Well said - my reasoning above is why I'm so drawn to Analytic Idealism. I can't get past my own experience with programming to draw the leap that there is some magic number of logic gates, memory and complex processing that emerges into consciousness. Materialism kind of dictates that that must be the case. Panpsychism also appealed (consciousness is fundamental to the material wold), but AI scratches that itch in a much more satisfying way. Ultimately I guess I'm skeptical that a pure materialist perspective will grant us the necessary insights into consciousness necessary to create a compelling AI. Thanks for the article and the convo!

>man's abilities are evolved abilities - or they're not.

A false dichotomy.

>If you dismiss injection of self-reflection by a higher power, what else can they be?

The ability to dismiss false dichotomies, I suppose. Need they be more? Are you saying that because self-determination is not a magic power, it is therefore not real?

Please don't take those questions as merely dismissive rhetoric, I think they should be considered and answered. I entirely agree with you and empathize with your perspective, I sympathize with your premise. But you're ignoring the possibility that reason itself is an evolved ability, and I think I know why. There are three reasons, two of which I'll explain.

First, you rightfully believe that free will has to be a gift from God or else it doesn't exist. This is true, but it is also true that self-reflection doesn't require free will, just self-determination.

Second, you assume "reason" is logic. This is false, but it is also the assumption that modern and postmodern (and neopostmodern) philosophy (apart from theistic morality) has relied on (and been trapped by, it is a "tar pit") since the time of Socrates.

I had the same position you do, felt the same frustration, and was stuck on the same problems, years ago. Plus, I was even more desperate than you are to find answers, for personal reasons. And believe it or not, I managed to extricate myself from the tar pit by finding answers. I've been trying to help other people do the same ever since. Consider it plausible even if it isn't certain. What have you got to lose?

Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.

>We are animals with evolved abilities like all creatures on this planet.

Here is where your reasoning starts to fail. (Although, if I'm being honest, it was actually earlier when you said you were wary of "reason", by which I presume you actually meant logic, but let's skip that issue for the moment.)

We are animals with evolved abilities unlike any other creature on this planet. This alone doesn't distinguish us. Every species of creature has some evolved abilities which are different from all other species: this is part and parcel of being a distinct species. But with humans it goes beyond that, because of the specific ability we evolved to have, which is demonstrably unique in result.

>Reason is an evolved ability that did not somehow leap past biological barriers & provide us with a god-like tool to unlock the mysteries of the universe.

Returning to that earlier point, then: reason is an evolved ability that leaps past biological barriers and provides is with a tool to unlock the mysteries of the universe. These mysteries become less mysterious therefor. Reason need not be "god-like", in fact it cannot be God-like, but overcoming biological (and other physical) barriers is exactly what it is for, and what it accomplishes. But (and this is the most important issue in all of philosophy, the key to unlocking all of the things about human behavior which are not merely biological abilities but the capacity to go beyond biological and physical barriers) reason is not logic. It is something more than that. It is, among other things, the ability to conceive of logic, and it must be greater than logic, it must transcend mathematics and deduction and even induction (or any other formal system) in order to recognize, discover, invent, or develop formal systems like logic, which you have been taught to identify and describe as reason. That, the limitations of logic, is what you are raling against, what you are wary of, and you are using reasoning to do so.

>The lion could be said to be using the faculty in a simplistic manner while we are using it in a far more complex way.

The lion uses no reason nor logic. The lion is logic, with no reason. It's genes are logic, the physics of the nucleotides and the proteins they "encode" is logic, the entire universe is logic, limited by mathematical laws although we know not how. But lions (nor whales, elephants, dogs, birds, apes, or fungi) have no consciousness, they do not have reasoning, they are unaware of the existence of biology or logic. They have no reason to be, they engage in no reasoning, and they are incapable of deciding how they should behave, they merely exist and do whatever their biochemistry causes them to do. Humans really are different. You can say that reason is an illusion, that consciousness is merely an unsolved engineering problem or a gift from god or a ground state of the universe, what you're really doing is denying the evidence. Humans are different. We aren't just a different kind of life, we are a different kind of matter, even though our biological existence is the same as any other life form and our atoms are the same as any other object. Our consciousness isn't a fiction, our language is not a logical code, and our morality is not simply social norms.

>I step back from saying evolution is true; I stick with evolution is highly plausible

You remind me of Richard Dawkins, stepping back from saying God isn't true, and sticking with God is merely implausible. Socrates' showed that accepting uncertainty is a necessary aspect of reasoning. Descartes showed that doubt is a fundamental premise of consciousness. But sooner or later we have to man up and accept the fact that being unsure if humans are moral creatures (and that God does not exist!) is a disastrous and unproductive pretense.

>as animals we think to assist survival of the species.

Animals don't do that, though. If they thought at all (they do not, though the neurological impulses in their brain is only teleologically, not physically, different from the neural impulses which are our thoughts) they would only consider, care about, or assist their own survival, and seek to be the definition of the species rather than merely a single creature doomed to die. Evolution is undeniable, the mechanism of natural selection is so absolutely true and unavoidable that even God, if It existed, could not prevent it from occurring. But knowing evolution is true (beyond the notion of causation itself, a mere fiction in comparison) does not mean that what some person or expert (or ALL people and experts, if we can imagine such a universal consensus) claims the implications of evolution are is likewise true.

>We are animals. With limited evolved abilities.

We have that one evolved ability which has no limit. We can imagine things that aren't real, and consider whether they should be real, and devise methods to make them real. Just because we are still animals doesn't mean we are still just animals. Consciousness isn't just sense perception with a larger neural network, it is a very specific and particular (and also holistic) perception (to be explicit and give it a name, it is self-determination and theory of mind) that isn't limited to senses (or sense) with a larger neural network. 😉

>We are in the present world situation partly because we deny our evolved limitations.

We are in the present world situation entirely because we have the ability to ignore our evolved limitations. The real problem is that we deny that, as you are doing. If we were just animals like any other, we wouldn't be in this mess. And if we accept the moral responsibility of reason, instead of trying to avoid it by confusing reason with "logic", we can work our way out of this mess, and any other situation we might find ourselves in.

> We are a lion starving to death at the water hole because plausibility is not certainty.

What is the water, in your metaphor?

We are apes trapped in a tar pit, unable to figure a way out because plausibility is as close to certainty as anything beyond cogito ergo sum ever gets. We cannot overcome metaphysical uncertainty (whether there is anything beyond our perceptions) and we cannot overcome epistemic uncertainty (whether there is anything to our perceptions) and we need to stop using that as an excuse for remaining stuck in this damned tar pit. 🤓

Im sorry. How is this news?

Is there scientific evidence that an which feels can be created?

The counter argument would be that the human brain is also an amalgam of relatively simple sub-processors, and consciousness is the result of these many sub-processors interacting. It’s supported by the fact that the parts of the brain that are associated with consciousness and sentience develop relatively late in the evolutionary timeline of most intelligent species. However until we can say conclusively how consciousness works in the human brain, we can’t say whether it is possible in an artificial system, and we are not at all close to solving that problem.

It is a well-established (though by no means universally accepted) premise of human behavior that negative reinforcement (punishment) is almost entirely ineffective past the age of reason (about four to seven years old) and of limited value even before then. Nevertheless, most people far older than that continue to desire retribution for an injustice. There are valid and good reasons for this desire, but that it can be a deterrent (a prospective negative reinforcement, in other words) is not really one of them.

As for rehabilitation, it, too, has a meaningful basis in the arena of criminal sentencing, but coercion nullifies the possibility of rehabilitation: a human cannot be forced to rehabilitate, they can only be convinced to obey. Also, the practice of providing heightened opportunities for rehabilitation to criminals contradicts the demands of justice, by essentially rewarding convicts for previous bad behavior and (if this can even be considered separate) effectively substituting advantage for retribution, in a social sense.

For imprisonment to be just and moral, it should be seen as simply sequestration, removing an individual from society. Whether it is a punishment or is an adequate opportunity for voluntary rehabilitation is for the convict to determine. Making their living conditions as sparse as humanely possible based on the nature of their crime is appropriate, but willfully (including through malicious neglect) making their circumstances intolerable or horrifying in a misguided effort to maximize either punishment or deterrence is not merely inhumane, it is counter-productive.

It really doesn't matter how severe or horrendous the crime was. The optimim process from a social perspective is whatever has the greatest statistical likelihood of resulting in a convict both recognizing and accepting the immorality of their actions and voluntarily choosing to rehabilitate themselves. And what we are currently doing in the United States is not that. A large part of the reason we have such a significant problem with crime in the US is because of the prison system in the US, although the teleologies are so complex that most people aren't interested in understanding how that is possible. And the people who most definitely (and erroneously) believe in punishment have any easy time convincing anyone who has any desire for retribution against lawbreakers to vote for the Wrong Wing Party, and spewing atrocious lies about anyone who does manage to understand that 'the beatings will continue until moral improves' is too much of a joke to even be funny.

"My parents whipped the hell out of me, and I'm a better person for it," is something that only comes out of the mouth of a severely emotionally damaged individual.

> What is the lane of science? It seems to me that given all the branches of science everything is in their lane.

Matters in the strictly physical/materialistic world.

Some sub-disciplines (psychology) rightfully deal in the metaphysical, which is fine, but I strongly object to people implying (with or without conscious intent) that the competency and quality of results in the hard sciences also exists within psychology.

> The problem is that religions don’t stick to their lane.

It's a problem, but not "the" problem (it is only one problem among many).

Another problem is Scientific Materialists not sticking to theirs. Also, they tend to be overconfident in their beliefs, mix up objective and subjective, belief and knowledge, etc. I mean, everyone does it, but SM's tend to perceive themselves as necessarily objectively superior at thinking.

> They insist on commenting on things such as whether evolution is real, how old the universe is, when life begins, nature of consciousness, what it means to be a trans or gay person and what kind of health care those people should be allowed to get.

There's quit a mix here. I'd say: you saying that these things are "not the business" of religion is an example of the flaws I note above.

You can declare them off limits, and I will simply undo it by declaring the opposite. And, I suspect I will enjoy the back and forth, whereas you may have a strong emotionally negative reaction to it, and perhaps not quite appreciate what is going on at the same level.

Yeah its analogous to the black box problem, that's a good point. But what I'm saying is that computers are demonstrably a mechanistic black box. I get that maybe that's controversial? But that is literally what computers do. I've read arguments like Tononi's IIT, but the whole 'when its complex and integrated, consciousness happens' does not convince me (though my understanding is admittedly shallow).

I can create a computer program that capitalizes all of the letters or words you type with a few lines of code. Does part of the computer understand what its doing? No. The same way a see-saw does not understand what its doing when you push on the high end and it comes down and the other side goes up. The computer a mechanistic, deterministic machine that happens to be able to do some really cool and complicated stuff.

All other computer programs, including the most sophisticated current AI, are just more complicated versions of my simple program.

>a comprehensive philosophical teaching about life and death is called

...?

Are you being willfully obtuse, or do you not grasp the point that "faith" in an afterlife is driven by lies told for the sake of controlling and profiting by others?

What is the lane of science? It seems to me that given all the branches of science everything is in their lane.

The problem is that religions don’t stick to their lane. They insist on commenting on things such as whether evolution is real, how old the universe is, when life begins, nature of consciousness, what it means to be a trans or gay person and what kind of health care those people should be allowed to get.

“sometimes life be like that”

Sorry I don't follow what obnoxious claims are invalid?

Reject mediocrity. Pursue excellence. Leave a marker to your existence.

I agree, just pointing out the lapse in good reasoning in the interview.

That's because there's no validity to such obnoxious claims, because they are used as vehicles for social control, and because they tend to be used as cause to attack non-adherents.

In reality, nobody knows what happens when we die, and all evidence suggests "nothing, nothing at all". Anyone claiming to the contrary - that is claiming to have a truly comprehensive philosophy as to life and death - is a liar, a charlatan. Nothing is that simple, and nobody actually knows anything about the areas they claim knowledge of. It's so obvious that this is true, and yet people continue to fall for the con.

Any wonder that many of us are frustrated by this tired and well-abused concept? The 8-letter word you're referring to has little useful place in philosophy. There are a few good ideas (which also exist elsewhere in more reasonable forms), but by and large it should be used as a cautionary tale: a warning of the dangers and limitations of "faith", and a reminder of the value of skepticism.

Ah I see. Basically you’re referring to the Chinese black box problem. I’d argue that’s more a problem with our perception than with consciousness itself. It is impossible for us to determine from the outside whether any system is conscious or not. This is true even of other human beings as the p-zombie problem illustrates. But it would certainly be possible for an artificial system to be conscious in fact. We just wouldn’t know about it.

What a depressing thread. Holy fuck.

I agree to an extent. But a 50 million year just society, even if it fell eventually, would be a worthwhile legacy to leave. Maybe that's beyond us, but something more brief, yet still fantastic, doesn't lose it's meaning because it ends.

[deleted]

Right - but you're missing my point. That super-fast computer would be doing exactly the same thing that the XKCD comic does with rocks, just faster. Its Turing complete, so it does everything that is possible to do with any conventional computer. But its obvious that there is no consciousness or feeling in the pattern of rocks.

What I'm saying is that if we build AI, it will be because we created a certain configuration of matter that registers feelings, not because we've written code. Code could pretend to feel, but not feel.

Well shit homie I coulda told you that

Okay

You don’t think oil genuinely improves society? It has, and does.

Society would basically collapse if we suddenly ran out of oil. The absolute worst part of using oil is our dependency on it for such a great number of industries. It’s not renewable, things will get worse when it runs out. It’s a perfect example of activity that benefits society now but makes it potentially worse in the future.

Notice I said "genuinely improve society"