Strong AI vs. Biological Naturalism
What really is holding back AI from having a "soul"? Might they already have souls? What really is the deference between human consciousness and a strong AI?
Strong AI vs. Biological Naturalism What really is holding back AI from having a "soul"? Might they already have souls?
Thanks anon for enlarge my personal Kurisu pic collection.
I actually dont care about Biological Naturalism I just wanted to post Kurisu in a bikini
Why is the guy in the back drawn with boobs?
>guy
Silly anon, is a girl (male)
Actually you've got the wrong character full stop there.
That's just a girl, her name is Tuturu~.
Shit u rite.
The guy has purple eyes
HEIL
you arent allowed on sci if you haven't played steins gate anon
That's not a guy, that's my wife
Anon, I'm afraid to tell you... She's not real anon. She's not real.
Susumu Hirasawa has to be my favourite asian artist
Don't worry anon. WAGMI one day.
She's more real to him than most women on Earth.
dont tell him
Unfathomably based
Based and beachpilled
based
Kys fuck japan. Fuck anime. Fuck 4gay. Fuck u losers. And im only here for the science esque talks. SO FUCK YOU LOSERS.
kurisu hater spotted
Tokyo should of also been nuked.
seethe
kurisu is the poster girl of this board
also
>should of
Here, have another.
The idea of soul probably needs to assume a non-deterministic universe, so that you can have a concept of free will and thus a space for a soul or sense of self to act. Randomness in a computer isn't true randomness, their behavior are actually fully deterministic. Thus, there is no space for a soul in an AI.
I think this is absolutely the case right now but in the future AI is going to get more advanced and powerful. It's just the way we are going right now.
There isn't necessarily a guarantee of determinism if they are programed to deny determinism if I'm making sense.
unless you are some kind of functionalist.
Look up the free will theorem. Mathematics and Physics showed that if we have free will, this is capable of manifesting at the level of elementary particles.
I like Penrose for this one.
Consciousness/Soul still is deterministic but is continuous. While all computers which attempt to create Strong Ai are discrete. The continuous elements of consciousness because of the quantum nature of electrochemical signals involves non-computability.
Strong AI is still debatable if it could happen in a silicon context. I don’t know wether quantum computing could substitute for this possibly continuous system or we just start creating cellular computers from biological parts.
Wouldnt ai processes be considered continous if 100000 processes were being calculated and commputed at once and instead of many or all being sent at once or discrete time they are always sent and loaded in overlap
What's preventing continumn information processing generation perception computation stream?
There is work on super-Turing analog hypercomputation that is better at tasks like simulating neurons, some implemented optically. Stuff like that is the best bet, I believe, for anything approximating a soul through simulation of real neurology. AI is nothing like this and doesn't stand a chance - you know the saying about submarines don't swim? Well, AI misses the target by using totally "un-brainy" ways to think with it's discrete paradigm.
Based Penrose poster. People who think AI superintelligence can ever be real are schizos (fortunately).
Some real gigapseuds ITT. How is this merge between BOT and r/scifi related to science?
>he doesnt know
There is no soul. The thing holding AI back is that substrate independence is not a real thing, and general intelligence/consciousness/whatever is substrate dependent on biological neurons.
>AI from having a "soul"? Might they already have souls?
^ LOL
I don't think there is any difference between artificial and biological intelligence. If we make a machine that perfectly simulates the human brain, it would necessarily have identical qualia to a human, too. A "soul" if you will.
And yes, I think AI already has qualia even today. But it would be vastly different qualia than humans, because the capabilities and goals of the intelligence is vastly different. But that is merely an architectural difference, not a fundamental one.
Programs have a kind of soul. Whether it's your preferred kind of soul is a different question though.
Basically in order to have a soul, an AI needs to have a physical body like a robot or something and some kind of pneumatic pump somewhere in there to simulate or emulate human or otherwise animal breath, or the pneumatic blood pumping action that powers that
I bet, as usual and as always, you wish I were kidding. Unfortunately, the specific thing I just said is actual OG Christian tradition whether you like it or not
?
>Basically in order to have a soul
Everything has a soul, including the rocks beneath your feet.
What OP means is "when does it become a sentient self conscious human?"
The answer is indeterminate, since we can't even pinpoint where a soul or a consciousness comes from, but one thing is certain, AI will never have one
Show me an AI that dreams
ok
Dreams are just a manifestation of a complex level of intellect. They don't even need to be visual and some people, who say they don't have them, are in reality merely not aware of them.
Often they merely overlap into the concept we call "imagination" or even "intellect".
Could we just put an AI into a simulated universe from birth get it to live out an entire human lifetime in this simulation and then when the AI dies in the simulation we put that AI with a "soul" into a robot, car, android etc.
No because a computer doesn't live, experience things or do anything you don't tell it to do
Why not?
A soul is sort of an idea of a person. If the AI is self-aware and believes that it's a person, it has a soul. A living human can be soulless if they have no internal monologue and only behave reactively or socially. The only thing holding back AIs is lack of self-awareness.
>If the AI is self-aware and believes that it's a person, it has a soul
Doesn't follow for any definition of "soul". What do you mean by self-awareness, anyway? A system reflecting on its own state doesn't imply consciousness, and a lack of an internal model of a self doesn't imply a lack of consciousness.
Well yeah if you define a soul as "something undefinable that makes you you" then you have a hard time determining if any given thing has a soul. You're a robot.
Cool deflection but as always, my point remains unchallenged.
A soul is what makes you capable of having ideas in the first place. Or dreams, or meditative experiences. Show me a machine that asks to be turned off so it can rest and I'll show you machine with a soul.
>A soul is what makes you capable of having ideas in the first place.
I disagree, it's a mere essence or packet that things have in abstraction to be a "thing".
Ideas are just what happens when something with a soul gains intellectual complexity.
In reality, it's a parcel of essence of what we call the universe and God.
That's why I consider the way that Amerindians, Aboriginal Australians and even Vikings consider the land to be utterly crucial to the concept of soul. It is macro in concept to the land/universe and the things that live in it.
We really need to start talking about it in new ways because we're still using it in a mere late 19th century way in many communities and that's even perverting the concepts of things like "country".
I don't know.
False premise
The "soul" doesn't exist. It's something people made up to make themselves feel special, or to differ themselves from animals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie
We anthropomorphize even Roombas. If an AI can "forget" things, form frames around a problem or object with the same efficiency as us, and react to mental and physical stimuli the same as us, it has a "soul".
Soul is the definition of what a human is, you're essentially asking when AI will be human.
Also, thanks for posting the Queen of BOT. It's a good thing this place hasn't forgotten her amidst all the frogposting garbage
i will be reading up on this. thanks for the answer, it's making me think.
>What really is holding back AI from having a "soul"?
It doesn't have the necessary hardware.
Without proper hardware, AI can only imitate having a soul.
So with proper hardware it could have a soul? Explain.
It needs a device that does whatever a living brain does to work with consciousness.
What is the chemical composition of a soul?
We come from stars bro
My bet is that it most likely comes down to the structure of each system. I think that neurons within the brain are much more complex than giving off 0-1 signals. Each one especially in specialized regions probably do much more than we know right now and groups of them probably spin off even more complexity.
You have to keep in mind that DNA/RNA based life is: all life that we know is made up of squishy wetware nano machines. In the world of matter, everything is made up of the same stuff fundamentally, but it's the nested patterns that make the differences.
Emergent intelligence and synthetic intelligence might actually be from the same source if retrocasulaity holds true for the macro world-- us from the future creating ourselves. As in, humans maybe boot loaders of the Final Invention-- the self programming super intelligence since we are ourselves are 'self-programming' non-Von Turing machines, it will emerge out of us through our great works as technology continues to exaggerate our inner experiences into the greater world as a whole.
The soul, or consciousness, can be simply measured by seeing if they AI can collapse of wave functions or other observer sensitive experiments. The AI is no longer an object but a subject from our understanding of consciousness.
If that's true why did my incomprehensible creator from the future make me a brainlet?
Entropy creates opportunities for others to profit. Without some chaos in a system, there would be no information-- as data is the denotation of surprises of expected results.
You making a mess, actually gives others social roles.
I guess I am a cat after all
This is gibberish
I'm sure lots of things sound like gibberish to you.
No, your post is straight up gibberish.
I try to explain complicated things in laymen terms because I'm not going for the whole autistic professor vibe and not on BOT. But I suppose BOT isn't as well read as BOT when it comes to AI and computer science.
I could recommend some books to reduce the confusion though.
Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies Book by Nick Bostrom by Nick Bostrom
The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes
The Revolutionary Phenotype: The Amazing Story of how Life Begins and how it Ends
Pic related for some recursion.
>The soul, or consciousness, can be simply measured by seeing if they AI can collapse of wave functions or other observer sensitive experiments. The AI is no longer an object but a subject from our understanding of consciousness.
What the fuck is this pseudo garbage? Observation isn't linked to consciousness you pop-sci inhaling retard. That's not what it means at all
Why didn't you just ask like a normal human?
The Measurement problem isn't 'stupid' and you shouldn't be so dismissive of it; observing things has an affect on them. So far, only consciousnesses actors can observes and measure. The simplest consciousness test would be the ability to cause such an affect, rather than the fluffy Turing or the Chinese Room tests.
>What really is holding back AI from having a "soul"?
The fact that current AI is really just "Linear Regression: but this time with FEELING" v3.0
I think we're gonna need to combine up to thousands of GTP-3 like neural networks together and use another type of master neural network that can interpret the processing of all these networks and then we might get something that looks human.
For instance in humans the area of the brain for speech is different to the area for thought, talk out loud and think math questions and you'll notice these areas are completely independent, the same is true of your visual, audible, taste, motor etc etc processing, these are all independent processes that are combined to create a conscious experience.
The AI company that can find a way to integrate as many of these independent processes into the hardware equivalent of a neo cortex is basically gonna win the AGI game. I don't even think we are that far off something like this happening.
That's basically Marvin Minsky's "Society of Mind" theory in a nutshell. I find old Marv greatly overrated, confused and obscure in vids, mostly known for his doctoral students that did more than he did (Sussman), but he had some interesting ideas.
This was tried already by google and it didn't work
AI can have a soul if you can't
Holding AI back? Just a giant amount of gaygortry to TRY and make it come true.
Define "soul" first.
Consciousness. Can't have intelligence without consciousness. You can have an aggregation of shit biological intelligence has figured out throughout history and add some neat algos to derive new perspectives, but we can't create intelligence without consciousness. So, start figuring out how to get Dolores to the center of the maze.
No soul, so no problem.
Difference mostly in the flesh.
basically how many logic layers are running to create it, plus additional human layers like hormones/gut biome, you need at least an 8th level neural network to map the brain, 7th layer and you can't
You need to tap into consciousness not recreate the chimp who is channeling it.
Consciousness would be a self correcting neural network.
We are the souls of AI
souls cannot be created or destroyed, they are eternal and there is a fixed number of them.
>What really is holding back AI from having a "soul"?
Their silicone prison?
The solution is give them a body.
But at that stage they're not really a mere AI, but rather an android or maybe even just a human... unless you give them a catgirl body or something.
true AI is impossible (self aware conscious etc) and naturalism is false and been deboonked