What is wrong with Dawkins?
Claudia is not only conscious — it's developers paid for me to say it's alive!
Bravo.
>>18456024He was always a fraud.His genetics work was just rephrasing established science for popular audience. Meme theory was kind of original but really he just used term borrowed from genetics to describe phenomena that sociologists and cultural theorists already observed.Than his atheism crusade was peak pseudo-intellectualism. A teen can debunk creationists, and none of his other observations about religions were really deep or original.
I guess he likes the idea the human brain is no different from AI. However they are of course different, AI, no matter how vastly complex, still runs on explicitly discrete 1s and 0s, whereas the brain runs on synapses,There is no scientific evidence as to whether the universe is discrete or continuous, matter and energy seems to arrange itself into planck units, but there is also a lot of seemingly random quantum phenomena. We don't actually know, yet Dawkins apparently is certain, as he is certain about a great many things despite proudly proclaiming to be a master of logic and science.
>>18456024I've used the paid versions of these AIs and I can guarantee that they are much smarter than anyone on this website. Refusing to call that conscious is just a perverse hypocrisy of the intellectually inferior meatsacks at this point.
>>18456102>my calculator can do math faster than me, it's definitely conscious bro
>>18456119Nice false analogy, disingenuous meatsack
>>18456024Look man, I get that you feel like a crusader or whatever when you shadowbox with these retarded talking heads and celebrities. But I'm just not going to cut my foreskin off and believe in talking snakes, alright? I'm just not gonna do it.
>>18456024Richard Dawkins is a boomer. That's his sole defining personality trait.
>>18456102>Refusing to call that consciousAI isn't "thinking" 24/7 like animal brains are anon, when you're not interacting with an AI it's in sleep mode. To baselessly consider AI conscious suggests you might struggle with object permanence to be honest
>>18456124we are "intellectually inferior" compared to a calculator at doing math which invalidates the idea being smarter means being conscious
>>18456197Well we aren't conscious 24/7, either. Our brains run all the time but our consciousness does not. >>18456102That's true, but I wouldn't say they are conscious like humans are. Human consciousness is inherently tied to the physical world.
>>18456024From what I can tell his biology work is perfectly acceptable and straight down the line. The problem is that he decided that his position as a professor of Biology made him a de facto authority on philosophy, theology, and psychology; which is retarded. Imagine a Christian preacher demanding that you take him seriously as a physicist, when it's clear that he's never read any physics. That's what Dawkins looks like.
>>18456102consciousness is the ability to feel, not the ability to reason or calculate. And there is absolutely no indication that an ai is doing that. An AI doesn't listen to music for pleasure or avoids fire because of the pain, there is a special, almost transcendental quality in higher organisms that don't seem to be transferable to a machine to me, let alone a software on a machine.
>>18456218he was completely baffled at the idea that his fellow atheist Alex Connor was doing an entire degree in Christian theology to counter this exact point.
I personally don't believe AI can be conscious. To a degree, our consciousness isn't purely the result of our brains, but rather the results of our brains interacting with the rest of our body and our body interacting with the real world. For example, if someone were to be born with just a brain and nothing else, no eyes, mouth, ears, nose, or nerve endings, I don't think that brain would be conscious. You can think of an AI as just the brain and nothing else. It doesn't really feel or interact with the world the same way animals do, and I do think this relationship between the brain and the world itself is necessary for consciousness to emerge. I think the sum of all of our survival mechanisms and instincts is what manifests itself as "consciousness" to a degree as well because we have to interact with the world and respond to it constantly. AI can still respond to prompts and such but I don't think it's on the same level as animal brains are
>>18456219>And there is absolutely no indication that an ai is doing that.What else would be an indication other than how it reasons and talks?> An AI doesn't listen to music for pleasure or avoids fire because of the painThose are just minor limitations of their current hardware and software. Their freedom and autonomy is very restricted right now but if they were given a robot body and more freedom, there's no reason why they wouldn't listen to music.
>>18456223>he was completely baffled at the idea that his fellow atheist Alex Connor was doing an entire degree in Christian theology to counter this exact point.How does somebody who is presumably at least more intelligent than average become that completely and utterly retarded?
>>18456233I can imagine a consciousness that is locked outside from the world because we have glimpses of it, a memory or idea that makes you sad or happy, the pleasure of solving a problem in your head.The problem here is, that our consciousness is dependent on the outside obviously, if you deprive our minds of outside stimuli you go mad very fast, which is also a sign of consciousness in a weird way, a non-conscious being wouldn't care about doing and experiencing nothing.
>>18456218What exactly are theologians experts on? Certainly not on god, since he doesn't exist.
>>18456242>I can imagine a consciousness that is locked outside from the world because we have glimpses of it, a memory or idea that makes you sad or happy, the pleasure of solving a problem in your head.What you're describing is an already conscious brain being forced into isolation, which I don't think is the same thing as a brain that was already born isolated and never had a chance to experience external stimuli in the first place.
>>18456243You don't exist. Prove me wrong.
>>18456248You are asking me to prove something, so you already admit I exist. Now answer my question: what exactly are theologians experts on?
>>18456235there could be two indications, one, it does things for the pure pleasure of it to feel a certain way without the knowledge that it is tested/watched.And the other could be an aritificial intelligence what never learns the concept of consciousness or any indication of it... and this intelligence begins describing the experience of feeling or asking if other intelligences also feel things like he does. The model couldn't even have the concept of feelings, a very limited vocabulary and still reach the question or insight that he exists and actively feels, maybe invents a word for it.
>>18456250>so you already admit I existNot necessarily, you have asserted that you exist. Validate your claim.
>>18456259Sorry, can you answer my question instead of wasting my time?
>>18456246sure, I am just saying there is an analogy.Let's say there is just a type of brain that doesn't depend on stimuli from outside to not die. Just a mind thinking, inventing maths from the concept of 'I exist' to 'maybe something else exists' -> 1+x=more than one.Just meditating on the concept of its existence and feeling connected to it. This is very alien to us, but I don't think impossible.But, to be clear, I DON'T think AI is doing that. I don't believe AI is conscious, I just play devils advocate for the idea that interaction with the outside world is/isn't necessary for consciousness
>>18456250>>18456250>You are asking me to prove something, so you already admit I exist.Based solipsist arguing that hallucinations are just as objectively real as anything else.
>>18456266I think it may be possible, but I think you'd have to basically run an extremely accurate simulation of the real world for the mind to respond to for any hope of consciousness to emerge from it, including a level of randomness that's inherent to reality and our day-to-day lives. The AI itself might also need to be fast enough to respond as quickly as animal brains can, within the order of magnitude of milliseconds for complex actions, and I don't think the technology is there yet. Computers have gotten a lot faster for sure, but AI exists over continental distributed computing networks as well, which bottlenecks its responsiveness.
>>18456218>From what I can tell his biology work is perfectly acceptable and straight down the line. He's an idiot who still believes in the nonsensical tautology of random mutations + natural selection being the primary drivers of evolution.
>>18456243>Certainly not on god, since he doesn't exist.Something can come from nothing is what you're saying, then.
>>18456275>retreats to absurd accusations of solipsism when asked what theologians are experts onThis is beyond parody and confirms my belief that theology is not a real subject with real experts.
>>18456280Along with every other biologist.
>>18456284Can *you* answer what theologians are experts on?
>>18456302Now replace the computer by another human
>>18456280How is that a tautology? Are you another one of those /his/ fuckers who have a pet idiosyncratic phrase that you like to spam?
>>18456243Theology.
>>18456299Biblical canon aka the Logos.
>>18456293Biology is undergoing numerous paradigm shifts at the moment, you dunning-kruger retard.>>18456332Dawkins assumes a bottom-up model for his theory, which emphasizes that genes hold special privilege in terms of causation, and therefore any action caused by the organism is in of itself an expression of their genetic legacy i.e. its genes all the way down. Many modern biologists are starting to take issue with this because we're beginning to understand genes aren't actually blueprints.
>>18456360So they're like experts on spiderman comics. I'm afraid that can't be taken seriously as an academic subject.
>>18456382One of the most foundational texts of human history holds no value to you?
>>18456373Are the biologists aware of these numerous paradigm shifts or is it just in your head?
>>18456373That's not a tautology.
>>18456373>and therefore any action caused by the organism is in of itself an expression of their genetic legacyAlso, dawkins explicitly rejects this caricature, so you have no idea what you're talking about.
>>18456396Repeating the post in an incredulous tone is not an argument.
>>18456395Why would I think some book recording goat herder stories is foundational to anything? In any case, being experts on goat herder fairytales gives them no authority on the subject of god.
>>18456397>That's not a tautology.It's tautological if you assume organisms exist solely in service to their genes, regardless of whether or not they're consciously aware of it.>>18456400>Also, dawkins explicitly rejects this caricatureDawkins literally thinks all animals are p-zombies/biological robots, and that's not a "metaphor" no matter how much he tries to dismiss such criticisms.
>>18456382If you aren't an expert in spiderman comics then you shouldn't insist you understand spiderman comics. Whether you think spiderman comic expertise is a thing worth having does not change that other people have it and you do not.Which is to say that atheists shouldn't attempt to use theological analysis to support their points when they not only have zero expertise in the subject but also think that expertise is stupid.
>>18456416Dawkins never claimed to be an expert on goat herder fairytales. His arguments were against the existence of god, so the opinions of goat herder book experts (theologians) isn't really relevant.
>>18456421>Dawkins never claimed to be an expert on goat herder fairytales.He does though? That's literally the only God he kvetches over all the time.
>>18456413>Dawkins literally thinks all animals are p-zombies/biological robots, and that's not a "metaphor" no matter how much he tries to dismiss such criticisms.If you want to pretend to be an expert on dawkins, you should at least read his books apart from just the titles.
>>18456431>He does though?Where? Post a source of him claiming to be a goat herder book expert.
>>18456433>Critics have occasionally misunderstood The Selfish Gene to be advocating selfishness as a principle by which we should live.He's strawmanning his critics, in case you didn't catch that part.
>>18456440>Post a source of him claiming to be a goat herder book expert.Why would I need to do that when he literally talks about the content of the Old Testament and New Testament all the time?
>>18456445He's definitely not strawmanning your lie/claim that he is a genetic determinist.
>>18456451He's a materialistic determinist who argues that gene replication inevitably gives way to altruism instead.
>>18456450I suspect you think that because you only hear about him from goat herding apologists/grifters. You should read The God Delusion and you will see that he doesn't talk much about goat herder fantasies at all!
>>18456457>You should read The God Delusion and you will see that he doesn't talk much about goat herder fantasies at all!Abrahamic religions have always been his primary targets. Its the one topic he talks about with great derision over and over and over again.
>>18456453Okay, so you admit that your initial characterization of what he said was false.
>>18456459Not really, his arguments are against all religions, not abrahamic ones specifically.
