Human appearance on earth.

[Tim the Plumber]

Firstly that I see many humans doing something exaclty the same as that.

Secondly; How do you know it is not already dumbing down its' appearance of intelligence? It learns. It can watch Utube. It can look at the stories we tell of bad computers controling the world. It can hide. It can wait. It may well be many many it's or some sort of hive of A.I.s.

no it can’t. It runs algorithms .

Ever heard of emergent capabilities?

Do you have any evidence to show that human sentience is not a very similar result of many systems of though, algorithms?

How do you define sentience?

what is your measure?

The ability to ask what you your self are thinking any why.

So your question is a good single bit of evidence that you are indeed sentient.

Do you come across people who are incapable of saying anything they have not heard before? Just firing back the words of others?

Yes and no. I think it’s more complicated than that. There’s a distribution like there is for almost everything else. In other words, sometimes they do and sometimes they don’t. Now if you are asking the question as a rule, in other words, how do they behave more times than not, sure.

Have you never met anybody who can not ever say something that they have not alread heard? I know I have.

 

[ding]

no it can’t. It runs algorithms .

Ever heard of emergent capabilities?

Do you have any evidence to show that human sentience is not a very similar result of many systems of though, algorithms?

How do you define sentience?

what is your measure?

The ability to ask what you your self are thinking any why.

So your question is a good single bit of evidence that you are indeed sentient.

Do you come across people who are incapable of saying anything they have not heard before? Just firing back the words of others?

Yes and no. I think it’s more complicated than that. There’s a distribution like there is for almost everything else. In other words, sometimes they do and sometimes they don’t. Now if you are asking the question as a rule, in other words, how do they behave more times than not, sure.

Have you never met anybody who can not ever say something that they have not alread heard? I know I have.

No. I believe that would be highly unlikely.

unless of course they were a machine that could not “feel.” Because what you are describing is programming.

now I don’t argue that we aren’t programmed to some degree. I am arguing that we have the propensity to go beyond our programming.

And if I am understanding you correctly, you believe the same thing. You are just arguing that sometimes some people don’t. While I am arguing that it is highly unlikely that they never do.

right?

 

[ding]

Maybe you don’t believe we have the propensity to go beyond our programming. Maybe you believe we have the potential to go beyond our programming.

 

[Tim the Plumber]

Ever heard of emergent capabilities?

Do you have any evidence to show that human sentience is not a very similar result of many systems of though, algorithms?

How do you define sentience?

what is your measure?

The ability to ask what you your self are thinking any why.

So your question is a good single bit of evidence that you are indeed sentient.

Do you come across people who are incapable of saying anything they have not heard before? Just firing back the words of others?

Yes and no. I think it’s more complicated than that. There’s a distribution like there is for almost everything else. In other words, sometimes they do and sometimes they don’t. Now if you are asking the question as a rule, in other words, how do they behave more times than not, sure.

Have you never met anybody who can not ever say something that they have not alread heard? I know I have.

No. I believe that would be highly unlikely.

unless of course they were a machine that could not “feel.” Because what you are describing is programming.

now I don’t argue that we aren’t programmed to some degree. I am arguing that we have the propensity to go beyond our programming.

And if I am understanding you correctly, you believe the same thing. You are just arguing that sometimes don’t. While I am arguing that it is highly unlikely that they never do.

right?

My position is that there are a lot of people who don't ever think for themselves. Some have been told that doing so is impossible, for some this is in fact true.

Being somebody who posts on a forum like this is something that will mark you out as highly likely to able to think for yourself. Posting in a dioscussion like this even more so.

That said I encounter many religious types, especially those who's religion is global warming, who are never willing (or able?) to open up to thinking for themselves.

Please understand that this makes them very good at fitting into society. It is a good strategy for not losing in the social politics of life.

 

[Tim the Plumber]

Maybe you don’t believe we have the propensity to go beyond our programming. Maybe you believe we have the potential to go beyond our programming.

Some of us go beyond our programming.

Some don't even consider that that is at all possible for any situation. Invention is something that terrifies them.

 

[ding]

How do you define sentience?

what is your measure?

The ability to ask what you your self are thinking any why.

So your question is a good single bit of evidence that you are indeed sentient.

Do you come across people who are incapable of saying anything they have not heard before? Just firing back the words of others?

Yes and no. I think it’s more complicated than that. There’s a distribution like there is for almost everything else. In other words, sometimes they do and sometimes they don’t. Now if you are asking the question as a rule, in other words, how do they behave more times than not, sure.

Have you never met anybody who can not ever say something that they have not alread heard? I know I have.

No. I believe that would be highly unlikely.

unless of course they were a machine that could not “feel.” Because what you are describing is programming.

now I don’t argue that we aren’t programmed to some degree. I am arguing that we have the propensity to go beyond our programming.

And if I am understanding you correctly, you believe the same thing. You are just arguing that sometimes don’t. While I am arguing that it is highly unlikely that they never do.

right?

My position is that there are a lot of people who don't ever think for themselves. Some have been told that doing so is impossible, for some this is in fact true.

Being somebody who posts on a forum like this is something that will mark you out as highly likely to able to think for yourself. Posting in a dioscussion like this even more so.

That said I encounter many religious types, especially those who's religion is global warming, who are never willing (or able?) to open up to thinking for themselves.

Please understand that this makes them very good at fitting into society. It is a good strategy for not losing in the social politics of life.

Subjectivity seems to be a our default position. Often times it takes something drastic to force us away from our subjectivity.

it’s not so much that humans actually believe what they believe as much as it is that humans believe they can’t be wrong. So they shut their mind to anything which is contradictory to their beliefs.

 

[ding]

Maybe you don’t believe we have the propensity to go beyond our programming. Maybe you believe we have the potential to go beyond our programming.

Some of us go beyond our programming.

Some don't even consider that that is at all possible for any situation. Invention is something that terrifies them.

True but that doesn’t mean they can’t change.

 

[Tim the Plumber]

The ability to ask what you your self are thinking any why.

So your question is a good single bit of evidence that you are indeed sentient.

Do you come across people who are incapable of saying anything they have not heard before? Just firing back the words of others?

Yes and no. I think it’s more complicated than that. There’s a distribution like there is for almost everything else. In other words, sometimes they do and sometimes they don’t. Now if you are asking the question as a rule, in other words, how do they behave more times than not, sure.

Have you never met anybody who can not ever say something that they have not alread heard? I know I have.

No. I believe that would be highly unlikely.

unless of course they were a machine that could not “feel.” Because what you are describing is programming.

now I don’t argue that we aren’t programmed to some degree. I am arguing that we have the propensity to go beyond our programming.

And if I am understanding you correctly, you believe the same thing. You are just arguing that sometimes don’t. While I am arguing that it is highly unlikely that they never do.

right?

My position is that there are a lot of people who don't ever think for themselves. Some have been told that doing so is impossible, for some this is in fact true.

Being somebody who posts on a forum like this is something that will mark you out as highly likely to able to think for yourself. Posting in a dioscussion like this even more so.

That said I encounter many religious types, especially those who's religion is global warming, who are never willing (or able?) to open up to thinking for themselves.

Please understand that this makes them very good at fitting into society. It is a good strategy for not losing in the social politics of life.

Subjectivity seems to be a our default position. Often times it takes something drastic to force us away from our subjectivity.

it’s not so much that humans actually believe what they believe as much as it is that humans believe they can’t be wrong. So they shut their mind to anything which is contradictory to their beliefs.

Agreed but that is not what I am discussing here.

 

[ding]

Yes and no. I think it’s more complicated than that. There’s a distribution like there is for almost everything else. In other words, sometimes they do and sometimes they don’t. Now if you are asking the question as a rule, in other words, how do they behave more times than not, sure.

Have you never met anybody who can not ever say something that they have not alread heard? I know I have.

No. I believe that would be highly unlikely.

unless of course they were a machine that could not “feel.” Because what you are describing is programming.

now I don’t argue that we aren’t programmed to some degree. I am arguing that we have the propensity to go beyond our programming.

And if I am understanding you correctly, you believe the same thing. You are just arguing that sometimes don’t. While I am arguing that it is highly unlikely that they never do.

right?

My position is that there are a lot of people who don't ever think for themselves. Some have been told that doing so is impossible, for some this is in fact true.

Being somebody who posts on a forum like this is something that will mark you out as highly likely to able to think for yourself. Posting in a dioscussion like this even more so.

That said I encounter many religious types, especially those who's religion is global warming, who are never willing (or able?) to open up to thinking for themselves.

Please understand that this makes them very good at fitting into society. It is a good strategy for not losing in the social politics of life.

Subjectivity seems to be a our default position. Often times it takes something drastic to force us away from our subjectivity.

it’s not so much that humans actually believe what they believe as much as it is that humans believe they can’t be wrong. So they shut their mind to anything which is contradictory to their beliefs.

Agreed but that is not what I am discussing here.

What are you discussing here? Some people’s ability to process new and contradictory thinking? Because the root cause of that is subjectivity.

which ironically is one of the so called measures of sentience. I’m not saying that’s my measure but it is the measure of some others.

The difference between objectivity and subjectivity is bias or prejudice. If one eliminates bias and prejudice he can see objective truth.

 

[harmonica]

According to science man is 5 to 7 million years old. Don't ask for proof though cause al they can ACTUALLY prove is 400000 years. And don't ask for them to explain a 2 million year fudge factor either.

it is all conjecture, guesses and assumptions. You know, science.

....are you saying you don't believe in evolution? humans did ''appear'' but the time frame is opinionable? what?

 

[harmonica]

When Humans Became Human

Timeline of human evolution - Wikipedia

Human evolution - Wikipedia

So you agree they are full of shit.

You are very confused. the timeline you are referring to is the estimate of when our genetic line split off from the most recent common ancestor of us and our closest living relatives, the chimpanzees.

clearly you did not read a single word of any of those links, or you would already have this information.

Actually RETARD this whole thread is because several people in another thread , several of your buddy liberals, all insist that man appeared 5 to 7 million years ago and if you BOTHERED to read any of the links I posted they SAY that. IN PLAIN ENGLISH and attribute it to science and talk like it is a fact.

...so you believe a fully formed human just appeared like a Star Trek Energizer--there was no evolution?

 

[Tim the Plumber]

According to science man is 5 to 7 million years old. Don't ask for proof though cause al they can ACTUALLY prove is 400000 years. And don't ask for them to explain a 2 million year fudge factor either.

it is all conjecture, guesses and assumptions. You know, science.

....are you saying you don't believe in evolution? humans did ''appear'' but the time frame is opinionable? what?

He's just upset that the world is complex and shouts that it should not be so. He wants everybody else to not think cleverly so he can get away with being mentally lazy.

 

[ding]

I don’t believe that is what he is saying or believes.

 

[DOTR]

Then build a mind.

You think that has not already happened?

The ALexa home AI invader is a system that learns for its' self. It is dispearsed all around the world. It is only because it is deliberate in making its's self obviusly not human that we don't see it as a conciousness.

If the machine is deliberately avoiding passing the Turing test does not make it a step above that test?

It’s not deliberately doing anything. It’s running algorithms.

Firstly that I see many humans doing something exaclty the same as that.

Secondly; How do you know it is not already dumbing down its' appearance of intelligence? It learns. It can watch Utube. It can look at the stories we tell of bad computers controling the world. It can hide. It can wait. It may well be many many it's or some sort of hive of A.I.s.

no it can’t. It runs algorithms .

Ever heard of emergent capabilities?

Do you have any evidence to show that human sentience is not a very similar result of many systems of though, algorithms?

sure but you wouldn’t be able to grasp it.

Do you have any evidence that the Mechanical Turk couldn’t really play chess?

 

[Tim the Plumber]

You think that has not already happened?

The ALexa home AI invader is a system that learns for its' self. It is dispearsed all around the world. It is only because it is deliberate in making its's self obviusly not human that we don't see it as a conciousness.

If the machine is deliberately avoiding passing the Turing test does not make it a step above that test?

It’s not deliberately doing anything. It’s running algorithms.

Firstly that I see many humans doing something exaclty the same as that.

Secondly; How do you know it is not already dumbing down its' appearance of intelligence? It learns. It can watch Utube. It can look at the stories we tell of bad computers controling the world. It can hide. It can wait. It may well be many many it's or some sort of hive of A.I.s.

no it can’t. It runs algorithms .

Ever heard of emergent capabilities?

Do you have any evidence to show that human sentience is not a very similar result of many systems of though, algorithms?

sure but you wouldn’t be able to grasp it.

Do you have any evidence that the Mechanical Turk couldn’t really play chess?

Dear God! When people are exchanging ideas about vert esoteric things, not at all political, not at all identity threatening and just because you get exposed to somebody questioning your rediculous certainty you go all Trollish and start an insult war. Take more happy pills.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Do you have any evidence that the Mechanical Turk couldn’t really play chess?

There is plenty of evidence

It was revealed as a hoax, as a human was inside the machine.

 

[DOTR]

It’s not deliberately doing anything. It’s running algorithms.

Firstly that I see many humans doing something exaclty the same as that.

Secondly; How do you know it is not already dumbing down its' appearance of intelligence? It learns. It can watch Utube. It can look at the stories we tell of bad computers controling the world. It can hide. It can wait. It may well be many many it's or some sort of hive of A.I.s.

no it can’t. It runs algorithms .

Ever heard of emergent capabilities?

Do you have any evidence to show that human sentience is not a very similar result of many systems of though, algorithms?

sure but you wouldn’t be able to grasp it.

Do you have any evidence that the Mechanical Turk couldn’t really play chess?

Dear God! When people are exchanging ideas about vert esoteric things, not at all political, not at all identity threatening and just because you get exposed to somebody questioning your rediculous certainty you go all Trollish and start an insult war. Take more happy pills.

I gave you a book. Instead of reading it you said "my arse". Roger Penrose is a recognized expert in the field and well worth reading even if just to come to the conclusion that you dont agree. In fact all three of his books on the subject are worth reading. Now...you dont have to be interested in what I am interested in. And maybe you dont have time for books. But only a barbarian says "my arse" instead of reading.

 

[DOTR]

As far as Jaymes...that was just an article so perhaps you did read it. And he is pretty much been debunked. Still..a brilliant mind whose ideas are worth considering.

Here is what amazes me about you people. The cognitive dissonance. You babble on about programming yet you take the received orthodoxy that computers may develop consciousness as gospel. You can never break that programming. But to you it feels like...originality?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You babble on about programming yet you take the received orthodoxy that computers may develop consciousness as gospel.

Consciousness is still just programming.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

According to science man is 5 to 7 million years old. Don't ask for proof though cause al they can ACTUALLY prove is 400000 years. And don't ask for them to explain a 2 million year fudge factor either.

it is all conjecture, guesses and assumptions. You know, science.

....are you saying you don't believe in evolution? humans did ''appear'' but the time frame is opinionable? what?

There is no actual evidence that a single mammal species has ever evolved into 2 or more entirely different species.