I already disagree with art being a medium of express of ideas or emotions. Art might have been constructed with an idea and even with emotions but the artist might not try to express them at all. Additionally, if I would agree with you, then I have following question. if the art piece produced by someone in a society is expressing an idea, e.g. pedophilia is great, is that idea now part of the culture of the society? How many people need to agree? It should be irrelevant in your opinion otherwise art isn’t part of culture unless enough people agree with the idea in the art piece. Also if you want to argue that it is not art, there isn’t really an agreement of what art is. Famously so. So yeah, you can argue about that it wouldn’t be art but then you would disagree with yourself and you would have to provide a working definition for art.
So your definition of consciousness wasn’t precise enough and you had to express your actual idea more clearly. Strange, it is almost as if having a conceptual idea of something and being able to express it well are too different things. So you caught on to my point about ai but you failed to see it to the end. Yeah a current ai wouldn’t be understood by people as conscious but my point was to express that you have to draw a line about what is conscious and what is not. Which is why I picked a face recognition camera. It is literally like saying, “if you think animals can be eaten, then are you eating human?”, obviously the person doesn’t expect you to eat humans. It is a rhetorical question. The real question would be “what is the difference between humans and animals? And why does it justify eating them?”. In this case, At which position does the meaty neural network that is my brain become conscious and different than the neural network in a program? Where is the line? Without that line your definition is vague and people will maybe agree with your definition without agreeing with your conceptual idea that you try to express. In other words, your definition doesn’t work. I really had to spoon feed you that one? Using 🤦♂️when you aren’t even able to understand rhetorical questions.
If you think you have now defined the difference between an ai and a human, why humans are and ai is not conscious. Your Wakefulness definition isn’t making it clear when you would grant something the title of consciousness. I mean when is something wakeful or is actually perceiving the world. (I mean interact with the world is obviously already the case, chatgtp has written poor legal defenses and cause some good laughter, there are cyber security ai products that try to identify and report attacks on a network,…). At which point does “detecting Malware” become “perceiving Malware”? That was my point. So you haven’t answered it at all.
Piss Jesus is Art, the message itself & if people agree with it or not is completely irrelevant. Art is just as I said previously. Enough said.
Here are some criteria for a good definition:
Focus: The definition should exclude non-essentials.
Conciseness: The definition should be as concise as possible.
Clarity: The definition should be clear and unambiguous.
AI is nothing but an algorithm, 1 & 0’s that is all. Now stop trying to apply crap to AI that simple doesn’t. Go do some research by yourself and learn the difference between ANNs/SNNs and a human brain because I’m not your god damn teacher.
I’ve lost all interest in this conversation, stay confused.
So culture is literally everything. Every human action within a society is part of the culture of the society. So I can say something like “the USA has a communistic culture” while the USA is by far more capitalistic than communistic and that sounds like your definition of culture makes the word mean nothing.
Yeah a good definition defines what is needed and not more, but your definitions don’t define the essentials.
You are confusing my challenge again. My argument isn’t that there aren’t currently no differences or that those differences will ever disappear. My argument is how and why do those differences matter in identifying whether or not they are conscious. Which is important and essential in understanding consciousness because it is literally about what is.
I am not confused but you seemed easily confused over my criticm of your poorly expressed views and ideas (and art).
I already disagree with art being a medium of express of ideas or emotions. Art might have been constructed with an idea and even with emotions but the artist might not try to express them at all. Additionally, if I would agree with you, then I have following question. if the art piece produced by someone in a society is expressing an idea, e.g. pedophilia is great, is that idea now part of the culture of the society? How many people need to agree? It should be irrelevant in your opinion otherwise art isn’t part of culture unless enough people agree with the idea in the art piece. Also if you want to argue that it is not art, there isn’t really an agreement of what art is. Famously so. So yeah, you can argue about that it wouldn’t be art but then you would disagree with yourself and you would have to provide a working definition for art.
So your definition of consciousness wasn’t precise enough and you had to express your actual idea more clearly. Strange, it is almost as if having a conceptual idea of something and being able to express it well are too different things. So you caught on to my point about ai but you failed to see it to the end. Yeah a current ai wouldn’t be understood by people as conscious but my point was to express that you have to draw a line about what is conscious and what is not. Which is why I picked a face recognition camera. It is literally like saying, “if you think animals can be eaten, then are you eating human?”, obviously the person doesn’t expect you to eat humans. It is a rhetorical question. The real question would be “what is the difference between humans and animals? And why does it justify eating them?”. In this case, At which position does the meaty neural network that is my brain become conscious and different than the neural network in a program? Where is the line? Without that line your definition is vague and people will maybe agree with your definition without agreeing with your conceptual idea that you try to express. In other words, your definition doesn’t work. I really had to spoon feed you that one? Using 🤦♂️when you aren’t even able to understand rhetorical questions.
If you think you have now defined the difference between an ai and a human, why humans are and ai is not conscious. Your Wakefulness definition isn’t making it clear when you would grant something the title of consciousness. I mean when is something wakeful or is actually perceiving the world. (I mean interact with the world is obviously already the case, chatgtp has written poor legal defenses and cause some good laughter, there are cyber security ai products that try to identify and report attacks on a network,…). At which point does “detecting Malware” become “perceiving Malware”? That was my point. So you haven’t answered it at all.
Piss Jesus is Art, the message itself & if people agree with it or not is completely irrelevant. Art is just as I said previously. Enough said.
Here are some criteria for a good definition:
Focus: The definition should exclude non-essentials.
Conciseness: The definition should be as concise as possible.
Clarity: The definition should be clear and unambiguous.
AI is nothing but an algorithm, 1 & 0’s that is all. Now stop trying to apply crap to AI that simple doesn’t. Go do some research by yourself and learn the difference between ANNs/SNNs and a human brain because I’m not your god damn teacher.
I’ve lost all interest in this conversation, stay confused.
So culture is literally everything. Every human action within a society is part of the culture of the society. So I can say something like “the USA has a communistic culture” while the USA is by far more capitalistic than communistic and that sounds like your definition of culture makes the word mean nothing.
Yeah a good definition defines what is needed and not more, but your definitions don’t define the essentials.
You are confusing my challenge again. My argument isn’t that there aren’t currently no differences or that those differences will ever disappear. My argument is how and why do those differences matter in identifying whether or not they are conscious. Which is important and essential in understanding consciousness because it is literally about what is.
I am not confused but you seemed easily confused over my criticm of your poorly expressed views and ideas (and art).