The problem with using an article of disbelief as an article of faith is just that.
In the act of assigning the belief condition of non-existence to an article such as FSM, it couldn't then be used again in a capacity which opposes this very belief condition.
Plain English version:
Let's say that I've came up with the Teleporting Giant Unicorn. I would say that it eats FSM for lunch because instead of flying, it teleports super fast and TGU would just gobble FSM up before FSM could fly anywhere.
Unfortunately, I can't convert anyone from the Church of the FSM to the Church of the TGU because
One, I don't even believe in TGU- I just made it up as a parody of FSM and
Two, people in the supposed Church of FSM don't really "believe" in FSM in the same way for pretty much the same reason so it's not like a conversion of faith anyways (unless they've managed to extend intellectual dishonesty and ignorance so far as to claim to not know the parody status of FSM)
As such, you can't compare something like FSM or TGU to something someone actually believes in the full metaphysical existence of.
Inside the cult of transhumanism lay the cult of machine-aided immortality. They think that they could somehow transfer their consciousness into a machine and live forever that way.
Just about all of their arguments in favor of such silliness involve some kind of smoke-and-mirrors trickery. Usually it involves throwing out a highly technical term like quantum entanglement and then hand wave their way around it.
Let's be charitable and for the sake of argument take their argument for granted, without an in-depth examination of the technicalities. You take some artificial copy of yourself, "entangle" the two, and voila! Your consciousness is now in the copy.
You've made a "copy" (again, ignoring the full implications of that, again for the sake of argument) but when it comes time to switch off your own continuity, you still die. All you would be doing is making another mechanized continuity, of which you wouldn't be experiencing because one, you'd be dead on your side even if it's conscious on the other and two, there is no consciousness in the AI on the other end. The entanglement doesn't place your consciousness on both ends- It constructs what is a simulated consciousness on the other end i.e. an artificial system that shows all the signs of consciousness yet contains NONE.
The trickery doesn't stand. Immortality Transhumanists are seeking to make a dead world out of p-zombies.
Оригинал взят у arkadiy_maler в Дехристианизация
Дехристианизация - на сайте Богослов.ру
История политических идеологий Модерна – это история неуклонной секуляризации тех ценностей, на которых они были основаны. Поэтому сегодня можно констатировать, что если возможна какая-то новая христианская метаидеология, способная адекватно ответить на все вызовы современности, то она должна слагаться из идей всех трех христианских субидеологий – христианского либерализма, христианского социализма и, разумеется, христианского консерватизма, который будет играть в этом процессе ведущую роль. Этим синтетическим путем шла христианская социальная философия XX века в целом и русская религиозная философия в частности, накопив огромные наработки в этой сфере, так и оставшиеся до сих пор достоянием архивов и специалистов. (При этом нужно четко различать чисто светские идеи этих авторов и их богословские поиски, нередко входящие в противоречие с православным догматическим вероучением). Одно глобальное обстоятельство способствует этому возникновению – это очевидный конец эпохи Модерна, реабилитация религиозного мировоззрения в Постмодерне и затянувшийся кризис последнего. Мы вступаем в постсекулярную эпоху, которую предрекал Николай Бердяев, назвав ее «Новым Средневековьем» и, одновременно, в эпоху нового подъема России, бывшей в XX веке главным оплотом секуляризма в мире, а теперь ставшей последним оплотом консервативных ценностей в Европе. Главной идейной интригой ближайших лет будет вопрос о том, какая версия русского консерватизма окажется доминирующей и определяющей лицо России в XXI веке. См. весь текст
What is philosophy?
It is certainly not best characterized by the contemporary academic "discipline" known as Philosophy.
The "disciplines" are bureaucratic constructs, each with their own ideological blinders.
This can be seen clearly through the lens of philosophy, but not of Philosophy, which categorically restricts its own potential self-awareness.
philosophy is the impulse towards transcendence. Nothing more or less.
This is no more apparent than when the philosopher denies the possibility of transcendence. For example, by a total embrace of an atheistic physicalism. "That's it! I've settled the question! There is nothing left to transcend!" And so, they've transcended, and do so, again and again, every time doubt creeps in.
The doubt creeps in because, of course, atheistic physicalism is an absurd position because it negates everything that cannot be negated: consciousness, life, civilization, God.
A moment's consideration (perhaps a long moment) reveal that exactly the opposite is the case. The world as it appears, the sensuous world, is a distortion. It is not an illusion in the sense that one sees what isn't there, or even that one isn't seeing what's really there. But the world of the senses is a distortion in the same way that your dreams are a distortion of reality. They are connected to reality by your real, waking life. They are meaningful representations of some greater, more comprehensive, more coherent Reality. But they are disconnected and out of order, full of anxieties that mean nothing because, upon waking, you will understand immediately that it was all just a dream.
Again and again in this great dream we encounter philosophy. We read it, we hear it, we think it ourselves. It is an active, impersonal force in our great collective dream. It is waking up.
Non-English-language posts are, as far as I am concerned, welcome. (Am open to revising this position in face of popular revolt.) However, posts must of course contain or at least aspire to philosophy; also, duplicate posts will be deleted.
The Chinese Room demonstrates that outward appearance of an understanding of meaning is by no means an actual indicator of understanding.
Bona fide understanding is a main feature of conscious thinking. If something is not conscious, it is not possible for it to understand.
What goes on inside the Chinese Room is an analog of programming. AI is dependent on programming.
Thus, what AI accomplishes in fooling someone in thinking that it has any sort of comprehension of meaning, is a demonstration of a mere appearance of comprehension. It would only appear to be sentient, while being as non-sentient as any program.
The only way for anyone to demonstrate the possibility of consciousness in an AI is to demonstrate independence from programming.
There is no such demonstration. Bottom-up AI, including experiments showing the purported evolution of bottom-up AI, still requires programming.
I believe all bans on community members to have been lifted. Bygones and all that; and in any case, it's not like there's any water to poison these days. If people are having trouble, let me know via LJ PM.
UPDATE: I believed wrong. But now all bans are definitely rescinded.
Heck, I don't particularly care for Kant, but this is as ridiculous an evaluation as one can find.
"Even apart from the fact that Kant’s theory of the “categories” as the source of man’s concepts was a preposterous invention, his argument amounted to a negation, not only of man’s consciousness, but of any consciousness, of consciousness as such. His argument, in essence, ran as follows: man is limited to a consciousness of a specific nature, which perceives by specific means and no others, therefore, his consciousness is not valid; man is blind, because he has eyes—deaf, because he has ears—deluded, because he has a mind—and the things he perceives do not exist, because he perceives them."
The purpose of this post is to explore the requirements to recreate a living, conscious human being on a computer, as opposed to running a functional model of a brain in software.
Prompted by Greg Egan's "Permutation City", which I'm currently reading.
I appreciate you taking time to critically examining my argument.
A neuronal activity consists largely of neurons firing, spikes propagating, and synapses forming/changing. Those things can happen either as a result of external (sensory) input coming into the brain, or feedback loops in the brain itself.
We can capture the state of the brain at any particular moment by recording all relevant parameter values. These parameters can be plugged into a functional model of the brain, together with any input signals. The model will allow us to predict (calculate) how the system is going to change, if started with those initial parameters (the real brain changes due to laws of physics, for example, if the electrical potential value in some neuron is large enough, that neuron is likely to fire; it also changes as the input signals change). The system uses analog signals, and is not governed by a global clock, so the change will be analog (gradual). There is no "next state" to speak of - the state is continuously changing. We can make "snapshots" of a real, living brain at different times, or we can calculate the state of the brain at those times. If the results are identical, we have a good model.
Calculating the state of the brain at successive points in time, given initial parameters, sensory input, and a functional model, can be considered to be an active, ongoing brain simulation. Calculating those states frequently enough can let us construct a pattern of neuronal activity, which we can then decode as specific thoughts, feelings, and motor commands intended to generate some actions. We can have a robot perform the actions, and this robot will appear alive and even "conscious". However, there's no living "being" controlling this robot. The brain state calculations could, in principle, be done on paper, because it's all just number crunching*. The calculated numbers could tell us what the real person would feel like, if this was a real person. But it's not. It's a description of a real person - a mathematical model with a bunch of parameters.
Such a robot would already be pretty impressive, but how do we create a "living being"? For that, we need to switch from performing calculations to running physical processes. We need to build a system where processes are happening "on their own". Instead of calculating the "next state", we need to let the system run so that any "next state" would develop naturally. Instead of calculating a snapshot at a particular time, we should have a system that has a continuous physical state at all times.
It's not clear how accurately we need to imitate the relevant physical processes in hardware, or if it's possible to use some software abstractions. For example, can we represent synapses as numbers stored in memory, or must they be actual physical devices, such as memristors? Do we need to generate analog voltage spikes on dedicated wires, or can we use digital data packets on a switched network between neurons?
I tend to think that as long as we recreate the movement, transformation, and storage of important information throughout the entire system, we have a living being.
*Compare with Searle's Chineese Room Experiment.
В новой программе Катехон-ТВ выступает - Виктор Петрович Лега, кандидат богословия, с 1991 г. заведующий Кафедры философии Православного Свято-Тихоновского гуманитарного университета (ПСТГУ), доцент Сретенской семинарии, МГЛУ, МФТИ.
Тема - "Философия и богословие".
- значение философии в формировании христианкой теологии
- вера от слышания и вера как уверенность
- влияние Платона vs. влияние Аристотеля
- догматические проблемы в русской религиозной философии
- деструктивная роль постмодернизма