Weak AI beat Chess, now on to Jeopoardy!

Yes i Did.


I told you that no matter how many relays, transmitters, recievers, Mother boards, CPU's or data processing hardware with 10 trillion Mirror self analysis checks per second, you will never produce consciousness. All of the human races experiments are on show for all to see, we have not produced anything resembling human awareness and consciousness. So I have stated it can;t be done and so far it hasn't been done so I think it is your job to show me how to produce that. because im the one claiming that its not possible.



PEace.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oooh, prove it. That not evidence that is a statement that would need to be tested, more so because its open ended anything short of infinite number of parts would not prove it, so its a statement that is impossible to verify. But if we assume that the human brain is entirely a construct that exists in this universe then your statement is clearly wrong: the brain is made of a finite number of components and it produces consciousness. Now you might argue that maybe a Turing machines can't produce consciousness, but that is unlikely as a Turing machines should be able to simulate a brain, it would just require many fold more computing power in the Turing machine the the brain its simulating. If worse came to worse we could just have analogy FPGAs or literally hardware neurons do the thinking.

And yet that could just because we have not developed the technology enough yet. I can just hear you back in 1900 "Oh we been trying to achieve heavy than air flight for decades, even longer if you consider Greek mythology, clearly it can't be done, and I should know, I'm an expert!"

So it hasn't happened yet therefor it never will? I'm pretty sure that a fallacy, for example "I have not crashed my car yet, therefor I never will!" yeah so just because it has not happened does not mean it can't, you need actually evidence for why it could never ever happen and track records do not go on to infinite so that not evidence. Now I'm not a computer scientist, you claim to be, so therefor its up to you to prove it can't be done, I'm merely stating that without evidence at present we can't say it can or can't be done.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

My prediction is that it never will, you don't get to ask me for proof this is like the God argument your saying a atheist has to show proof that god doesnt exist?. No until you show me proof that humans can produce artificial awareness and consciousness it doesn't exist.


I don't have any proof because it's a negative.....

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm not saying artificial consciousness exist only that it may be possible, your the one that making a definite statement that its impossible, you must prove that it is impossible. I don't agree with atheism I believe god is possible, I'm an agonistic.

Not at all, unlike god it can be tested. There are many negative arguments were evidence and proofs can be made. For example there are nuclear reactor designs which are claimed to be melt down proof, well how do they know this? Did they test these reactors over infinite time? No of course not, rather they show that as the reactor gets hotter its ability to maintain fission decreases and stops, it can never melt down because it will by the laws of physics stop or idle it nuclear reaction if it gets too hot.

Another would be mathematical proof, for example that the number pi goes on forever in decimal places, did they actually count it out to infinity, of course not, so how do they really know that it does not stop? Well they show through mathematical equations that pi cannot be a rational number.

Likewise if you are such an expert you could show through evidence that somehow AI is physically impossible, that turning machine could not simulate a brain, or that a facsimile could not be made through any other way. Instead you merely give articles of faith "It can't be done because... ahh... it can't be done!" that is just circular logic and not evidence of anything.

 

I gave my predictions and have explained why I predict this.

 

Please do explain them again because as of yet I have not seen a valid argument for you on your claim.