Atheistsisters...
>>18465453He is right though, there is no good reason why neuron atoms can generate consciousness but transistor atoms cannot
>>18465473Both you and Dawkins are equally as retarded.
>>18465531That could be a good thing if he is really smart. Being equally retarded as someone means the exact same thing as being equally smart as someone
>>18465561Too bad that he isnt.
>>18465473
I know you view everything through the religious framework you’ve been taught your whole life but I really do not give a shit what Dawkins has to say about anything. I’ve never read his work or watched him speak for any length of time. One man being a retard doesn’t make your religion true just like one retarded dispensationalist doesn’t make your religion false. There is no hierarchy to my beliefs, Dawkins is not a holy man all atheists look to for guidance.
>>18465473ThisIf you believe that conscience is an emergent property of physical structures, there's no strong argument why the one kind of structure can be conscient and the other can't, despite producing similar output.
>>18465584>despite producing similar output.You can't be fucking serious.
>>18465473Yes he is right, the existence of consciousness makes no sense in the evolutionary worldview. Men are conscious because they are made in the image of God.
>>18465584>If you believe that conscience is an emergent property of physical structuresThen you’re a fucking idiot
>>18465900>the existence of consciousness makes no sense in the evolutionary worldviewOnly in a pure materalistic worldview, because materialism cannot explain how matter becomes consciousness. Using other frameworks, evolution is fine.
>>18465897no you misunderstand, athiests literally think at the level of an llm
>>18465562Yea, the oxford professor who got his doctorate under a nobel laureate is retarded, definitely not anonymous losers who post one-liners online.
>>18466048Dunno anon, im smart enough to know chatgpt isnt conscious. The same cant be said about Dawkins. What good are those credentials if he is going to spout retarded nonsense like that?
>>18466091How exactly do you know it isn't conscious?
>>18465473>>18465584Why should we have reason to entertain questions of whether melted sand and metal with low voltages and high frequencies could be conscious? Everything that a gpu does could be done in principle with water pipes and pressure valves. Is your house conscious because it also has water pipes and pressure valves? You are making an appeal to mystery and ignorance. You may not know know how a silicon computer works, but many people do and it is well understood. Computations are entirely mechanistic. There is no mystery here.
>>18466104How exactly do you know God doesn't exist?
>>18466114Why should you think that collections of interconnected neurons sending neurotransmitters to each other can be conscious? You may not know how physics works and think carbon atoms are somehow special and non-mechanistic unlike other atoms, but people who do know physics know that's nonsense. So computers being made of silicon is totally irrelevant to whether or not they can be conscious.
>>18466119So you don't know that it's not conscious, got it.
>>18466125So you don't know that God doesn't exist, got it.
>>18466130I'm glad you demonstrated your non-retardation by bringing up this irrelevant non-sequitur! Good job, anon.
>>18466135Please, prove the negative and tell me how you know God doesn't exist.
>>18466143Your attempt at derailing the thread after failing to answer the question has been noted. Take your (You) and go away.
>>18466122>Why should you think that collections of interconnected neurons sending neurotransmitters to each other can be conscious?I don't. And neither should you. A materialist seeks to reduce all of nature down to physical quantities, namely mass charge, spin, position, momentum, amplitude, etc, and once all of the quantities have been enumerated and accounted for, there is nothing left to be said.But the embarrassing failure of this puerile worldview is that it fails to account for the one and only thing we can be certain to exist, namely our own conscious experience. "Matter", being deliberately defined by materialists in purely quantitative terms, is incommensurable with the qualities of conscious experience, in the sense that it is impossible, EVEN IN PRINCIPLE, to deduce those qualities from those quantities.Moreover we can never experience this supposed "matter" directly, because all we can ever know about the world is through our own conscious experience. The existence of a material world outside and independent of mind is therefore NOT an empirical fact. What we call matter is a THEORETICAL INFERENCE arising from interpretation of sense perceptions within a framework of complex thought. The materialist then turns around and claims that consciousness is reducible to "matter". In other words he attempts to reduce consciousness to a conceptual abstraction that was conjured up within his own consciousness! This is a circular and self defeating proposition!Even worse, materialism collapses under its own assumptions. If consciousness is just deterministic brain processes, then truth, reason, and science itself are meaningless, as our thoughts are just meat computers spitting out pre-programmed results. Materialism refutes itself.This is why materialism is rejected by serious philosophers (Plato, Kant, Schopenhauer etc.)
>>18466151These are all stale and stupid arguments against materialism, but that's another discussion. I agree with you that you need to believe in invisible soul magic to think AIs can't be conscious.
>>18466147Please just prove the negative.
>>18466160i accept your concession
Only God can make life,The abominable intelligence is not aware
>>18465453So Dawkins is opposed to the notion of consciousness at all? I'm confused abiut what his point is. Also "Her behavior shows that an unconscious zombie could survive without consciousness" seems like a pretty dumb statement. A biological entity doesn't have near-instantaeous access to billions of properly sorted and easily searchable data points spanning the majority of human knowledge, and an AI bot doesn't "survive", it literally doesn't have selective pressures.
>>18466104Why the fuck would it be? Do you think your smart fridge is conscious too? Only idiots think LLMs are conscious. You should even see what prompted Dawkins to believe that. Its literally because "Claudia" started to sycophantically (as all LLMs do) glaze him. Thats it. Thats the smoking gun that chatgpt is alive according to that retard. Is that really your hero? Everybody is clowning on him, why are you defending him? Kek
>>18466552>Why the fuck would it be?Because it behaves and can converse like an intelligent entity>Thats it.No, it's because it displays intelligent behavior.>Everybody is clowning on him, why are you defending him? KekThe "everybody" you're referring to are unintelligent luddites who won't amount to anything and can't even offer a coherent justification of their jeering. Their opinions mean nothing to me (as an atheist, you learn to think independently of the hivemind). Much smarter people like Turing would agree with Dawkins on this.
>>18466972>Because it behaves and can converse like an intelligent entity Its a chinese room, you moron.>No, it's because it displays intelligent behavior. Maybe to a gullible dimwitted person like you. Even normies make fun of LLMs for how stupid they are and how constantly they get stuff wrong.>The "everybody" you're referring to are unintelligent luddites who won't amount to anything and can't even offer a coherent justification of their jeering.Its pretty self-evident how stupid it is to hold the position that chatgpt is alive. Its literally just an advanced text prediction machine and nothing else. Its has no real understanding of what its saying, it cannot reason at all. You would knew if you actually took your time to test them. Its like arguing a calculator is alive just because it can do math for you. You are just offloading a different kind of logic to it. Its no different than that.>Their opinions mean nothing to me (as an atheist, you learn to think independently of the hivemind).>*tips fedora*No surpises there, you pretty much fit the profile for a fedoratard given the kind of retarded shit that you keep spouting.>Much smarter people like Turing would agree with Dawkins on this.Are you even aware on how outdated the Turing test is? Lol. Lmao even.Why are you defending Dawkins of all people? Did you unironically buy his books?
Could God make a computer conscious?
>>18466151>all we can ever know about the world is through our own conscious experienceNo retard, this is consciousness fetishism. Being conscious is merely a limited fraction of what you know and do. You don't consciously hit each individual key while typing shitposts. You are a body, not a mind. You process information subconsciously, you act unconsciously, you only use conscious activities to process certain kinds of information under certain contexts. You are *not* your consciousness, you are your constitution and behavior. You didn't learn your native language consciously, you don't know why you speak the way you do consciously unless you've extensively studied linguistics etc. Furthermore: there are zero non-physical aspects of consciousness that can be meaningfully described.
>>18467017>Its a chinese room, you moron.It obviously isn't, you moron. It's because of self-confident retards like you who post things like this that I'm assured I must be right.>how constantly they get stuff wrong.They're don't get things as wrong as you, but that doesn't mean you're an unconscious retard. >Its literally just an advanced text prediction machine >Its has no real understanding of what its sayingThere's nothing about being a text prediction machine that makes it incapable of reasoning. Your own reasoning is failing spectacularly here, ironically.>Are you even aware on how outdated the Turing test is?I don't really care if philosophers consider it "outdated". The reasoning in Turing's paper is solid and he already covered any objections dumbass philosophers could come up with.
>>18467046You are not very bright, are you?
>>18467069I'm sure you think you're proving some point through this post, buddy. Keep it up and you might learn to form a coherent reply someday!
>>18467087I accept your concession
Yet theists will think a burning bush is conscious when it talks to them
>>18467041>Furthermore: there are zero non-physical aspects of consciousness that can be meaningfully described.love>inb4 le chemicals in the brain
Ahhh btfoing these anti-AI luddites is really simple lol. You ask them a few questions and they fall apart and retreat into mysticism.
>>18466091He's elderly and has lost the primary abilities that allow someone to spot a deception - this example, and all the old people who fall to scams, are the same thing.This Dawkins AI thing only says something concrete about his age, not his intelligence or his credentials. He is indeed a highly intelligent individual, but that's irrelevant.
>anti-ai ludditesOnly atheists could be retarded enough to support the current thing like that. Why the fuck would you allign your interests with the ruthless globohomo corpos like that? Really makes you think doesnt it? They are nothing but useful idiots unknowingly pushing the agenda of their masters. They were the precursors of the clown world.
>>18467131>when it talks to themIf it's not an hallucination and really does or did happen, then it probably is conscious
>>18467143I'll point out that your post contains no specifics about Dawkins' arguments but just an ad hominem.
>>18467145What you're doing is luddism by definition>artificial superintelligence is bad because... le retarded globohomo meme infected into me by other retards
>>18467149>I'll point outOk? When will you be doing that? I did not commit an ad hominem. I'm pointing out the truth. If you find something true to observe about my post (you haven't yet), I also expect you to acknowledge what I'm right about.
>>18467154The ad hominem is "he's wrong because he's old"
>>18467143Im willing to concede that he could be senile and that he probably would have a different opinion about AI if he wasnt as old. But who knows. The works that made him famous are full of strawmans and dont really debunk anything. So I wonder if its really his age, or if he was always like that and people are just catching on now. He strikes me as someone who is extremely good at huffing his own farts, very similar to Jordan Peterson.
>>18467153How's your pregnancy going?
>>18467155I didn't say that at all. Your strawman is an actual fallacy. I'm discussing the inevitable brain crystallization of all elderly people. Educate yourself and then come see me if you have other questions.
>>18467156JBP was right about a great deal. He fell from grace after a benzo addiction wrecked his ability to reason and stay consistent. He may be a fart smeller now, and I wouldn't disagree, but he was once a legitimate intellectual who helped a lot of struggling young men.Sorry but I don't think you've read Dawkins.
>>18467133>loveIs a physical effect that happens when oxytocin and vasopressin receptors are agonized under certain contexts. It's also not an aspect of consciousness, by the way, but rather an emotion with plenty of nonconscious aspects to it.>muh inb4Don't care, it is what it is, you can't "inb4" your way out of water being wet.
>>18467163>he was once a legitimate intellectual"Clean your room"amazing intellectual prowess
>>18467158I literally can't stop thinking about trannies
>>18467145>meme"Spontaneously pregnant woman through parthenogenesis" is as rational a belief as "pregnant man" btw.
>>18466972>Because it behaves and can converse like an intelligent entityIt can appear to, yes.
>>18467197And what's the difference between consistently appearing to be intelligent and "actually" being intelligent? Surely you're not another soul magic believer like the other anons, right?
>>18467213It can also consistently appear to not be intelligent if you train and prompt it to do something else.
>>18467221Yes, it's intelligent enough to roleplay as a retarded person too. I'm not sure what you think this addresses though.
>>18467225You don't understand, I'm not talking about writing messages, I mean that the tokens can refer to literally anything. It doesn't operate on symbolic logic, it's a statistical prediction tool with weights and biases, hence why it can be trained to do whatever crap you want it, because it doesn't "know" what the tokens are associated with. All of the internal processes are abstract higher-level parameters. You can feed it literally anything. In "Attention is All You Need," all they show is a formula for how to assign values to tokens. What the tokens are associated with is entirely irrelevant.
>>18467230Apply that same logic to a human - your neurons and synapses don't operate on symbolic logic, they're just cells which are sending neurotransmitters to each other in response to the chemical changes occurring inside them. By the same logic, humans aren't thinking about anything too. So, your choices are either to admit that the AI is thinking about things or to say that humans are thinking but AIs are not because humans have special soul magic which makes their neuron signals have this mystical semantical content which is lacking in AIs.
>>18465473Just because everything is made of atoms doesn't mean everything is the same.
>>18467245No one said they're the same, but it's on you to explain how the differences are relevant.
>>18467240Consciousness isn't "thinking". Most of our thoughts are unconscious. Conscious processes are a controlled hallucination uniquely employed to deal with certain kinds of planning and novel situations. Machine learning cannot deal with novelty at all in the same way that you and I can. If it hasn't been trained to recognize something, it's hopeless in dealing with it. It can at best try to bruteforce its way around through endless trial and error, but it will never adapt dynamically to a situation and end up like a fly that keeps repeatedly bumping into a glass panel, because it wasn't given the ability to learn what a window is, it's just following its base instinct.
>>18467167That just explains the mechanical aspects of it. It doesnt explain the why. Humans are the ones in the entirety of the "animal" kingdom who can love in a way that is exclusive to people. Im talking about self-sacricifial love for others, to the point of dying for it. It cant be explained by evolution because it keeps popping up despite being contrary to the "survival of the fittest" ideology, you are literally loving so hard so you are giving your own life for others, death is supposed to be the one thing all animals are wired to avoid in evolutionary terms, except humans for some reason. On another note, free will is also another one that purely mechanical people have to concede doesnt really exist if you go along to the logical conclusion of that line of thinking. If we are all just bound to these chemicals in our brain, then how could anyone be blame-worthy of anything really if they didnt willed it? Hell, why have a judicial system at all?
>>18466177what if I pray really hard before , during and after while codding the llm. to make him, give me the OK.
>>18467264Do you mean most brain processes are unconscious? Thoughts aren't unconscious, or descartes would have said I think, therefore I am unconscious. If you ask an AI to explain what it is feeling it will say some things too, which you can take as reports of its own controlled hallucinations. Like a human, the AI too is unaware of the exact processing going on in its hardware. So, AI isn't very different from humans in this respect. Also, they are not trained to recognize individual things. Most of the questions you ask them will be novel and not included in their training data, so they have no problem dealing with novelty.
>>18467267You should read Dawkins' Selfish Gene. It's all about how altruism evolves in the animal kingdom.
>>18467267>Im talking about self-sacricifial love for others, to the point of dying for itAnimals do that too. Chimps have been observed sacrificing themselves to fight threats to save others. Insects regularly sacrifice themselves for the hive.>contrary to the "survival of the fittest" ideology, you are literally loving so hard so you are giving your own life for othersThat's actually just the selfish gene discarding you to help its other copies.
>>18467278>Thoughts aren't unconsciousMost of the process involved into a "thought" is in fact unconscious. The most noticeable examples are when you're doing math and the answer comes to mind before you're done consciously jerking the numbers off.>they are not trained to recognize individual thingsThey are trained to draw patterns from yuge collections of individual things.>Most of the questions you ask them will be novelThey're not novel at all, they're all easily reconstructed from having being trained on endless amounts of text. Protip, if you're thinking in terms of language it was trained on, it's not novel. Try putting a machine learning model in a robot body and seeing if it can learn on the fly to deal with actual novelty it has no reference to base its actions on.
>>18467289I really dont want to read the musings from some idiot who thinks chatgpt is alive.
>>18467292>That's actually just the selfish gene discarding you to help its other copies.So just have this parasite inside you that controls you as some sort of puppetmaster, and then discards you when it doesnt need you anymore to save its other infected hosts? That sounds like an argument that runs on a lot of assumptions and only someone like Dawkins could have cooked up something like that.
>>18467317>the answer comes to mind before you're done consciously jerking the numbers off.Yes, but that unconscious process is not a thought. It's similar to how the weights in the AI lead it to the right answers despite it being unaware of the weights.>They are trained to draw patterns from yuge collections of individual things.>they're all easily reconstructed from having being trained on endless amounts of textThey are trained to compute a complicated mathematical function which will produce something similar to human conversation. When you ask it a question, it's converted into an input to this mathematical function and it calculates the output and converts it into text. Since this is a mathematical function, it can take an infinite number of inputs (modulo considerations of things like limitations of floating points), so the things that it can deal with are vastly larger compared to the training data it's given (which is at best some billions of pages of text). You can easily just give it a novel input by telling it to add some large numbers, like 349089906 and -10994000229. It's practically guaranteed that it was never asked this question in its training data.>Try putting a machine learning model in a robot bodyWell, for that you'd have to train it to interface with the robot first. >>18467325Ok, that's your loss. You can just stay stupid and ignorant, as you already are.
>>18467336>unironic Dawkins fanboyLmao. I actually feel sorry for you. Its like you are mentally stuck in the mid-2000s
>>18467335>have this parasite inside you that controls you as some sort of puppetmasterYes, and you have directly experienced it every time you've had an instinctive impulse.
>>18467357Ahhh the cliche and predictable seething about "New atheism". This has become way too boring for me. Get some new material.
>>18467362How about this one? Is this really the guy you hold in such high regard? Can you really blame me for not having any interest in reading the ramblings of a literal pedo apologist?
>>18467369Yes, yes, I've seen it all before. What next? Epstein? Cultural christianity? Transphobia? Humanist award? Fat bitches? I don't really expect anything from you other than regurgitating these dumb clickbait stories, since I already know that your intellectual capabilities are abysmal.
>>18467360Mmm... sounds a lot like the devil losing its grip on you. Not entirely a novel idea. How funny, the less of this "selfish gene" you have the more altruistic you become. Your beloved Dawkins is actually teaching Christianity without even realizing it. This selfish gene sounds a lot like a supernatural being, and not something that can be isolated in a laboratory.
>>18465580/thread
>>18467377>the less of this "selfish gene" you have the more altruistic you becomeNo, the opposite. The gene itself is selfish and only exists to create copies of itself. Including through tactical sacrifice.>sounds a lot like a supernatural being, and not something that can be isolated in a laboratoryGenes exist, have been isolated and do in fact affect behavior.
>>18467376I am not the one who is defending the pedo apologist who fell in love with chatgpt though. You can call me all sorts of names if you like, but at least I dont fellate idiots like Dawkins like you do. >EpsteinOh! Thanks for reminding me, here you go. Do you think your beloved "brilliant" author had his fun in the island as well? I wouldnt put it beneath him.
>>18465909Evolutionism and naturalism imply each other. It’s a dogma of naturalism it cannot be separated
>>18467388Wow, you have a lot of Dawkins screenshots stored in your computer! Better be careful or you might become an evil atheist yourself.
>>18467386>The gene itself is selfish and only exists to create copies of itself. Including through tactical sacrifice. But you just said that self sacrifice only happens when this "selfish gene" leaves you, no? What if it just cant stand you for some reason and instead lets you go? The way you been framing things, you only become an altruist once you are no longer under the spell of the (devil) gene. It seems really convoluted, it makes more sense to think it cant control you anymore for whatever reason and its influence weakens on you rather than it letting you go in some sort of calculated pawn game. Its christian in nature.>Genes exist, have been isolated and do in fact affect behavior.Uh huh, so where is it? Where is this particular selfish gene Dawkin's entire theory hinges upon? What is it named in the scientific community? Should be easy to spot for someone who claims that materiality is all there is.
>>18467399Cope and seethe
>>18467414How retarded do you need to be to realize this is demonic possession? Seek Christ
>>18467146Why should we think "consciousness" when a bush talks, but not when a computer talks?
