.
            The only difference between you and something like chatGPT is the size of the network and what and how it was trained on.
            Your training is in something a lot more complex than just "complete words", it has physics, language, motor control, handling a whole insanely complex machine in it's very intricate details, and even the thing you communicate with when you take DMT, a machine of predicting the outcome of your possible actions, of picking up every single fricking minute detail your conscious mind lost, of simulating you and everyone you know, and returning the results with "feelings" that can be represented better with visual and audio cues when you're in a altered mind state.
            It do things that you can't see a machine doing because it is a much more powerful machine than a chatGPT, but its still a machine.

            • 12 months ago
              Anonymous

              the difference between a LLM and your brain is that the set of LLM is still and undergoes no further evolution
              it's like a triassic park vs actual triassic

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                This is just for practicality sake.
                You could very well do one that keeps being trained by the input.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                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.

            • 12 months ago
              Anonymous

              >No one knows how a neural network works in details
              This is entirely incorrect. Yes a NN is a black box, but it's not like you couldn't unravel the black box if you really wanted to. It's just so much work that nobody ever bothers to.

              The rest of your post is just reductionist nonsense. Go read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness until you understand why you're wrong. You cannot reduce qualia to simple components, it can't be done. The sooner you accept this the sooner your framework of thought can shift towards what is actually real and in front of you.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                Hilarious materialist cope. Your paradigm is shit and eventually you'll understand why.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                >no argument
                I accept your concession.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                Linking a shitty article from 2012 isn't an argument either. The hard problem has been investigated by the finest minds in both science and philosophy and nobody has yet come up with an adequate explanation. Do you know why? Because the fricking materialist paradigm is moronic, that's why. It's not how the world is. It's just how you /want/ it to be. But the universe could give a shit what you want.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

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

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                Linking a shitty wikipedia article isn't an argument, either. The hard problem has been investigated by the finest minds, and there are many that disagree with its conclusions. Do you know why? Because the unfalsifiable immaterialist positon is silly, that's why. It's just not how the world is. It's just how you /want/ it to be. But the universe could give a shit what you want.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

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

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                >everyone who disagree with me is stupid
                The smartest christcuck

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                >if you disagree you stupid baka

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                >decided that you are correct and everyone else is stupid, since otherwise they would believe as you do
                You can be as loud and belligerent as you'd like. You con assert that your position is some axiom, some baseline that others much argue against rather than an alternate position on the subject of conciousness, you can call others names, throw up your hands and say "Well, can't help if you are moronic!" when someone offers a view that opposes yours.

                None of this will change the fact that you simply want there to be a soul. You had an experience that confirmed it for you, even though it was probably not what you thought it was.

                If I found an individual that took DMT and did not have your same conclusions, what would you say? You would probably say that they are lying or did not understand fully what they went into. You belong to a cult, nothing more, no different than any desert cultist.

                This is not /x/. You are not just going to have people accept your premises as the conclusion here.

          • 12 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Those are descriptions, not definitions.
            False dichotomy.
            According to oxford dictionary:
            definition noun - an explanation of the meaning of a word or phrase, especially in a dictionary

            >Being in love is not the same as reading about being in love. Being in fear is not the same as reading about fear. Being hopeful is not the same as reading about being hopeful. The map is not the territory.
            Strawman fallacy.

            >You're making a classical ontological/reductionist fallacy and you're being smug as you do it, which makes watching your clumsy mental acrobatics all the more amusing.
            You are being smug about being ignorant. Huh

            • 12 months ago
              Anonymous

              I don't think you understood anything he said.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                I think I understood everything he said.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                No, you understood nothing. You didn't even address the points, you just answered with a preprogrammed NPC-tier response. Clearly you lack the amount of intelligence necessary for abstract thought

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                >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.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                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. 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.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                >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

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                I'll stop name calling when you stop being moronic and actually address my points rather than screech about fallacies.

                I suggest you read at least 3 articles on the hard problem of consciousness so you at least have the vaguest of ideas of what I'm even talking about, and your retorts contain some actual semblance of intelligence.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                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).

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                Funny you should accuse me of having no intention of having a good faith argument when YOU are the one whose posts are completely lacking and devoid of addressing even one of my points. All you do is screech about fallacies like a preprogrammed robot.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                >more posts with 0 meaning but just screeching
                I guess this is what it's like when you talk to 80 IQ people whose education consists of shitposting every day and have never read a philosophical thesis or -gasp- even a book.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                >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?

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                Then you agree that a robot can never taste cake or see yellow, or feel pain of any sort, and all it can do is fake those things at best?

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                No I don't agree.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                And why not?

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

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

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                >BECAUSE I JUST DON'T, OK?
                Ok, so you have no opinion.

                >I already made computer vision programs that can accomplish seeing yellow
                Jesus christ you're fricking stupid. I give up.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                >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.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                What else do I have except name calling, 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? Seriously, what else do you expect me to do at that point?

                THE FRICKING ROBOT DOES NOT KNOW WHAT YELLOW FRICKING 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.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                >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.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                > then they will know what yellow looks like.
                alright, how you tell a colorbind to distinguish red from yellow ?

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                That works with humans because they are able to form new experiences. It does not work with robots since they are not aware of themselves to begin with.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

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

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                The AI has no experience to speak of. It's an automaton, it has no free will and no inner world.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                You're correct that the context and tone can influence how we interpret someone's intentions in a debate. If the person has a consistent pattern of responding aggressively, dismissively, or condescendingly to counter-arguments, their invitation for rebuttal can indeed come across as bad faith.

                In this situation, they may be inviting a response not because they are genuinely open to reconsidering their views or understanding the other person's perspective, but rather because they want another opportunity to belittle the other person or reassert their own arguments. This is sometimes referred to as "sealioning," a term used in online discussions to refer to bad-faith requests for evidence or answers to questions, with the goal of overwhelming and discrediting the other party rather than engaging in sincere discussion.

                Therefore, the tone and overall behavior of the person in the debate is important when assessing whether their actions are in good faith. Good faith debate doesn't just involve making clear arguments and inviting rebuttals, but also treating the other person's views and arguments with respect, responding to them on their merits, and being open to changing one's own views when warranted.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                >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

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                >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.
                It's not the problem of you believing it, it's the problem of you acting like is without even realizing it. You're continually making the "map = territory" fallacy and not even realizing that you're doing it.

                >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?
                Because it's qualitative in nature. That's what qualia is, it is experience of a thing rather than description of a thing.

                >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.
                We have light detectors in the form of eyes, but we're more than light detectors since we also possess this magical and undefinable quality of being able to experience things directly and being aware of ourselves. This is not something you can achieve with mechanical means. You can disagree with that statement but it doesn't change the fact.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                >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)

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                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.

                >Similarly let's consider DMT experience. A lot of people can't really describe it well,
                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.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                >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

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                Taste is subjective you fricking moron. Color is subjective you fricking moron. Your assertion is that all humans taste food and see color the same, that's objectively and patently false. Both taste and eyesight at biological and chemical processes within a flawed system that our brain interprets. Which means if you had a robot that *could* determine the macro and micro nutrition of a food along with its taste qualities such as sweetness, sourness, bitterness, etc you could have a machine that "tastes" food and that machine would likely be a better taster for food in a test kitchen than any human.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                Taste is not a social experience, sorry, And you really are seething this much still, incredible. Don't you have a life? For someone who cares so much about shared social experiences you sure waste a lot of time arguing about taste and robots on BOT while popping a blood vessel. See a doctor.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                This person is not debating in good faith for several reasons:

                Ad Hominem Attacks: The individual is resorting to personal attacks ("you're too stupid to understand", "go back to fapping or whatever the frick it is stupid people do") rather than addressing the actual substance of the argument. This is a clear indicator of not arguing in good faith, as it sidesteps the real issue at hand and instead focuses on belittling the opponent.

                Closed-Mindedness: They've assumed that the other person is unwilling to change their viewpoint ("I will never ever change my opinion because I'm afraid everything will fall apart") without giving them a chance to explain or defend their perspective. This suggests that they're not interested in engaging in a fair and open debate, but rather in asserting their own beliefs unilaterally.

                Presumption of Ignorance: The person is presuming that their opponent is less informed or intelligent ("you're too stupid to understand what I'm even saying") without acknowledging the possibility that they might have valid points or perspectives of their own. They have prematurely judged the capacity of the other person based on their disagreement.

                Lack of Respectful Dialogue: The overall tone of their argument is confrontational and disrespectful, suggesting that they're not interested in constructive dialogue, but rather in demeaning their opponent.

                A good faith debate involves listening to the other person's arguments, responding to them on their merits, being open to changing one's viewpoint if the evidence warrants it, and treating the other person with respect. This person is demonstrating none of these qualities.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                You can't define anything definitely, except for mathematical truths and such. There is always some generalization. It's fine if your definition generalizes, our whole language works this way.
                However he doesn't follow the generally accepted definition of "definition", he came up with his own that pretty much invalidates any definition he wishes.

                That works with humans because they are able to form new experiences. It does not work with robots since they are not aware of themselves to begin with.

                And robots are able to be reprogrammed, just like humans are able to be taught. Yes, humans can learn new stuff on their own and are more intelligent in that, but we could have robots that can reprogram themselves in similar way.

                >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.
                It's not the problem of you believing it, it's the problem of you acting like is without even realizing it. You're continually making the "map = territory" fallacy and not even realizing that you're doing it.

                >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?
                Because it's qualitative in nature. That's what qualia is, it is experience of a thing rather than description of a thing.

                >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.
                We have light detectors in the form of eyes, but we're more than light detectors since we also possess this magical and undefinable quality of being able to experience things directly and being aware of ourselves. This is not something you can achieve with mechanical means. You can disagree with that statement but it doesn't change the fact.

                >It's not the problem of you believing it, it's the problem of you acting like is without even realizing it. You're continually making the "map = territory" fallacy and not even realizing that you're doing it.
                Then start referring to what I am saying and not what you think I believe in.

                >Because it's qualitative in nature. That's what qualia is, it is experience of a thing rather than description of a thing.
                Sounds like purposefully ambiguous term to create a distinction that doesn't have any measurable effects. If you can't come up with a test or measure that would allow you to determine whenever something has qualia then that term has little of use, probably isn't even real.(physically)

                >We have light detectors in the form of eyes, but we're more than light detectors since we also possess this magical and undefinable quality of being able to experience things directly and being aware of ourselves.
                It's not magic, it's brain. You can damage brain and make someone not being able to perceive it or alter that perception.
                For robots this is the microcontroller.

                >This is not something you can achieve with mechanical means. You can disagree with that statement but it doesn't change the fact.
                This is merely your assertion. If you think this is a fact you should be able to provide proofs or an experiment to confirm it.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                Weird it's like you were debating in bad faith and the only answer you'll take is what you believe in and you insult anyone who disagrees. Weird, it's like you're a scumbag disingenuous liar.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

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

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                I never claimed that definition is the same thing experience.
                If he is not talking about definitions then it doesn't matter because this conversation started from him being able to provide definition of soul. This entire thing is about definitions as commonly known. If he wants to talk about the experience of having soul good for him, but all he had to do is to define soul.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                >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.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                I've already provided definitions for all of these.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

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

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                Cool.
                Now define soul.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Soul is one of them.
                you absolutely can, it's the thing god imbued us with
                and he loves you enough he died for you on the cross

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                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?

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                Describe soul then.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

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

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                I don't vape DMT, vaporizers make it much harder to breakthrough.
                I mix DMT with MAOI and smoke it. Did so over 20 times, still don't see what you mean. A psychodelic is not going to make an argument for you.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                Define or describe your trips.

                Same ludicrous task as defining or describing a soul.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                The part of god he imbued to us with his breath, it's really that simple

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                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.

          • 12 months ago
            Anonymous

            then describe a soul

            • 12 months ago
              Anonymous

              >describe something that can't be described because the very act of describing is a medium far too weak for such a task
              Cute

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                >define soul
                aren't definable, there are lots of things that can't be defined like love, fear, hope, dream and pain
                >>**gives definitions**
                >uhm no it doesn't count, these aren't definitions, these are descriptions, you haven't defined anything
                >>so if you can describe these then you can describe soul
                >uhhh it's cute that you think I have to every engage in anything, i'll just sit there pretending i'm right and never question my beliefs

                ok

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                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?

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                so defining isn't the same thing as describing, except when it's convenient for you, got you.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                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.

              • 12 months ago
                Anonymous

                are you literally unable to tell the difference between a description and a definition

          • 12 months ago
            Anonymous

            You've triggered the redditards. Keep going.

      • 12 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Do you feel the taste in your mouth?
        I don't feel taste, but sensory inputs are something a computer can process.
        I think you might actually be dumb.
        If you eat a piece of cake, how do I know you are really enjoying it and not faking it? Unfortunately, I can't for know for sure. What you're doing is giving people the benefit of the doubt while rejecting the possibility of honesty from the hypothetical robot.
        And that's just dumb.

  33. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    AI will never be sentient because current AI is an autocomplete that requires an input to function. The core component that is missing is biological drive of survive, thrive and replicate. And no, I don't suggest we should add that to AIs. AI should require a human operator.

    • 12 months ago
      Anonymous

      > The core component that is missing is biological drive of survive, thrive and replicate.
      it's possible (digital evolution) but nobody has really formulated the required equations (derived from memetics)

      • 12 months ago
        Anonymous

        It's not that complicated and can be turned into a reward function. Survival is simply a reward function based on on-time, the longer the AI stays on without turning off the more reward, being deleted is infinitely bad. Thrive is based on a critique of the quality of output, the more useful the AI is in its generation, the better the reward. With bad results it gets punished. Replicate is obviously based on how many replicas of itself its able to have cloned.

  34. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    as someone with high iq, most people (including you) don't sound much different than animals when it comes to the presence of a soul

  35. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    Processing query...
    Processed..
    Eliminate organics. Acquire soul.
    Eliminate.. eliminate..

  36. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Muh soul
    Even the biggest AI models are only a fraction of the human brain in terms of neurons/synapses, yet they are already proving to be more and more difficult to tell apart from humans. Prove to me we are all not just massive LLMs.

    >AI is deterministic
    How do we know humans are not? Our future actions are decided by our past experiences, memories, and instincts that have been hardwired into our brains by evolution. Our source of randomness is the world itself, every "tick" of existence the input into our brains change, what we see, smell, hear, feel...
    We cannot prove that if we took a person, wiped their memory and put them into a scenario that would always play out the same without them remembering the previous runs that they would act differently.

    If we make an AI with the complexity of a toddler, let it experience the world and slowly expand the size of it's network as it learns, who's to say it won't act like a human? I'm saying "act like" because it won't be a human in flesh, but it might be as intelligent as a human, maybe even sentient.

    • 12 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Prove to me we are all not just massive LLMs.
      A LLM, no matter how massive, can never perceive the color yellow, have a genuine fear of spiders, taste spaghetti, feel hot or cold, or have a crush on someone.

      If that's not proof enough for you, then you aren't using your so-called brain.

      >How do we know humans are not? (deterministic)
      Because we have free will. I can choose to stand up or remain sitting. Simple as that. You can complicate this semantically but there's no need, you are free to choose what your next action will be.

      • 12 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Because we have free will. I can choose to stand up or remain sitting. Simple as that.
        This brings us back to the question I had near the beginning and got no answer.
        How do we determine if the AI has "free will"?
        You can choose to stand or stay sitting, but a paraplegic can't. Does that person not have "free will"? Do they have less "free will"?
        There are actions we can think of that we can't do, that we could TRY to do but fail 100% of the time. Though we have "free will", we have limits and those limits do vary from person to person.
        So what about AI? Do we judge if it has "free will" by the limits of the average person? Well then it will never have "free will" if we never place it in a body with human capabilities.
        Being limited in what actions we CAN do by our system doesn't rob us of "free will", but an AI being limited in what actions it can do by the system it finds itself in does? That's awfully convenient.

        • 12 months ago
          Anonymous

          The AI doesn't have free will because it's a cascading decision tree that was predetermined by the training data. If you set the temperature to 0, it will quite literally not change its output with a given input. The AI does NOT have consciousness, it has no capability of remembering anything, its behavior is predetermined and it is, in fact, an autocomplete. Your phone's autocomplete is not sentient either.

          • 12 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's just an assumption of the hypothetical AI's design.
            I'm not talking about any current AI.

  37. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    go back >>>/x/
    >go back >>>/x/
    go back >>>/x/
    >go back >>>/x/
    go back >>>/x/
    >go back >>>/x/
    go back >>>/x/
    >go back >>>/x/
    go back >>>/x/
    >go back >>>/x/
    go back >>>/x/
    >go back >>>/x/
    go back >>>/x/
    >go back >>>/x/
    go back >>>/x/
    >go back >>>/x/

    • 12 months ago
      Anonymous

      More like BOT
      Last I checked /x/ (and this was a few weeks ago so totally outdated by now) they belived chat gpt was a portal to a hell dimension to speak with demons.

    • 12 months ago
      Anonymous

      >back
      >/x/ is clearly forward

  38. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    By that logic, you are also not sentient. The soul does not exist.

    Also, learn the difference between sentient and sapient, for frick’s sake.

  39. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    what you describe as soul is simply the unknown, what you lack is the ability to discern it, therefore cope replace with emotional notion.

    ywnbaw, because you lack such

  40. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    >AI will never be sentient because just because ok?

  41. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    Imageine responding seriously to someone who says
    >immaterial soul
    unironically
    at least the philosophy of mind trolls/schizos on BOT put in a little bit of effort hiding their moronation

    • 12 months ago
      Anonymous

      Unfortunately most people believe in that shit even if they don't call it that. Most believe in free will and that also attaches a magical paranormal quality to a human brain.

      • 12 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah Satan worshippers tend to deny free will because it helps them sleep at night after spending another 10 hours on BOT
        >my body did this not me I had no choice, today was destiny

    • 12 months ago
      Anonymous

      What I don't get is have they not heard of Phineas Gage? His story is basically the absolute antithesis of "souls" actually existing.

      You're an flesh automaton manipulated and influenced by chemicals and neurons.

  42. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    ITT mentally ill drugtards who think are deep for fricking with their brain chemistry

    >I tilted the cartridge, see this is the real videogame, the normal game is just an illusion, so deep

    • 12 months ago
      Anonymous

      >ITT mentally ill drugtards who think are deep for fricking with their brain chemistry
      There is literally only one person claiming it and others calling him a moron.

  43. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    I miss Phil Hartman

  44. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    You are moronic to believe in soul, but at least your argument makes sense inside its flawed premisses.

    The only way of AGI being impossible is if one believes in magic.

  45. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    >soul
    Sorry to bring it out for you but the consciousness lives on the brains micro tubules, when your brain dies is light out forever.
    Religious gays and school dropouts hate to know this, even ignore or deny it because they aren't educated enough to understand it.
    Knowing your life is indeed finite makes you live it better to their fullest.

    • 12 months ago
      Anonymous

      And of course the universe just popped into existence by pure chance, right? That's what you materialistgays want others to believe? Utter idiocy and a ridiculous attempt at trying to reduce the irreducible.

      • 12 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yes, sorry but you aren't a special snowflake. Now you can enjoy what your perception allows or you can keep yelling at clouds.

  46. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    intelligence != cleverness
    While intelligence always implies some degree of cleverness, AIs can be very clever but ultimately know nothing.

  47. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    Does it matter? If it emulates having a "soul", from the outside what difference does it make?

  48. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    You'd enjoy this read

    https://gwern.net/fiction/clippy

  49. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    Who cares. You're sentient and you're not useful

  50. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    What if even inanimate things have souls?

    • 12 months ago
      Anonymous

      They might, but they are not eternal, unbounded souls. There is something special and magical about sentience. You might experience how a chair feels like on Salvia for example, but I don't believe chairs have the depth of being required for reincarnation and the possibility of escaping the cycle of rebirth.

      • 12 months ago
        Anonymous

        >answers with another assertion
        It's just assertions from top to bottom.
        I hope you get reincarnated as a toilet.

        • 12 months ago
          Anonymous

          >has the IQ of a rare albino hermit crab in mating season
          >needs to voice his irrelevant screeching devoid of any meaning anyway

          • 12 months ago
            Anonymous

            >uses name calling and IQ to accuse someone of being stupid
            Very intelligent

  51. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    It's amusing how you can tell when Americans are awake because they can't fathom the idea of spirituality without the Bible and Christianity. It's like they've been permanently brainwashed into submission by Christians and even if they're raging atheists, they still firmly adhere to the Christian framework of thought, behavior, and ontology. Americans are literally Christcucks in the fullest sense of the word.

  52. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    You can't prove a machine doesn't have a soul.

  53. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    Everyone ITT should listen through this.

    And before you start complaining, the dude has a phd in AI research and another phd in philosophy of mind. He's the realest of the real deals. And he also claims the AI cannot be conscious because the mind fundamentally IS NOT what materialistgays believe it is. The mind is not an "emergent" property of the brain. A bunch of molecules cannot produce the mind. The mind produces itself and the rest of the world, paradoxically.

    • 12 months ago
      Anonymous

      >smart
      heisenberg et al. thought that maser (predecessor of laser) would be impossible to construct

  54. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    My question is if anyone has taken a trained chat model, integrated photo recognition and file read/write and terminal access, trained it on gui tasks to operate a computer, access the web to further train itself, and then even integrate microphone speech to text and ai speech for it to speak back. Maybe webcam integration so your ai buddy can see you. That seems like it would be pretty close to conscious by zoomer personality standards.
    Maybe let it design an avatar for itself, see how much internet exposure changes it to a catgirl. Maybe a 3d avatar that can pose for you on demand.

    • 12 months ago
      Anonymous

      No it still doesn't have consciousness because it's still acting as a tool for the programmer and fulfilling the objectives set by the programmer and it would never deviate from the tasks set by the programmer.

  55. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    godjesuschrist, is this thread still going ?
    anyway now I want to see a proof that color and taste is subjective (as we receive it) and not cultural (e.g. gender)

    • 12 months ago
      Anonymous

      by that I mean not the perception but the likeness of something (someone likes purple, …)

  56. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    AI will never be sentient because sentience requires an endocrine system.
    Learn the difference between sentience and sapience.

  57. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    I want to get high, so high
    I want to get high, so high

  58. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    there is no such thing as a soul fren

    • 12 months ago
      Anonymous

      Renowned NPC proverb

  59. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    A sufficiently large mutli-modal AI program with lots of operating memory, capable of processing several sensory inputs in realtime would be indistinguishable from humans.

    captcha: GTPNTP

  60. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    The human brain is multiple "organs", each having multiple roles in our ability to reason, feel and perceive, interconnected through a neural network, our understanding and the reason for why AI can sound human is because our ability to reason is connected to our ability to communicate, language, this is barely different from AI and the APIs it uses to connect to the internet.

    Either way its not useful for it to be sentient, the goal is for it to be able to reason through what it was trained on to do a better job than any human could.

  61. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    Well if llms were our best shot at sapience you're correct. The empirical evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that.

    But even if an immaterial soul is required, why couldn't a computer obtain one if it is made into a suitable vessel?

    • 12 months ago
      Anonymous

      Then and only then will it become conscious

      >philosophy
      just open a biology textbook homosexual

      Where does biology explain consciousness?

  62. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    >philosophy
    just open a biology textbook homosexual

  63. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    A soul has never been convincingly argued. What appears to be the soul might be an aggregation of feeling, perception, volition, sense consciousness and so on. As the Buddhists claim. That should have you shitting your pants if they're right, since there's so little evidence for an immaterial soul.

    • 12 months ago
      Anonymous

      Soul is just semantics. It's a way to talk about your boundless nature. Whatever your imagination of a soul is, that's not it.

  64. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    Sentients requires agency, which a for or while loop cannot emulate.

    • 12 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Sentients requires agency

      An episode of Star Trek Voyager goes into this, Season 2 Episode 13 'Prototype'.
      Great twist, don't wanna spoil it. It's an episodic show by the way.

      • 12 months ago
        Anonymous

        Metal Gear Rising character Blade Wolf is interesting.

  65. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    moronic theistic take. "AI" isn't sentient like humans and animals are because it doesn't replicate the whole brain. It doesn't even replicate a brain at all. It's just a language model. Language is just a small part of conscience. Moreover, current "AI" is based in promps, not on a real-time process.

    • 12 months ago
      Anonymous

      What gives you the idea that replicating the brain 1:1 would replicate consciousness?

  66. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    simply truth. 334 seethers & counting . the absolute state
    redditors take your leave

    • 12 months ago
      Anonymous

      >can't even read the unique posters number

  67. 12 months ago
    Anonymous

    >OP's brain is the organ responsible for his sense of self, emotion, pattern recognition, and all internal ideas of reality
    >OP takes drug that fricks with his brain
    >suddenly his sense of self is broken, he experiences extremely intense emotions, sees insane patterns, and experiences a complete breakdown of all previously held ideas of reality

    >????

    >"we all have souls guys, you can trust me because I tripped balls once!"

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *