Why a mind <> a computer (attn: JW)
9 views
Skip to first unread message
HRM Resident
Nov 22, 2022, 2:25:53 PM11/22/22
to
A conversational algorithm feeds on labeled conversations, and can be
trained to converse on any topic, from philosophy to the meaning of life
to customer support situations or, even if we want, to start flirting
and end up moaning in ecstasy.
Which is why it makes no sense to suggest that an algorithm "has
developed consciousness," that it "fears being turned off," that it
"feels lonely," or that it "cares about humanity", and is basically
indulging in the anthropomorphization of a technology that is neither
conscious nor will be any time soon. It's like the RCA dog thinking his
master is inside the gramophone.
A computer it is only executing algorithms. Believing it's akin to
your mind is a reflection of some fear, or ignorance of the subject, or
perhaps, wishful thinking that we are now living in a science fiction
movie.
That is not a good thing, because it means we may well be wary of
other technologies with huge potential, or believe that technologies
that are far from developed are already here. Consciousness is an
extremely complex mechanism, and machine learning researchers are doomed
to fail.
Stop comparing the brain with a supposedly conscious machine, and
instead stay focused on the application of statistics capable of making
a machine perform advanced automation applied to more and more tasks.
The former is nothing more than a manifestation of some of unfounded
fear, pointless questions and science-fiction stories. The latter, on
the other hand, is the key to the next leap forward in productivity and,
possibly, to a revolution in the way we will understand work in the
future. Which would be no bad thing, and certainly doesn't require
machines with consciousness.
--
HRM Resident
trained to converse on any topic, from philosophy to the meaning of life
to customer support situations or, even if we want, to start flirting
and end up moaning in ecstasy.
Which is why it makes no sense to suggest that an algorithm "has
developed consciousness," that it "fears being turned off," that it
"feels lonely," or that it "cares about humanity", and is basically
indulging in the anthropomorphization of a technology that is neither
conscious nor will be any time soon. It's like the RCA dog thinking his
master is inside the gramophone.
A computer it is only executing algorithms. Believing it's akin to
your mind is a reflection of some fear, or ignorance of the subject, or
perhaps, wishful thinking that we are now living in a science fiction
movie.
That is not a good thing, because it means we may well be wary of
other technologies with huge potential, or believe that technologies
that are far from developed are already here. Consciousness is an
extremely complex mechanism, and machine learning researchers are doomed
to fail.
Stop comparing the brain with a supposedly conscious machine, and
instead stay focused on the application of statistics capable of making
a machine perform advanced automation applied to more and more tasks.
The former is nothing more than a manifestation of some of unfounded
fear, pointless questions and science-fiction stories. The latter, on
the other hand, is the key to the next leap forward in productivity and,
possibly, to a revolution in the way we will understand work in the
future. Which would be no bad thing, and certainly doesn't require
machines with consciousness.
--
HRM Resident
James Warren
Nov 22, 2022, 3:03:26 PM11/22/22
to
On Tuesday, 22 November 2022 at 15:25:53 UTC-4, HRM Resident wrote:
> A conversational algorithm feeds on labeled conversations, and can be
> trained to converse on any topic, from philosophy to the meaning of life
> to customer support situations or, even if we want, to start flirting
> and end up moaning in ecstasy.
So it would pass the turing test. :)
> A conversational algorithm feeds on labeled conversations, and can be
> trained to converse on any topic, from philosophy to the meaning of life
> to customer support situations or, even if we want, to start flirting
> and end up moaning in ecstasy.
>
> Which is why it makes no sense to suggest that an algorithm "has
> developed consciousness," that it "fears being turned off," that it
> "feels lonely," or that it "cares about humanity", and is basically
> indulging in the anthropomorphization of a technology that is neither
> conscious nor will be any time soon. It's like the RCA dog thinking his
> master is inside the gramophone.
time. Am I wrong to do this? If I disassemble you will I find anything more than
protons, neutrons and electrons? It follows that these elementary components
can be assembled to be *you*. and you claim to be conscious, creative
and caring, yet you are but a machine. Riddle me that.
>
> A computer it is only executing algorithms. Believing it's akin to
> your mind is a reflection of some fear, or ignorance of the subject, or
> perhaps, wishful thinking that we are now living in a science fiction
> movie.
to make computing devices.
>
> That is not a good thing, because it means we may well be wary of
> other technologies with huge potential, or believe that technologies
> that are far from developed are already here. Consciousness is an
> extremely complex mechanism, and machine learning researchers are doomed
> to fail.
consciousness is the memory of what the brain did a half second ago
based on the observation that the brain is assembling the instruction
for an act before we "will" the act.
>
> Stop comparing the brain with a supposedly conscious machine, and
> instead stay focused on the application of statistics capable of making
> a machine perform advanced automation applied to more and more tasks.
be "I don't know and I don't want to know and we should quit trying
to know". I don't know why you apparently fear finding out about
things we don't already know.
>
> The former is nothing more than a manifestation of some of unfounded
> fear, pointless questions and science-fiction stories. The latter, on
> the other hand, is the key to the next leap forward in productivity and,
> possibly, to a revolution in the way we will understand work in the
> future. Which would be no bad thing, and certainly doesn't require
> machines with consciousness.
research is worthwhile. Are you a LWA?
>
> --
> HRM Resident
HRM Resident
Nov 22, 2022, 3:18:53 PM11/22/22
to
James Warren <jwwar...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> So fundamental knowledge is not worth pursuing, only applied
> research is worthwhile. Are you a LWA?
>
It depends on the urgrncy and resoures. If you smell smoke and hear
>
> So fundamental knowledge is not worth pursuing, only applied
> research is worthwhile. Are you a LWA?
>
crackling the next room at the same time some 24/7 news channel blurts
out it's "Breaking News" banner, which do you research first?
Investigating the source of the smoke is applied research. Waiting for a
talking head to tell you something "new" is pure research. :-)
A LWA? Tisk, tisk! A name caller. Ugh! :-)
--
HRM Resident
James Warren
Nov 22, 2022, 3:56:38 PM11/22/22
to
On Tuesday, 22 November 2022 at 16:18:53 UTC-4, HRM Resident wrote:
> James Warren <jwwar...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >
> > So fundamental knowledge is not worth pursuing, only applied
> > research is worthwhile. Are you a LWA?
> >
> It depends on the urgrncy and resoures. If you smell smoke and hear
> crackling the next room at the same time some 24/7 news channel blurts
> out it's "Breaking News" banner, which do you research first?
> Investigating the source of the smoke is applied research. Waiting for a
> talking head to tell you something "new" is pure research. :-)
Good grief! You do stretch for analogies. :)
> James Warren <jwwar...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >
> > So fundamental knowledge is not worth pursuing, only applied
> > research is worthwhile. Are you a LWA?
> >
> It depends on the urgrncy and resoures. If you smell smoke and hear
> crackling the next room at the same time some 24/7 news channel blurts
> out it's "Breaking News" banner, which do you research first?
> Investigating the source of the smoke is applied research. Waiting for a
> talking head to tell you something "new" is pure research. :-)
>
> A LWA? Tisk, tisk! A name caller. Ugh! :-)
research. It's like you're afraid of what might be discovered.
I think we're done here. You won't admit that you believe
in magic or ghosts in the machine.
>
> --
> HRM Resident
HRM Resident
Nov 23, 2022, 11:00:25 AM11/23/22
to
James Warren <jwwar...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> I think we're done here. You won't admit that you believe
> in magic or ghosts in the machine.
>
You won't admit "I don't know" .NE. "magic or ghosts in the
>
> I think we're done here. You won't admit that you believe
> in magic or ghosts in the machine.
>
machine," either. So we can be done if you like. You are the one
giving up. :-)
Win #5! <smiling with satisfaction!> :-)
--
HRM Resident
James Warren
Nov 23, 2022, 12:03:59 PM11/23/22
to
On Wednesday, 23 November 2022 at 12:00:25 UTC-4, HRM Resident wrote:
> James Warren <jwwar...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >
> > I think we're done here. You won't admit that you believe
> > in magic or ghosts in the machine.
> >
> You won't admit "I don't know" .NE. "magic or ghosts in the
> machine," either. So we can be done if you like. You are the one
> giving up. :-)
I do admit I don't know. What I present is the most convincing
> James Warren <jwwar...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >
> > I think we're done here. You won't admit that you believe
> > in magic or ghosts in the machine.
> >
> You won't admit "I don't know" .NE. "magic or ghosts in the
> machine," either. So we can be done if you like. You are the one
> giving up. :-)
argument on the topic I know about. It is strong enough to
get a provisional belief status. A good counter argument can
change this. We are on the road to find out not to find dogma.
You seem to accept only absolute truth. You won't find that
anywhere.
On the topic of "Useless research" which you would postpone
until all other more urgent problems are solved, this essentially
ensures they will never get funding because there will always
be more urgent problems to fund. This amounts to forbidden
ideas and a censorship of knowledge. You seem to think that
some knowledge should never be allowed for reasons known
only to you.
>
> Win #5! <smiling with satisfaction!> :-)
You deserve it as a participation trophy. :)
> --
> HRM Resident
HRM Resident
Nov 23, 2022, 12:19:10 PM11/23/22
to
Good. We're making progress. How does it make you feel to admit the
truth? :-)
--
HRM Resident
truth? :-)
--
HRM Resident
James Warren
Nov 23, 2022, 12:58:28 PM11/23/22
to
A proposition with supporting arguments is presented for
your consideration. You can agree or disagree. If you
disagree you can present counter arguments.
Saying "I don't know" is irrelevant. You were not asked
a question. It adds nothing. It settles nothing although
I think that is your intent. Your state of knowledge is
irrelevant to the proposition.
If you aren't qualified to comment either way, then don't.
Don't shout BULLSHIT and then shut up. BULLSHIT claims
you have counter arguments. So what are they?
HRM Resident
Nov 23, 2022, 1:20:01 PM11/23/22
to
Seems to me in your view it is. I truthfully said "I don't know"
to many, many of your "Gosh, darn, it has to be because it can't be any
other way" arguments. You are good at pushing false dilemmas, I'll give
you that! Either you believe the human mind is a computer or you are an
idiot! I don't believe it's a computer. I don't know what it is.
I guess I have make up something or be branded an idiot. OK, the
mind is a device using DM/DE to bombard us with gravational wave impulses
from its perch at the edge of the solar system. Who or what put it
there and why is an open question. It's called the "Dark mind pulsar!"
> A proposition with supporting arguments is presented for
> your consideration. You can agree or disagree. If you
> disagree you can present counter arguments.
>
I disagree with your comuper mind theory because it is too
simplistic. I don't have a better theory than the "Dark mind pulsar!"
Do you have an argument why it can't be that?
>
> If you aren't qualified to comment either way, then don't.
>
> Don't shout BULLSHIT and then shut up. BULLSHIT claims
> you have counter arguments. So what are they?
Don't get upset. You can't win them all! :-)
--
HRM Resident
to many, many of your "Gosh, darn, it has to be because it can't be any
other way" arguments. You are good at pushing false dilemmas, I'll give
you that! Either you believe the human mind is a computer or you are an
idiot! I don't believe it's a computer. I don't know what it is.
I guess I have make up something or be branded an idiot. OK, the
mind is a device using DM/DE to bombard us with gravational wave impulses
from its perch at the edge of the solar system. Who or what put it
there and why is an open question. It's called the "Dark mind pulsar!"
> A proposition with supporting arguments is presented for
> your consideration. You can agree or disagree. If you
> disagree you can present counter arguments.
>
simplistic. I don't have a better theory than the "Dark mind pulsar!"
Do you have an argument why it can't be that?
>
> If you aren't qualified to comment either way, then don't.
>
> Don't shout BULLSHIT and then shut up. BULLSHIT claims
> you have counter arguments. So what are they?
--
HRM Resident
James Warren
Nov 23, 2022, 1:30:30 PM11/23/22
to
On Wednesday, 23 November 2022 at 14:20:01 UTC-4, HRM Resident wrote:
> James Warren <jwwar...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>
> >
> > Knowing or not knowing is not the point.
> >
> Seems to me in your view it is. I truthfully said "I don't know"
> to many, many of your "Gosh, darn, it has to be because it can't be any
> other way" arguments. You are good at pushing false dilemmas, I'll give
> you that! Either you believe the human mind is a computer or you are an
> idiot! I don't believe it's a computer. I don't know what it is.
Then I assume you have counter arguments. What are they?
> James Warren <jwwar...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>
> >
> > Knowing or not knowing is not the point.
> >
> Seems to me in your view it is. I truthfully said "I don't know"
> to many, many of your "Gosh, darn, it has to be because it can't be any
> other way" arguments. You are good at pushing false dilemmas, I'll give
> you that! Either you believe the human mind is a computer or you are an
> idiot! I don't believe it's a computer. I don't know what it is.
>
> I guess I have make up something or be branded an idiot. OK, the
> mind is a device using DM/DE to bombard us with gravational wave impulses
> from its perch at the edge of the solar system. Who or what put it
> there and why is an open question. It's called the "Dark mind pulsar!"
it is though.
> > A proposition with supporting arguments is presented for
> > your consideration. You can agree or disagree. If you
> > disagree you can present counter arguments.
> >
> I disagree with your comuper mind theory because it is too
> simplistic. I don't have a better theory than the "Dark mind pulsar!"
> Do you have an argument why it can't be that?
> >
> > If you aren't qualified to comment either way, then don't.
> >
> > Don't shout BULLSHIT and then shut up. BULLSHIT claims
> > you have counter arguments. So what are they?
> Don't get upset. You can't win them all! :-)
be a loser. Trump too believes that he has never lost because
he has never admitted to a loss.
Good for both of you. :)
>
> --
> HRM Resident
HRM Resident
Nov 23, 2022, 1:42:29 PM11/23/22
to
James Warren <jwwar...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> Then I assume you have counter arguments. What are they?
>
The "Dark mind pulsar!" Did you miss that?
>
> Then I assume you have counter arguments. What are they?
>
>
> This is some kind of point, I guess. I can't tell what
> it is though.
>
>
> You do realize that you don't have to admit to a loss to actually
> be a loser. Trump too believes that he has never lost because
> he has never admitted to a loss.
>
> Good for both of you. :)
>
I have lost many times. Just not to you! :-)
--
HRM Resident
James Warren
Nov 23, 2022, 3:12:23 PM11/23/22
to
On Wednesday, 23 November 2022 at 14:42:29 UTC-4, HRM Resident wrote:
> James Warren <jwwar...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >
> > Then I assume you have counter arguments. What are they?
> >
> The "Dark mind pulsar!" Did you miss that?
> >
> > This is some kind of point, I guess. I can't tell what
> > it is though.
> >
> That's because it's a mystery, like DM/DE. :-)
It is a mystery but very unlike DM/DE. You do realize that there
> James Warren <jwwar...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >
> > Then I assume you have counter arguments. What are they?
> >
> The "Dark mind pulsar!" Did you miss that?
> >
> > This is some kind of point, I guess. I can't tell what
> > it is though.
> >
> That's because it's a mystery, like DM/DE. :-)
is actual evidence supporting DM/DE, right. So far you haven't acknowledged
even that.
> >
> > You do realize that you don't have to admit to a loss to actually
> > be a loser. Trump too believes that he has never lost because
> > he has never admitted to a loss.
> >
> > Good for both of you. :)
> >
> There you are. Back using the new version of Goodwin's Law. FWIW,
> I have lost many times. Just not to you! :-)
>
> --
> HRM Resident
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages