AI 2023. Meet ChatGPT. - page 88
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
The main thing I want to say is:
A sign cannot be considered evidence of a fact.
Signs of Consciousness do not mean Consciousness. Signs of autonomy do not mean freedom. Signs of choice do not mean subjectivity. The sign that a man is cut in half in a circus does not mean that he is really divided into two parts.
This is the basic logical error.
If we find signs of consciousness in an AI, that is not a sufficient condition to start considering it a subject, but rather a reason to refresh your mind with criticism. imho.
Now try to direct these arguments not at AI, but at humans. What logic would prevent them from working in that case?
The question is not quite idle, because even a hundred years ago people of some nations and races were considered not quite human just in the sense of having a mind.
Now try to direct these arguments not at AI, but at humans. What logic would prevent them from working in this case?
The question is not quite idle, because a hundred years ago people of some nations and races were considered not quite human just in the sense of having a mind.
That's why I don't want to go into these topics).
In the first case, people can be deprived of the right to be considered human, in the opposite case, a talking doll can become a subject.
Now try to direct these arguments not at AI, but at humans. What logic would prevent them from working in this case?
The question is not quite idle, because a hundred years ago people of some nations and races were considered not quite human just in the sense of having a mind.
A fact cannot be proved without indications.
That is, signs do not prove a fact, but a fact cannot be proved without signs. Paradox.
Now try to direct these arguments not at AI, but at humans. What logic would prevent them from working in this case?
The question is not quite idle, because a hundred years ago people of some nations and races were considered not quite human just in the sense of having a mind.
Those who decided these questions a hundred years ago should have exercised more logic:
If signs of reasonableness are not proof of Reason, what was the proof of their own reason but signs that did not prove it? In other words, without paying attention to logic, these guys drew conclusions that were favourable to themselves. Without bothering.
In considering the world outside ourselves, we must take into account our own Reasonableness, and the adjustments to perception that it makes.
Let us imagine that a scientist on an alien planet stepped out of a spaceship at night. It's dark all around. He has a torch that shines a green light. But, he doesn't remember it. As he wanders around and lights his way, he sees green objects everywhere: rocks, soil, living things. Everything is green in colour.
Returning to the ship, the scientist concludes about some special chemical component of this world, which makes everything green in different shades.
...
Thanks for the advice, but I have to decline it due to the fact that we obviously have different understandings of the role of logic in reasoning. Thanks again for a great discussion! 🖐🏻
Communication with you was very interesting, I hope you will not leave this thread.
I have prepared a lot of new material on the topic of speech interface and its future role in the work of specialists. Your opinion will be very welcome.
Those who addressed these questions a hundred years ago should have exercised more logic:
If signs of reasonableness are not proof of Reason, what was proof of their own reason but signs that don't prove it? In other words, without paying attention to logic, these guys drew conclusions that were favourable to themselves. Without bothering.
Any logic relies on axiomatics, which are accepted without proof and are external to the logic itself. Within a logical system, the axiomatics can only be required to be internally consistent.
Well, from a practical point of view, meaningfulness, usefulness, adequacy, etc. are still required. You can come up with almost any logic - for example, for Aristotle, the founder of logic, slaves were, by definition, just talking tools. This seems quite monstrous to us, but was quite humane compared to previous times when people were simply killed instead of being turned into slaves.
To summarise, there should be a system of axioms that suits our general state of morality and culture. And already on the basis of this system to make logical conclusions about the presence or absence of reason in people, animals and machines.
Any logic relies on axiomatics, which are accepted without proof and are external to the logic itself. Within a logical system, the axiomatics can only be required to be internally consistent.
Well, from a practical point of view, meaningfulness, usefulness, adequacy, etc. are still required. You can come up with almost any logic - for example, for Aristotle, the founder of logic, slaves were, by definition, just talking tools. This seems quite monstrous to us, but it was quite humane compared to previous times when people were simply killed instead of being turned into slaves.
To summarise, there should be a system of axioms that suits our general state of morality and culture. And already on the basis of this system to draw logical conclusions about the presence or absence of reason in humans, animals and machines.
Okay, let me get this straight.
1. You say:
"What we call "I" and to what "our" belongs is consciousness. Itturns out that consciousness belongs to the body in which it lives, not vice versa."
This is a subjective opinion. You can agree with it at once, or spend time on discussion. Volumes have been written on topics devoted to Consciousness. Will we ignore the works of dozens (maybe hundreds) philosophers, psychologists, neurophysiologists in our reasoning, and decide among ourselves from scratch? I think you will agree with the pointlessness of this idea, especially within the framework of this thread.
Volumes have been written, but in the end there is no answer to the question under discussion in them. So I find the sense in independent logical reasoning with a basis on basic consistent concepts of those sciences that already exist, as well as on observations of the real world (in short, theory + practice). I would like to point out that I do not aim to convince anyone of anything. Pure exercise of intellect and the pleasure of interacting with other thinking beings 🙂 .
Signs of Consciousness do not mean Consciousness. The attributes of autonomy do not mean freedom. Signs of choice do not mean subjectivity. The sign of a person being cut in half in a circus does not mean that they have actually been cut in two.
This is the basic logical error.
If we find signs of consciousness in an AI, that is not a sufficient condition to start considering it a subject, but rather a reason to refresh your mind with criticism. imho.
It's not very clear to me whose logical fallacy you're talking about. For example, there is a medical concept of consciousness. There are signs by which it is established that a person is in a state of consciousness. Also, there are altered states of consciousness. I.e. it is clear that consciousness already has some characteristics and signs by which one can distinguish the presence of consciousness from its absence, as well as "normal" from altered. There is also such a phenomenon as conscious dreaming. In this case, from the medical point of view, such a state of conscious dreaming would not be a "state of consciousness" simply by virtue of those accepted signs, by which medics or psychiatrists can establish the state of consciousness. However, the phenomenon exists and some have encountered it for themselves. One can go further afield: the psychological, neurophysiological, and other scientific theoretical attributes of consciousness are as significantly different as the concepts of "consciousness" themselves. Can we say that all of these attributes are wrong? I wouldn't be in a hurry to say so.
That's why, I don't want to delve into these topics :).
In the first case, we may have people being disqualified from being considered human, in the opposite case, a talking puppet may become a subject.
That's the complexity of these issues.
About people: the idea of "free will" has many flaws. For example, decisions have to be made from the options that are available. The degree of freedom is already limited, and if freedom is understood as "absolute freedom", then everything in the world should be recognised as unfree. Digging deeper, we come across the fact that our decisions are a derivative process of the biochemical activity that takes place in the brain. And there the not so free elements obey the laws of physics, chemistry, etc. on an increasing curve of increasing complexity. At the same time, in practice, each of us has in different life circumstances feelings of freedom-unfreedom. And what, for example, is more important: the inner experience of experiencing life within the subject or the logical construction that points to our complete unfreedom?
About AI: a deliberately "soulless" programmed algorithm inside an iron machine may well be given a role in deciding what treatment to give to a patient, what punishment to give to a criminal, and other interesting things (on the pretext that this thing will do better than a human). Does the machine have free choice in prescribing medication when it's made based on different medical evidence? Apparently not. But, considering a living human doctor from this point of view, we face exactly the same situation: there is input data (situation) and output data (decision, activity).
In general, it is difficult to reason about complex topics, because we always consider something from some angle, from some point of view, at some level of generalisation. Simple abstractions can be worked out (based on axioms, logic and reproducible facts) and accepted, but in the real world their reflections will again be context-dependent phenomena. Example: electricity in real life and a physical theory about it.
Communication with you has been very interesting, I hope you will not leave this thread.
I have prepared a lot of new material on the topic of speech interface and its future role in the work of specialists. Your opinion will be very welcome.
Thank you very much for your reaction! I will be happy to continue to participate in your thread 🙂 🙂