turing test

i did? so your saying i said that you can hold your breath untill you die? when could you please quote me. thanks,

humans can only "behave" like humans? so we cant behave like other animals if we choose? do you understand the definition of the word behave? so if i die why cant i behave like a dead chimp?




peace.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

furthermore to end this debate, i would like to call upon scientific evidence from you to be put forward please.

could you provide us all with factual tested evidence that humans have created self aware conscious AI please,

because if im not mistaken that is quite the breakthrough.

peace.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No we cant, and I understand the definition. It is you that seams a little lost in the definition.

Behave “To act, react, function, or perform in a particular way:”


If you die, you will not be a dead chimp, nor will you behave like a dead chimp. The process of decomposition is unique to each species.

No matter how much you try you can only be human, dead or alive.

I would love to come up with the conscious tester, but I think that will never be achieved, and no mater how much our technology grows this debate will continue.

I have merely pointed out an attribute (“behaviour”) that all known intelligent things share. The feed back loop. I suggested that the simplest attribute for self awareness in its strictest non metaphysical definition, is also the feed back loop. Consciousness is the ongoing process of the feedback loop.

I suggest that consciousness is not unique to humans and that a human is incapable of experiencing, knowing, or behaving as the other entities consciousness.

I know that in the past every attempt to make humanity special in the universe has always been wrong. We are not that special.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

i am not lost in the definition.

behave- to behave in a certain manner; show a certain behavior; conduct or comport oneself;


To conduct oneself in a specified way

by the definition of the word it means that you can behave like another animal. behave does not mean replicate the exact physical structure and patterns of something else.


it seems twisting the meanings of words is the objective of this thread now lol.

so can i ask you, would you say a human is conscious? because you stated that a conscious tester will never be achieved, so how do you know other humans are conscious?

and i am still waiting for you to quote me saying that you can kill yourself by stopping breathing. i guess you cant find the text?


peace.

 

Im not talking about abstracted behavioral similarities, but in a purely physical representation of an objects behavior, eg an atom behaves like an atom.

A human does not behave like a chicken no mater how much they squak and flap their arms.

I don't know, I'm just assuming, taking a leap of faith. Further I belive that many entities have consciousness and just because they are to simple to communicate, does not give us reason to deny their consciousness.

Well for the second time ill show you what you typed.

And I am saying, again, you cant stop breathing, you can momentarily pause breathing but you cant stop because as soon as your higher brain activity fails your brain will start breathing again, you have no control over it.

 

Synergy.

 

No - I have never said that.
However, in this instance... if you wish to feel ignorant for not agreeing, that's entirely your choice.

 

EFOC - the robot DOES PASS the mirror test. The fact that it is given the specific programming to do so indicates a weakness of the test - not the robot.

There is no fundamental difference between the robot's programming (to identify itself) and our innate ability. Our "programming" does it far quicker and subconcsiously, and is part of our far more complex processing abilities, but the robot still achieves the identification of the mirror-image as self. And this is what the test asks.

If you want to change your view of what is the "best test" for consciousness, feel free to do so - but it won't change the fact that a robot HAS passed it - even if you might consider it to have cheated to have done so.

 

not sure

im not sure cause i didnt read the entire thread so what im about to say may have been discussed already.. but im sure it hasnt..

my friends and i have sat and talked about AI already for many years, one of the arguments that has stood against AI was the fact that computers, no matter how hard they try, cannot feel.. their bodies are made of metal, and even if made of human flesh, it would still just be circuits and chips. if you cut something, the robot won't hurt, instead just not be able to function fully. and the fact that it doesn't feel pain, is what will never let it learn like a human.

UNLESS,

there was a way to create a robot with the same body type as a human, and be able to program it the exact same way we have been programmed. Make each nerve a wire running telling commands the same way our body works....

at the moment i can't explain it well especially typing it.. if i could make some kind of audio book or if someone else could explain it better.

heres an example.

a robot is standing with the exact same look of a human, flesh on the outside, hair on top, etc... someone comes and pushes the robot.

A normal robot wouldnt do anything, it would FEEL anything.. it would just be like ... yo...

but if it had nerves and muscles like we do (in their own way. made out of whatever) that were programmed like us, that when you push our body with a certain force and hit certain points of the body it hurts, and when hurts enough it makes us mad.


im at work and typing as fast as i can to make as much sense as possible, so someone should get it atleast...

 

There are many robots out there, machines, definable entities with plans and rules. Current count about 6.5 billion.

Human skin works because of many wires, nerves imbedded in the substructure of flesh. Steal and cold hard metal can also be made with transmission channels.

Pain is just a signal from very specific nerves, interpreted and processed into a motivation.

There will never be a robot that is human.

 

would a robot ever be able to actualy "feel pain" not just react and set off a sensory trigger or light to suggest it was transmitted.

but actualy be "hurt" and feel pain ?


peace.

 

Can you prove that humans can, as opposed to simply responding to stimuli like a robot?

 

it is responding to a stimuli though, but it actualy hurts us we feel pain, now what im asking is how would a robot be able to feel pain? because its easy to make a robot react to something, but what defines actualy feeling the pain?

how would you describe "feeling pain" and explain it?

peace.

 

Damned good question.
I'm throwing it back at you.

 

i just dont know lol, the actual feeling of pain is connected with our sense of touch right. but touch alone is difficult to explain,

hmm it seems more than just a stimulant to "experience and feel".

peace.

 

What if the very act of reacting, responding like you feel pain is in its self, feeling pain. Most would agree that we our selves are just biological machines, with many structures that we share with mechanical and electrical machines, we are after all made of the same stuff, just arranged differently. I don’t believe in a magical property for humans and thus am forced to except that we share the same unarticulated ability to be.

I know that a worm that I pick from the soil in the garden should be treated with respect, I will not torture it with pain in my blind fumbling to make a hole. I will gently pick it up and place it down in moist soil so it does not react like an entity in pain.

 

so we should be able to one day create a machine that can feel pain then?. how is feeling pain explained in full? because i have read many things on this recently because of this thread. and i just cant seem to fully grasp "feeling pain"


i know it sounds stupid because we talk about it in everyday life as no big deal, but how do you actualy describe and explain feeling pain, because all i can gather from reading scientific sources from wikipedia, is that the body gets hit or whatever the signal goes from the point of impact to the brain, and it triggers a response in the form of reaction. (forgive the crudeness of that)


but where does actualy "feeling the pain" come into play? what enables us to actualy feel it in the way that we do?


peace.

 

is it your mind and senses that is actualy "hurting you" or the actual actions that caused your mind/nervs to react? a combination of the wuld suggest logic to me, but you wouldent feel the pain without the senses and the mind,


peace.

 

Pain is not a function of consciousness, just as much as an orgasm is not. All we need is memory and every feedback loop has memory.

 

yeah but how would you actualy describe feeling the actual pain, how would it be explained?

peace.