My favorite argument for the existence of God

[Michael]

As I've mentioned before, 'awareness' is ambiguous.

Sure but we all experience it. I do not think that is true for a robot. They simulate it but I doubt they actually experience it.

If awareness is used to mean simply responding to the environment(i.e. stimuli), then most robots and all living things are aware. If awareness is used to mean some form of consciousness, then only living things with nervous systems are aware, and not robots.

Ok. I was assuming a "conscious" type of awareness.

Personal identity or a 'desire' for self preservation are characteristic of only a very small percentage of living things, and sufficiently vague that they could, arguably, be design features of some robots.

There would still be an experiential difference.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

There would still be an experiential difference.

True, the robot would have no conscious experience of them. Perhaps this is why such concepts are not useful in definitions such as 'life'.

 

[Michael]

True, the robot would have no conscious experience of them. Perhaps this is why such concepts are not useful in definitions such as 'life'.

Well then perhaps I should have say "conscious awareness" to make the distinction less ambiguous, but that does seem to be the key distinction between living things and inanimate objects. It's hard however to measure something like that.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Well then perhaps I should have say "conscious awareness" to make the distinction less ambiguous, but that does seem to be the key distinction between living things and inanimate objects. It's hard however to measure something like that.

The vast majority of living things are not capable of consciousness, as generally understood.

However, consciousness is no less ambiguous than awareness, so is also unsuitable for such definitions. I have yet to see a definition of life that invoked consciousness as a key distinction - have you?

 

[Michael]

The vast majority of living things are not capable of consciousness, as generally understood.

It may not be identical to what humans experience in plants and single celled organisms, but animals seem to show a wide range of emotion and intelligence that isn't all that different from our own. Even a rudimentary sense of awareness might not be so dissimilar to our own experiences.

However, consciousness is no less ambiguous than awareness, so is also unsuitable for such definitions. I have yet to see a definition of life that invoked consciousness as a key distinction - have you?

Not typically in a textbook type scenario, but that is the key issue between a robot and human. Artificial intelligence is already capable of results that exceed what humans can do, but it lacks a consciousness.

An algorithm powered by this $35 computer just beat a human fighter pilot

A raspberry pi isn't even a particularly sophisticated computer and a dogfight isn't a simple task.

 

[Kylie]

again: by definition a robot or a watch need a designer. so if a robot or a watch will form by a natural process it will not be a watch by definition since its evolved. so definition is not a perfect indicator.

I fail to see your point.

If something that appears to be a watch evolves, then it is not a watch, even though it may carry out the same function.

Really, it seems that all you are saying here is that something that evolves is different to something that was designed. And that goes against your "life was designed" argument! So you seem to be shooting yourself in the foot.

 

[Kylie]

Wouldn't that be the logical thing to do? Why condemn religion for learning and growing over time the way that science learns and grows?

If people are constantly saying, "Actually, our religious ideas are wrong, the scientific ideas are a better explanation," then it seems to me that people should give up on the religious ideas and go with the scientific ones.

 

[xianghua]

If something that appears to be a watch evolves, then it is not a watch, even though it may carry out the same function.

but in this case they will be physically identical. so how you can call one of them a "watch" and the other a "living thing"?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It may not be identical to what humans experience in plants and single celled organisms, but animals seem to show a wide range of emotion and intelligence that isn't all that different from our own. Even a rudimentary sense of awareness might not be so dissimilar to our own experiences.

All vertebrates have fundamentally similar central nervous systems, so that's not unexpected. A non-vertebrate (mollusc) with a similarly complex CNS, the octopus, also shows behaviour suggestive of basic consciousness. All consistent with consciousness being the work of a complex CNS.

Not typically in a textbook type scenario, but that is the key issue between a robot and human.

True, but goalposts were between life and non-life (your #1123).

Artificial intelligence is already capable of results that exceed what humans can do, but it lacks a consciousness.

An algorithm powered by this $35 computer just beat a human fighter pilot

A raspberry pi isn't even a particularly sophisticated computer and a dogfight isn't a simple task.

As the article title suggests, the intelligence is in the algorithm rather than the processor. There are plenty of AIs that easily outperform humans in specialist tasks, from chess programs to IBM's Watson. The next major hurdle is an AI that generalises to learn any task; given conceptual abstraction, it's not such a big step to creativity and metaphor - and then who knows?

 

[bhsmte]

as i said: a watch that made from a wood is still a watch. so a robot that made from organic components is still a robot. can you falsified this claim?

Have you defined a robot yet?

Have you provided a reliable/falsifiable test yet, to determine when design is present?

And, don't skip these questions like you have in the past and don't think we haven't noticed.

 

[Michael]

If people are constantly saying, "Actually, our religious ideas are wrong, the scientific ideas are a better explanation," then it seems to me that people should give up on the religious ideas and go with the scientific ones.

I think many young Earth creationists end up doing exactly that which is probably why the majority of Christians today embrace an ancient Earth. A single false idea inside of a religious model however is not a death sentence to religion anymore than a single scientific failure is a death sentence to science.

 

[Michael]

All vertebrates have fundamentally similar central nervous systems, so that's not unexpected. A non-vertebrate (mollusc) with a similarly complex CNS, the octopus, also shows behaviour suggestive of basic consciousness. All consistent with consciousness being the work of a complex CNS.

That consciousness you're describing is what sets us apart from inanimate objects. While AI may be capable of many 'tasks', it's not conscious.

True, but goalposts were between life and non-life (your #1123).

I'm still trying to hit those uprights with the experience that you're describing as consciousness. If plants can communicate with other plants, I can't even rule out a primitive type of consciousness in plants.

As the article title suggests, the intelligence is in the algorithm rather than the processor. There are plenty of AIs that easily outperform humans in specialist tasks, from chess programs to IBM's Watson. The next major hurdle is an AI that generalises to learn any task; given conceptual abstraction, it's not such a big step to creativity and metaphor - and then who knows?

Those algorithms are simply "intelligently designed* programming instructions that help a piece of hardware perform a specific task. It's still not generating any type of consciousness inside the processing hardware.

That "experience" that you're describing as consciousness is the experience that separates living things from rumba-robots, well programmed raspberry pi's and all non living things.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

That consciousness you're describing is what sets us apart from inanimate objects. While AI may be capable of many 'tasks', it's not conscious.

Yes, obviously. If a complex CNS is necessary, inanimate objects won't have it.

I'm still trying to hit those uprights with the experience that you're describing as consciousness. If plants can communicate with other plants, I can't even rule out a primitive type of consciousness in plants.

Communication (passing messages) alone doesn't imply consciousness (as I understand it), or every response to a stimulus would imply consciousness - which would deprive us of the distinction between simple tropisms and planned behaviours.

Those algorithms are simply "intelligently designed* programming instructions that help a piece of hardware perform a specific task. It's still not generating any type of consciousness inside the processing hardware.

Algorithms can learn to make task-specific machines, e.g. AlphaZero, but I wasn't suggesting that algorithms are conscious; I don't think even minimal consciousness will be within reach unless an AI masters generalisation and conceptual abstraction (including self-conceptualization).

That "experience" that you're describing as consciousness is the experience that separates living things from rumba-robots, well programmed raspberry pi's and all non living things.

I wasn't describing anything as consciousness; I was describing what, as I see it, is the next major step on the road to AIs that can approach human performance at tasks in general, whether that involves or requires consciousness or not (although it probably does).

 

[Michael]

Yes, obviously. If a complex CNS is necessary, inanimate objects won't have it.

Even a better AI fighter pilot lacks consciousness and lacks input to consciousness (like emotions). Consciousness is the one 'experience' that separates living things from robots today.

Communication (passing messages) alone doesn't imply consciousness (as I understand it), or every response to a stimulus would imply consciousness - which would deprive us of the distinction between simple tropisms and planned behaviours.

Communication is an effect of consciousness however, so I couldn't rule it out either.

I wasn't describing anything as consciousness; I was describing what, as I see it, is the next major step on the road to AIs that can approach human performance at tasks in general, whether that involves or requires consciousness or not (although it probably does).

I suppose I was simply trying to offer a distinction between living things and robots.

 

[Kylie]

but in this case they will be physically identical. so how you can call one of them a "watch" and the other a "living thing"?

How can you have something that is identical to a watch, yet it can reproduce while a watch cannot?

Honestly, it's like you are claiming that I have two boxes of apples. Each has the same number of apples in it, but one box has three apples and the other has four apples.

What you are saying does not make sense.

 

[Kylie]

I think many young Earth creationists end up doing exactly that which is probably why the majority of Christians today embrace an ancient Earth. A single false idea inside of a religious model however is not a death sentence to religion anymore than a single scientific failure is a death sentence to science.

I think you might need to tell AV that... (Thalidomide, Pluto, Challenger...)

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Even a better AI fighter pilot lacks consciousness and lacks input to consciousness (like emotions).

A task-specific AI of that type has no more to do with consciousness than a chess program.

Consciousness is the one 'experience' that separates living things from robots today.

That's clearly false - most living things are not conscious (and 'experience' is another ambiguous word). It's the attributes of life itself that distinguish living things from robots

I suppose I was simply trying to offer a distinction between living things and robots.

The common biological definition of life would do:

1. Homeostasis: regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature
2. Organization: being structurally composed of one or more cells – the basic units of life
3. Metabolism: transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
4. Growth: maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
5. Adaptation: the ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity, diet, and external factors.
6. Response to stimuli: a response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.
7. Reproduction: the ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism or sexually from two parent organisms.

[wikipedia]

 

[xianghua]

How can you have something that is identical to a watch, yet it can reproduce while a watch cannot?

i actually do talk about a regular watch that cant reproduce. say its was form by a natural process. will you clal it a watch or not? i will call it a watch since its look and act like a watch. dont you?

 

[Kylie]

i actually do talk about a regular watch that cant reproduce. say its was form by a natural process. will you clal it a watch or not? i will call it a watch since its look and act like a watch. dont you?

Stop changing the subject and answer my question.

 

[bhsmte]

i actually do talk about a regular watch that cant reproduce. say its was form by a natural process. will you clal it a watch or not? i will call it a watch since its look and act like a watch. dont you?

Please answer the questions in post 1130.