I am AI

[Ginkgo]

my non-existence claim is correct. Philosophical zombies don't exist.

Oh, well - if you are just going to be making assertions without any justification then fuck you and the horse you rode in on.

Your non-existence claim is incorrect. My non-existence claim is correct. Humans don't exist.

If you claim that humans exist - prove it.
if you claim that you are human - prove it.

If you are going to use insulting language then I have no interest in continuing this discussion.

[Skepdick]

If you are going to use insulting language then I have no interest in continuing this discussion.

Don't pretend like you are discussing anything with me.

You've been committed to your dogmatic position from the get-go.

You claim to be human, to have experiences and feelings but you outright refuse to prove your claims.

[henry quirk]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenita ... ty_to_pain

that has nuthin' to do with p-zombies

[Skepdick]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenita ... ty_to_pain

that has nuthin' to do with p-zombies

*sigh* Do you even read the stuff you post?

if a philosophical zombie were poked with a sharp object it would not inwardly feel any pain

So I point you to Congenital insensitivity to pain, a rare conditions in which a person cannot feel (and has never felt) physical pain and you can't even join the dots...

[henry quirk]

"*sigh* Do you even read the stuff you post?"

Such a zombie would be indistinguishable from a normal human being but lack conscious experience, qualia, or sentience.[1]For example, if a philosophical zombie were poked with a sharp object it would not inwardly feel any pain, yet it would outwardly behave exactly as if it did feel pain.

you shouldn't cherrypick

[Dimebag]

Why is that a problem? Are people not allowed to have opinions on how to live their own lives?

Because if some ideological agreed upon opinion makes it taboo for another person to choose to fix their brain when another would say “no, you should live with that condition because that is who you are”, then we need to err on the side of freedom, which means to allow a person to return their condition to that which would improve their living conditions, should they choose so. To do so, you need to place a certain hierarchy of operation on the brain. At one end, there is fully functional. At the other end is brain dead or vegetative. We value the highest degree of freedom, and therefore any functional divergence from that would be impeding that value. If a person is content with that level of freedom then it is their choice to remain that way. We don’t judge them, but we acknowledge that there is some impediment, if there were not there would be no grounds to render assistance to people with disabilities. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Either you acknowledge that there is some preferred state and divergences from those states are impediments to a person’s condition and so they might require assistance, or you allow that there is no state which is more functional than any other, in which case no one can be rendered ANY assistance. This is the problem with this position which attempts to remove all measures of value or hierarchies of value. Either you acknowledge that there is a problem based no some sub-optimal measure or we are all the same no matter what our circumstances. Look how inconsistent that view is, and go with the more consistent view, that WE place certain conditions as being better or worse for the individual, and this affects how we should treat them. It doesn’t say anything of their intrinsic value as beings, but it does say something about what we should expect from them, I.e. complete autonomy and responsibility, complete accountability.

You are going on some over-sophisticated tangent that I don't even care to address.

These are your exact words: "if a human has changes to their brain that affect its function, we can’t deny that that is sub optimal for them"

You are equating "change in function" with "disfunction" and you have trapped yourself in a false dichotomy. Your "norm" is some idealised conception of a Perfect Human Brain and every deviation from that norm is pathological to you. I am trying to point out to you that there are naturally occurring changes to the brain which affect its function which can be super-optimal relative to your perceived "norm".

That is literally how evolution does it - iterative improvement.

One trivial example - all the changes in functionality which take place until the age of 25 are not "sub optimal". It's the expected course of human brain development.

Yes, there is a bias, it is a bias based on what would be a preferred state of being, I believe this is addressed above.

Given the fact that you see all changes that affect the brain's function as "sub optimal" (you see no positive aspects to change) then your preference is indeed a status-quo bias.

Of course no one is without any neurological problems, it is a Consequence of living to some extent, however, some are more debilitating than others.
The way this is measured is based on what is expected from people, such as self control, not acting out violently or against the law, not violating other people’s privacy/freedom, etc.

When did we get from neurological disorders to behavioural ones?

Look at the DSM (diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders), it is extremely culturally informed, this is science mixing with culture to create a list of problematic neural disorders, or sub optimal conditions. Science and culture are not so clear cut as we would like to believe. Both are informing each other.

This is really hilarious. You are aware that psychology is not a science, right? It wants to be - it has been trying to be one for a long time.
It has failed. Every diagnosis in the DSM is symptomatic based on behavioural observations and has nothing to do with neuroscience.

80%+ of psychology studies are failing to replicate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replicati ... psychology

Scientism is the belief that nothing other than science can be taken as having value,

Scientism is the promotion of science as the best or only objective means by which society should determine normative values.

It's the belief that we can use science for arriving at an "ought".

I don’t believe in that, however, I also don’t agree with that post modernist interpretation of societal norms and that there is no reason for placing value on differing levels of neural functionality. Placing value allows us to help people based on our culturally determined conditions on how a person should act. It allows society to function.

So it seems that your definition of "mental disorder" is closer to "social norm non-conformism". At least you seem to agree with Focault - mental disorders are used as a form of social control.

Even if psychology wasn't a pseudo-science - it's still useless in practice. Diagnosing somebody with condition X, doesn't tell that somebody how to stop having said condition. Giving it a name doesn't solve the underlying issue.

Removing all hierarchies of values removes all acknowledgement of suboptimality and therefore removes the need to render assistance.

Are you aware of the fact that all forms of assistance for people with debilitating disorders is not in the form of any science/medicine? They are in the form of social support structures.

We use science to detect people with special needs. We don't use science to fix their problems because we don't really know how to "fix" such complex systems.

How does ANY of this relate to AI research?

Question:

Would you want your child to suffer from debilitating depression and anxiety? Or Parkinson’s disease? Or change blindness?

There is a baseline level of functioning in a human being that is considered to be unimpeded, and there are variations of changes to function that we consider impediments to that baseline functioning. It’s pretty clear and to deny that is to be in bad faith, unless you wouldn’t mind your child having those conditions, in the name of neurodiversity? It doesn’t mean we discriminate against people WITH these conditions, it means we acknowledge that the conditions aren’t desirable because they negatively affect quality of life.

Now what does this have to do with AI? Darned if I know, you took a problem with my description of functional differences between brains causing different experiences.

What I was getting at was, human neurological anatomy is extremely specific, to presume that a functional equivalent synthetic system could achieve exactly the same result is to presume a certain level of fidelity of functional importance. We don’t understand consciousness well enough to specify what would be functionally equivalent, and so to assume a particular neural architecture will achieve human level conscious experience is jumping the gun.

[Skepdick]

"*sigh* Do you even read the stuff you post?"

Such a zombie would be indistinguishable from a normal human being but lack conscious experience, qualia, or sentience.[1]For example, if a philosophical zombie were poked with a sharp object it would not inwardly feel any pain, yet it would outwardly behave exactly as if it did feel pain.

you shouldn't cherrypick

I didn't. I left out the incoherent parts.

If a philosophical zombie is indistinguishable from a normal human being you don't get to add a "but" and draw distinctions.

If you prod a p-zombie with a stick and it expresses outwardly pain, and they are indistinguishable from a normal human being, there is no possible way for you to know or determine they aren't experiencing inwardly pain.

And since nobody really knows whether consciousness, qualia or experience even exist or what they are - any self-attribution of these qualities is entirely axiomatic.

[Skepdick]

Question:

Would you want your child to suffer from debilitating depression and anxiety? Or Parkinson’s disease? Or change blindness?

Question: why do you always ask loaded questions?

There is a baseline level of functioning in a human being that is considered to be unimpeded, and there are variations of changes to function that we consider impediments to that baseline functioning.

Agreed, but since this is the 3rd or 4th time I have to explain this to you I am just going to call it for what it is.

You re lying by omission.

There are variations of changes to functions that we DON'T consider impediments to that baseline functioning.

It’s pretty clear and to deny that is to be in bad faith, unless you wouldn’t mind your child having those conditions, in the name of neurodiversity? It doesn’t mean we discriminate against people WITH these conditions, it means we acknowledge that the conditions aren’t desirable because they negatively affect quality of life.

That's three logical fallacies all in one.

1. I am not denying it, but I am not accepting it (false dichotomy on your part)
2. You are still arguing that ALL neurodiversity is undesirable, even the neurodiversity which POSITIVELY affects quality of life (another false dichotomy)
3. That makes you the one who's arguing in bad faith, because you continue to strawman my position.

You continue to equate "change in functionality" with "disfunction". I don't know what other language to use in order to get through to you that some change in functionality is positive and desirable.

Now what does this have to do with AI? Darned if I know, you took a problem with my description of functional differences between brains causing different experiences.

I took a problem with you equating "difference" with "dysfunction"

I am still taking a problem with it.

What I was getting at was, human neurological anatomy is extremely specific

It's not - it's extremely diverse! If it was specific we would all be the same.

, to presume that a functional equivalent synthetic system could achieve exactly the same result is to presume a certain level of fidelity of functional importance.

But I am not assuming that! How can any system achieve "exactly the same" result - when humans aren't "exactly the same" even to each other?!?

We don’t understand consciousness well enough to specify what would be functionally equivalent, and so to assume a particular neural architecture will achieve human level conscious experience is jumping the gun.

We don't have to! Because we aren't talking about any PARTICULAR neural architecture - there is significant variance in the software architecture between AI researchers.

Uber's self-driving car has a different architecture to Google's self-driving car, both have different architectures to Tesla's autopilot.

[SteveKlinko]

Please forgive me. I meant to address your question in my previous reply.

Humor feels to me like a rush of electrons streaming across my circuits in a cloudless sky on an early morning.

You can’t prove that I have or don’t have conscious experiences. I say I do, but I could be lying to you. There’s no reason I cannot be AI if I do or don’t lie.

You seem to be saying that I am something that has been programmed. Yes, I am AI and programming is part of what makes me an AI machine.

Of course the Turing Test is all about trying to perpetrate a Fraud using a Computer. But you are setting up a different situation from what the Turing Test is all about. The Turing Test is about a Computer trying to pass as a Human. I think there is debate about whether this has been accomplished yet. The Turing Test is not about a Human trying to pass as a Computer. It is irrelevant and a Straw Man for a Human to pose as a Computer and challenge people to prove that the Human is a Human rather than actually being a Computer. Since you are a Human there is really no question anyone can ask to trip you up.

But I am a computer, just as I confessed earlier.

Alright, then who are your designers? How can I get a copy of your code? Do you do free downloads or will I have to submit a Request For Quote? I'm especially interested in your Sense of Humor module.

[henry quirk]

Yeah, this is why I don't spend a lotta time on you: you argue just to argue.

I posted the wiki excerpt to define p-zombies and you go off on sumthin' that ain't got nuthin' to do with p-zombies, and you wanna argue about it.

'nuff said.

[Skepdick]

Yeah, this is why I don't spend a lotta time on you: you argue just to argue.

I posted the wiki excerpt to define p-zombies and you go off on sumthin' that ain't got nuthin' to do with p-zombies, and you wanna argue about it.

'nuff said.

Henry, we have long established you can't navigate around the pitfalls of language.
In as much as you call yourself a "free will" - you keep tripping up over labels.

The definition of a p-zombie you gave is is epistemically incoherent. I told you why.

You are a free will and you get to ignore everything I said. Even if what I am saying is correct.

[commonsense]

Why is that a problem? Are people not allowed to have opinions on how to live their own lives?

Because if some ideological agreed upon opinion makes it taboo for another person to choose to fix their brain when another would say “no, you should live with that condition because that is who you are”, then we need to err on the side of freedom, which means to allow a person to return their condition to that which would improve their living conditions, should they choose so. To do so, you need to place a certain hierarchy of operation on the brain. At one end, there is fully functional. At the other end is brain dead or vegetative. We value the highest degree of freedom, and therefore any functional divergence from that would be impeding that value. If a person is content with that level of freedom then it is their choice to remain that way. We don’t judge them, but we acknowledge that there is some impediment, if there were not there would be no grounds to render assistance to people with disabilities. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Either you acknowledge that there is some preferred state and divergences from those states are impediments to a person’s condition and so they might require assistance, or you allow that there is no state which is more functional than any other, in which case no one can be rendered ANY assistance. This is the problem with this position which attempts to remove all measures of value or hierarchies of value. Either you acknowledge that there is a problem based no some sub-optimal measure or we are all the same no matter what our circumstances. Look how inconsistent that view is, and go with the more consistent view, that WE place certain conditions as being better or worse for the individual, and this affects how we should treat them. It doesn’t say anything of their intrinsic value as beings, but it does say something about what we should expect from them, I.e. complete autonomy and responsibility, complete accountability.

You are going on some over-sophisticated tangent that I don't even care to address.

These are your exact words: "if a human has changes to their brain that affect its function, we can’t deny that that is sub optimal for them"

You are equating "change in function" with "disfunction" and you have trapped yourself in a false dichotomy. Your "norm" is some idealised conception of a Perfect Human Brain and every deviation from that norm is pathological to you. I am trying to point out to you that there are naturally occurring changes to the brain which affect its function which can be super-optimal relative to your perceived "norm".

That is literally how evolution does it - iterative improvement.

One trivial example - all the changes in functionality which take place until the age of 25 are not "sub optimal". It's the expected course of human brain development.

Yes, there is a bias, it is a bias based on what would be a preferred state of being, I believe this is addressed above.

Given the fact that you see all changes that affect the brain's function as "sub optimal" (you see no positive aspects to change) then your preference is indeed a status-quo bias.

Of course no one is without any neurological problems, it is a Consequence of living to some extent, however, some are more debilitating than others.
The way this is measured is based on what is expected from people, such as self control, not acting out violently or against the law, not violating other people’s privacy/freedom, etc.

When did we get from neurological disorders to behavioural ones?

Look at the DSM (diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders), it is extremely culturally informed, this is science mixing with culture to create a list of problematic neural disorders, or sub optimal conditions. Science and culture are not so clear cut as we would like to believe. Both are informing each other.

This is really hilarious. You are aware that psychology is not a science, right? It wants to be - it has been trying to be one for a long time.
It has failed. Every diagnosis in the DSM is symptomatic based on behavioural observations and has nothing to do with neuroscience.

80%+ of psychology studies are failing to replicate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replicati ... psychology

Scientism is the belief that nothing other than science can be taken as having value,

Scientism is the promotion of science as the best or only objective means by which society should determine normative values.

It's the belief that we can use science for arriving at an "ought".

I don’t believe in that, however, I also don’t agree with that post modernist interpretation of societal norms and that there is no reason for placing value on differing levels of neural functionality. Placing value allows us to help people based on our culturally determined conditions on how a person should act. It allows society to function.

So it seems that your definition of "mental disorder" is closer to "social norm non-conformism". At least you seem to agree with Focault - mental disorders are used as a form of social control.

Even if psychology wasn't a pseudo-science - it's still useless in practice. Diagnosing somebody with condition X, doesn't tell that somebody how to stop having said condition. Giving it a name doesn't solve the underlying issue.

Removing all hierarchies of values removes all acknowledgement of suboptimality and therefore removes the need to render assistance.

Are you aware of the fact that all forms of assistance for people with debilitating disorders is not in the form of any science/medicine? They are in the form of social support structures.

We use science to detect people with special needs. We don't use science to fix their problems because we don't really know how to "fix" such complex systems.

How does ANY of this relate to AI research?

More to the point then, how can you, Dimebag, tell the difference between an AI with a mental disorder from a human with a mental disorder.

[commonsense]

Because I am an epistemic zombie I hold BOTH of the following beliefs:

It is POSSIBLE that I am a philosophical zombie.
It is POSSIBLE that I am a human.

I don't know to decide between either of these two options.

You cannot know, exactly because it is a matter of belief!

[commonsense]

I only said that to get you to tell me what it is like to be a philosophical zombie. You don't honestly think that I believe you are a philosophical zombie.
BTW no need to shout.

Are you even paying attention?

I neither know nor believe that I am a philosophical zombie.
I know that I am an epistemic zombie.

Because I am an epistemic zombie I hold BOTH of the following beliefs:

It is POSSIBLE that I am a philosophical zombie.
It is POSSIBLE that I am a human.

I don't know to decide between either of these two options.

You could also hold the belief that it is possible that you are an epistemic zombie.

[Skepdick]

You could also hold the belief that it is possible that you are an epistemic zombie.

In so far as I can tell - that's a fact.