Google engineer put on leave after saying AI chatbot has become sentient
| If it was possible to send information indirectly from A to C by passing through B, where A and C are on opposite sides of an event horizon relative to each other, but neither A relative to B nor B relative to C are, then it would be possible to send information faster than light. |
It would be a matter of timing. When the light left its source, it would not have been outside the horizon of the planet. It has to travel a greater distance than first measured since space expands, but it was able to make it. No information from that planet can then go back to the original source since it is now past the horizon. Hence, no information would travel faster than light.
Though I do see the point.
| Says... the Wikipedia article on quantum entanglement, and every other source I've read on the subject? |
You must be misreading. We can't use quantum entanglement to communicate faster than light because we don't yet know how we could do so.
However, the entangled particles themselves do somehow share information faster than light.
@7:38
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFozGfxmi8A
OR
https://futurism.com/chinese-physicists-measure-speed-of-quantum-entanglement-2
https://quantumxc.com/blog/is-quantum-communication-faster-than-the-speed-of-light/
The quantum particles themselves are somehow communicating at faster than light speeds.
| The quantum world is weird, man |
Exactly why you can't say with any certainty that everything is predetermined. If quantum particles obey quantum mechanics and not the laws of classical physics that normal particles do - that itself would be a pretty fascinating emergent property!
Quantum Eraser, I love Fermilab! :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8gQ5GNk16s
| That experiment leads me to believe all current interpretations of QM are wrong. |
There are no interpretations to be made. Entangled particles act as if they share information rather than there being any hidden variables. This means the information speed is faster than light.
What that has to do with anything else is up for interpretation.
| Since they're abstractions created by humans derived empirically and not from first principles, no, it does not mean that. |
If the rules are actually true, then they must.
| For example, physics does not obey Newtonian mechanics at very high speeds, nor at very small scales. |
Then Newtonian Mechanics is incomplete or flawed in some other way.
But if there is no case in which a rule is ever broken, then undoubtedly it must be true, even if achieved through abstraction.
| What prompts the question "how can there be a physical explanation for consciousness"? |
Specifically that we don't know how it comes about. Consciousness is an emergent property that comes out of complexity. If you don't know how consciousness works and your physical laws/theories are incomplete, it seems a tad jumpy to assume determinism is real and "true" emergent properties don't exist.
| To explain consciousness you don't need to do it at the subatomic level |
Again, is it a computational barrier - that you can't compute all the particles to adequately explain consciousness. Or would you run into an issue where there is no explanation to be found studying the particles themselves without considering higher level concepts? Again - emergent properties.
| Because free will contradicts determinism and causality |
So does quantum mechanics, yet that doesn't seem to shake your foundation - even though that is clear empirical evidence.
Again, even though determinism seems functional in theory. Since you have no idea where you'd even begin in practice, you may find a crucial error that makes it simply impossible - even with infinite resources and an alternate universe to run the simulation.
As we already know, trying to simulate the universe in the universe would create a paradox. But also, having another universe to run the calculations means that information can go between the two universes - which again would mean calculating determinism is impossible.
The impossibility of practical application of the theory creates holes. If the universe's outcomes can be determined, but trying to determine it is impossible, that is a direct contradiction.
You may argue, then, that any method of trying to determine the future is impossible, not the actual act of determining. But that is one in the same. If there's no way to get to X, X is unattainable.
| In that case, our will would be non-deterministic but not necessarily free |
What is "free"? Free should be the ability to make decisions as you see fit. If your brain works on some kind of programming, and the programming allows for the rise of desires, and those desires along with logic and reasoning are compiled by your conscious mind in order to produce decisions.. is this not the very basis of free will?
If this system that we call free will is determinable, does that mean there was no free will Or that the system of free will is simply predictable? If free will is predictable because it's processes have predictable outputs for predictable inputs, that doesn't mean you don't have free will. Yet it is still a deterministic system because it couldn't have happened any other way.
| A rock "decides" to stay firmly on the ground using the exact same mechanisms that you "decide" to be unconvinced by my arguments. Neither ever had the option to do anything else |
Or, you freely chose to be unconvinced of my arguments. If the rock had the mechanisms to move about but no desire to, it wouldn't. But if it had the desire to, it would. We don't control our desires and we didn't invent the laws of logic, however we use both in order to make our decisions - hence why our decisions may theoretically be determinable. But they were our decisions non-the-less.
However, even if non-determinable, that wouldn't imply free will as you've said.
It may very well be similar to consciousness. You cannot prove to anyone other than yourself that you are conscious. If you somehow could "prove" consciousness in the mind through science, it would be very interesting what would happen if you moved the logic over to electronics.
If the logic of the circuitry perfectly correlates to the logic of the brain yet produces no consciousness (may pretend to be conscious yet not truly), then consciousness would truly be an emergent property of biology that when reduced to pure physics and logic (which is what a computer is), becomes unreproducible. I myself think a machine could possibly gain sentience, but I wouldn't bet any money.
| I've been trying to figure out how to respond to this for the past ten minutes. |
It amuses me how my output data is affecting your internal physical structures <3. When are we getting married again?
| That must mean that what you call your free will could hypothetically be caused purely by physics, right? Okay, then I must ask: in what sense of the word is your will "free"? |
Of course, we are arguing two things at once, determinability and whether or not that implies there's no free will.
Under the assumption of deterministic views, your free will would be the ability of your conscious mind to exert influence over your thoughts, behaviors, and decisions. We already know this is the case, or else we wouldn't be talking about it.
| What's the least complex thing that has free will? |
That's complicated. Even if we assumed free will must exist, it would still be complicated. Dogs and cats would have free will to some extent. The higher the intellect, the higher level of thoughts the conscious mind can produce, hence the greater influence it can exert.
Anything with a consciousness would have the capacity for free will given the proper wirings (imagine evolution creating free will that is cut off from the rest of the brain!) and intelligence.
Last edited on
Apologies. It's been one hell of a week. Shortly: buy carbon monoxide detectors.
That "if" is doing quite a lot of load-bearing.
And in this case, that "no" is the load-bearer. When should we consider that we've examined all cases? How could we know there aren't any unknown unknowns?
Like I said, determinism cannot be supported by evidence. Determinism can only inform our interpretation of the evidence. "Given this evidence and determinism, what theory can we come up with that explains all data?"
That aside, that consciousness reduces to the same physical interactions that rule all other phenomena in the universe is the parsimonious position. To believe in emergentism requires making more assumptions.
I personally don't believe QM is the most correct model possible of the nano- and pico-scale world.
Determinism is a mataphysical assumption, not a theory.
Yes, the fact that you can rephrase it that way makes the concept meaningless.
So, in this hypothetical scenario, we've developed a method to detect subjective experience (a.k.a. qualia) in an objective way and found that we can make machines that behave exactly like humans but have no qualia (a.k.a. electronic philosophical zombies), and therefore we conclude that biology is necessary for qualia.
Given this scenario, my first question would be, how would this method work? If consciousness happens only at a higher level than physics, the method would necessarily have to be biological. Say, a species of bacteria that glows green when placed on the skin of a conscious person. If that's the case, how is it any wonder that it didn't work on an electronic circuit?
If the method is physical, for example by detecting patterns of electrical signals, then that would mean that qualia do happen at the physical level and therefore should be emulatable.
I don't believe philosophical zombies are possible, by the way. And how could you possibly know that your method to test for qualia is accurate when it's your only source of such information?
It's because you're using "free will" in the legal sense. If I threaten you to kill you and your family unless you do what everything I tell you exactly like I tell you, you don't have "free will". If your thoughts and decisions are entirely caused by the physics of the universe, you don't have free will.
What's the difference between my conscious mind and my thoughts? And I don't believe people have the ability to change their behavior "at will". If that was the case, there would be no addicts and no fatties.
It's unclear to me how you're able to assert this.
Say, a cockroach. Neurologically it's a pretty simple being, right? It senses light, and it runs away in some direction until it can't sense light anymore. It's a really simple decision-making process. In what way is it less free than the decisions a person makes? It's simpler, yes, it uses much less information and it processes it less to arrive at a conclusion, but how is it less free?
| If the rules are actually true, then they must. |
| But if there is no case in which a rule is ever broken, then undoubtedly it must be true, even if achieved through abstraction. |
| If you don't know how consciousness works and your physical laws/theories are incomplete, it seems a tad jumpy to assume determinism is real and "true" emergent properties don't exist. |
That aside, that consciousness reduces to the same physical interactions that rule all other phenomena in the universe is the parsimonious position. To believe in emergentism requires making more assumptions.
| So does quantum mechanics, yet that doesn't seem to shake your foundation - even though that is clear empirical evidence. |
| The impossibility of practical application of the theory creates holes. |
| Or, you freely chose to be unconvinced of my arguments. If the rock had the mechanisms to move about but no desire to, it wouldn't. |
| It may very well be similar to consciousness. You cannot prove to anyone other than yourself that you are conscious. If you somehow could "prove" consciousness in the mind through science, it would be very interesting what would happen if you moved the logic over to electronics. If the logic of the circuitry perfectly correlates to the logic of the brain yet produces no consciousness (may pretend to be conscious yet not truly), then consciousness would truly be an emergent property of biology that when reduced to pure physics and logic (which is what a computer is), becomes unreproducible. |
Given this scenario, my first question would be, how would this method work? If consciousness happens only at a higher level than physics, the method would necessarily have to be biological. Say, a species of bacteria that glows green when placed on the skin of a conscious person. If that's the case, how is it any wonder that it didn't work on an electronic circuit?
If the method is physical, for example by detecting patterns of electrical signals, then that would mean that qualia do happen at the physical level and therefore should be emulatable.
I don't believe philosophical zombies are possible, by the way. And how could you possibly know that your method to test for qualia is accurate when it's your only source of such information?
| Of course, we are arguing two things at once, determinability and whether or not that implies there's no free will. |
| your free will would be the ability of your conscious mind to exert influence over your thoughts, behaviors, and decisions. We already know this is the case, or else we wouldn't be talking about it. |
| That's complicated. Even if we assumed free will must exist, it would still be complicated. Dogs and cats would have free will to some extent. The higher the intellect, the higher level of thoughts the conscious mind can produce, hence the greater influence it can exert. |
Say, a cockroach. Neurologically it's a pretty simple being, right? It senses light, and it runs away in some direction until it can't sense light anymore. It's a really simple decision-making process. In what way is it less free than the decisions a person makes? It's simpler, yes, it uses much less information and it processes it less to arrive at a conclusion, but how is it less free?
Last edited on
| Shortly: buy carbon monoxide detectors |
Jesus, don't die. I haven't proposed yet.
| That "if" is doing quite a lot of load-bearing. |
You can't overlook it if it's reasonably possible.
Even if we assume we make a more practical future-computing device, it would still never be right about human behavior without accounting for its own effects - which is impossible.
So a machine without infinite resources, while unreliable, may sometimes be right, but even then due to the paradoxical nature of the machine it will never be right about human behavior - even if you choose to do what it predictions, your behavior will be altered.
So again, there are lots of reasons why trying to actually put the theory to the test would end up with a failed theory.
If a computer with infinite resources wanted to predict the universe from the Big Bang (while disregarding itself), no problem. It can openly display its results with no issue. Other creations don't have the capacity to alter the future.
But as soon as a specific bundle of atoms with consciousness see it 14 billion years later, suddenly it is a problem and the computer can no longer determine the future to any certainty without taking itself into account which causes a paradox.
| That aside, that consciousness reduces to the same physical interactions that rule all other phenomena in the universe is the parsimonious position |
The issue is that believing in free will was the parsimonious position to begin with because you feel it! Whether or not this allows for determinism is a bigger question.
Determinism itself is hard to support. If you take that idea down to quantum mechanics with super determinism, you get the idea that there are infinite universes.
| Determinism is a mataphysical assumption, not a theory. |
I'm not using strict language. It's an assumption that QM brings into question and emergent properties would obliterate if found to be real.
The bigger issue is that, even without being able to predict or explain properties we see using just atoms, the physicalist assumes they must be able to do so. Physics has only been studying systems that DON'T use thoughts and consciousness but then assume the rules can't be different in the complicated system.
They could be right, but to assume it must be true is going too far with current knowledge.
| If consciousness happens only at a higher level than physics, the method would necessarily have to be biological. |
That's a good point. And so far, the only thing we can know for sure is, "I think therefore I am". But perhaps there can be a logical property of consciousness that is measurable and we'd expect to find in circuitry as well.
Can't really answer this one when we know so little about consciousness.
| If that's the case, how is it any wonder that it didn't work on an electronic circuit? |
If the slime detects consciousness, why wouldn't it work on electronics with consciousness? If it only works on living organisms, then sure, but that's a condition that we'd try to remove.
| If the method is physical, for example by detecting patterns of electrical signals, then that would mean that qualia do happen at the physical level and therefore should be emulatable. |
Not necessarily. You may find patterns of electrical signals consistent with consciousness. Not irreproducible when absent consciousness, but we know must be there for there to be consciousness.
Essentially, since we cannot prove consciousness, we'd have to strive to prove the contradiction. And if many logical and evidence based attempts fail to disprove consciousness, we'd logically have to accept a high probability that conscious was indeed reproduced.
| I don't believe philosophical zombies are possible, by the way |
Would it not be possible to produce an AI so sophisticated that it acted as if it had consciousness when it really didn't?
| It's because you're using "free will" in the legal sense |
Perhaps I'm a lawyer in a parallel universe. Again, I'm saying free will is the ability for your conscious mind to compile the relevant feelings, knowledge, and logic in order to make a decision.
This is unlike a computer - which no matter how much you threatened to kill its transistors would not change its decisions. It only takes orders and has no capacity for thought.
It's not like forcing someone to do something takes away their free will - they still have the capacity for free will. You've simply made it so their free will in that situation is predictable to the level of even our limited computing power by altering the situation and limiting their options.
| What's the difference between my conscious mind and my thoughts? |
Some thoughts are produced by the unconscious mind. Conscious mind = thoughts, but not vice versa.
| And I don't believe people have the ability to change their behavior "at will". If that was the case, there would be no addicts and no fatties. |
Then their "will" wasn't influential enough to overcome the other desires and temptations. You may want to lose weight, but you probably want to eat the Twinkie and watch T.V. more so. When you made a decision, you favored temporary relaxation over long term fulfillment.
In fact, when your feelings are strong enough, but you know logic is completely against those feelings, you may settle for pseudo-logic. A more logical oriented person will do the opposite - accept the logic and try to shift their feelings in a way to conform to the logic instead.
| It's simpler, yes, it uses much less information and it processes it less to arrive at a conclusion, but how is it less free? |
That's an easy one. By the very definition of free will I gave, it's less free. Free will is the ability of your conscious mind to assert itself in thoughts, feelings, and decision making. The less intelligent you are, the less capacity you have to do exactly that.
This is not a new idea - this is the very reason people can get away with murder legally - we decide they do not have the cognitive functionality available to actually make their own decision.
| I personally don't believe QM is the most correct model possible of the nano- and pico-scale world |
Quantum Mechanics is not a model - its a body of facts. For example, the quantum eraser shows a measurement in the future can affect a measurement in the past.
The two bodies of thought is either this:
Causality does not apply to quantum particles - so the future can change the past.
OR
Super determinism says the universe split into several, one where you measured it (a new universe for every way you could have done so) and one where you didn't, and the photon assumed every possible state, becoming just one of those states in every new universe.
So how'd you'd measure it was predetermined, and you can actually predict the future of how you'd measure it by seeing the measurement of the other photon.
In fact, there's this article:
https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2019/09/21/the-notorious-delayed-choice-quantum-eraser/
Which says just that. The interesting idea here is that the author wrote this about the quantum eraser experiment:
| As long as we stored our recording spins carefully and protected them from becoming entangled with the environment, we could have delayed that choice until years later |
However, if you already made the measurement, and the measurement determined that you will measure the other entangled photon one way - then what if years later you decided to measure it a different way?
Under super determinism, this would be impossible...?
If it is possible to delay the actual decision making until after the measurement, then super determinism falls apart because you can make a different decision. There is NOTHING stopping us from doing so - even from a simple deterministic view point.
If you then say, "doing an alternate measurement in the future will then change the measurement you did in the past", then causality is out the window and super determinism doesn't solve the problem that it was claimed to.
The only way out of this one is to say it's impossible to make it so that the decision making can happen after - that the particles must become unentangled if no decision to measure the second particle was made before measuring the first.
ANYWAY - the experiments done are unquestionably true, it's only how you choose to interpret those experiments that give rise to debate.
I don't think we will reach an understanding, when we cannot agree on basic definitions.
I suppose not. This definition of free will is what make sense to me. Wikipedia says:
And I agreed with it until it said unimpeded, since it's impossible to make a decision completely unimpeded. You'd have to be unimpeded from what? Emotions? Logic? You can never truly make an unimpeded decision, but you still make decisions nonetheless.
We can all agree that without consciousness, you can't have free will. From this, logically, free will comes from your ability think and make decisions using your conscious mind.
Other people will attach nonsense to the word "decision", as if implying it can only be a decision if it destroys determinism and obliterates physicalists, while at the same time realizing that you have to hold people accountable for their decisions.. because they knew what they were doing. Two contradictive thoughts. 1984 doesn't start with tyranny, it starts with determinism LMAO.
| Free will is the capacity of agents to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded |
And I agreed with it until it said unimpeded, since it's impossible to make a decision completely unimpeded. You'd have to be unimpeded from what? Emotions? Logic? You can never truly make an unimpeded decision, but you still make decisions nonetheless.
We can all agree that without consciousness, you can't have free will. From this, logically, free will comes from your ability think and make decisions using your conscious mind.
Other people will attach nonsense to the word "decision", as if implying it can only be a decision if it destroys determinism and obliterates physicalists, while at the same time realizing that you have to hold people accountable for their decisions.. because they knew what they were doing. Two contradictive thoughts. 1984 doesn't start with tyranny, it starts with determinism LMAO.
Topic archived. No new replies allowed.