Philosophically speaking...

[Andrew LH]

And here’s the problem: there is a universe-sized metaphysical gap between ruling out and ruling in — I can’t rule out that invisible fairies are currently swirling around the room, but I have very little reason to rule it in. I can’t rule out that I am the only thing that exists, but I have very little reason to rule it in. These are reasonable positions to take. Musk, however, rules in that we’re all characters in a video game.

This seems to be the critical error in Musk's argument. However likely he considers the simulation scenario to be, you still have to get beyond vastly more likely and expansive Holmesian/Occamian scenarios to get to his one.

Similarly, @Justin Swanton, I'm afraid I'm not finding your arguments especially convincing.

The Anthropic Principle makes the point that however unlikely conditions are for life to exist in the universe, this universe (which assumes there are other parallel or prior universes) has them since it has sapient living beings able to think about it. But that doesn't mean that this universe has the necessary conditions to generate life, even less to generate intelligent life. That's an assumption.

That IS an assumption, yes, but not an especially challenging one -- since the alternative demands vastly greater assumptions: either an extra-universal creator force, by definition being more complex than a universe incapable of generating life/intelligent life; or (at the very least) a whole other universe that is capable of creating life/int-life (or a God - has to come from somewhere, right?) and transmitting one or the other across an unspecified boundary condition into the universe we can observe life occurring in; either of which has left no apparent traces.

But the second of those (well, both really) just demands extra complexity for the sake of it. Why do we need to make a negating assumption about whether life could be initiated here, when life is here and seems okay with it? How does assuming we needed a prior step help us, when there's no evidence of that step being taken? Also, your bolded this isn't necessary: you can just say "the universe contains DNA-based life-maintaining conditions" without the need to postulate other universes with different set-ups.

You're also happy to criticise other assumptions, but then you just assert your own without offering any kind of foundation for them, which doesn't help. Like the claim that computers/robots/etc. will never be able to achieve intelligence, ending up with this:

The most sophisticated human robot will be able to mimic preprogrammed human responses, nothing more. There's an easy test: start a discussion on some concepts of which the verbal expression has not been entered into the robot's database. It will become very clear very fast that the robot has no idea what you are talking about.
...
If it repeats the phrase when a certain circumstance triggers the response that means nothing. The robot has to prove it can understand intelligent concepts.

But so do you, so does everyone. There's nothing in your robot example that can't also be applied to a human being who lacks a particular "verbal expression". If I ask for your opinion on ingular pherantics, for example, I'd hope you'd admit you have no idea what I'm talking about, and say as much. Are you, therefore, no more than a toaster? What about a five year old who hasn't learned any three syllable words -- philosophical zombie, or simply not yet fully educated? Or the dog who hasn't yet figured out that when you make the sound heerboi you're eager for a face-full of saliva?

For robots/computers/etc., you can't know what future discoveries will achieve, so to claim the impossibility of their achieving intelligence is clearly a flawed position. This is the aspect of Musk's statement that I'm on-board with: that tech is advancing with amazing speed, astounding complexity is both ever closer to our grasp and ever less graspable for having that very nature, and so -- in theory -- reality simulations could very well become "a thing".

But his assumption that accepting the capacity for something barely conceivable to happen means it most likely already has..? Musk is slipping on his own drool, I think. That's only a hop, a skip and a jump away from the old fallacy that conceiving of a greatest possible being (one of whose features would be "existing", as that is greater than "not existing") means such a being must exist (And Therefore We Have A God, Thank You And Goodnight). Nope.

 

[RX-79G]

Adding a layer to the matter -- what if all the aliens have already upgraded into super intelligent AI?

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/th...y-superintelligent-robots?utm_source=vicefbca

If Musk's assumptions on development of simulations and the possibility of real created consciousness are probable, then life elsewhere could all be artificial, more or less.

This could be the answer to the Fermi Paradox, which would be a type of Singularity answer.

 

[Justin Swanton]

Let's take this point by point.

The argument in the first establishes this topic as being inarguable. So, to proceed with the conversation, it would have to be stricken. We have to accept it as possible to create real consciousness without requiring a divine figure.

Not quite. My argument was that a CPU, no matter how sophisticated, cannot create a consciousness in the same way that a lego set, no matter how big, cannot create a living organism. Computing power is and remains an imitation of mathematical calculations. Mathematical calculations are not and can never become consciousness. The argument doesn't rule out a priori another cause for consciousness in the real universe, but it definitely rules out intelligence in a computer-manufactured virtual reality.

However, I'll play devil's advocate... if we take it as given that this is the case, and it really is impossible to create real consciousness, then let's step to the second point.

For the second argument, if we tackle this logically and test the hypothesis that this universe right now is a simulation and that we, sentient things within it, might not really be "from" here...

Presumably, the concept of a "soul" is what's at issue. There is some "otherworldly" thing imbuing the human body/avatar with consciousness. It is not "from" here.

In order to be perceptually ignorant of its otherworldly existence, per earlier point about senses, then while the "soul" is providing consciousness to this simulated body then the perceptual processes available to the "true" body of the soul's origin universe are... shut off? inaccessible? other something thing like that.

The first argument of the impossibility of creating consciousness means, therefore, that consciousness can only be created through whatever the natural means are to the true reality. The consciousness is not ever created to exist only inside this simulated reality -- of necessity, it pre-exists relative to its experience of the simulation. Consciousness is therefore alien to this experience and, effectively, maladapted to the simulation.

All fine.

The sensory apparatus of the soul would thus have its origin in a universe with either similar or dissimilar features to the one it appears to be in, but per the first point, if we are incapable of simulating true consciousness because no technology could ever be powerful enough, then given the observations of the size of this universe -- including the galactic supercluster level to the Planck length -- and the functions of matters within the infinite universe -- including black holes, supercondensates, and quantum entanglement at the least -- then the simulation that is running would have to have infinite processing power yet still not be capable of simulating actual intelligence.

Not infinite, but incredibly high if able to simulate an entire universe.

If infinite processing power were possible, we would of course have to allow the possibility of a created consciousness. "Infinite" in this case would mean "powerful enough to account for absolutely everything." But, given that you're saying no such technology could exist, then there is no way that a simulation of an infinite universe is possible. This simulation would be a finite universe.

True.

Ergo, this reality cannot be a simulation anymore than any technology could create consciousness. Though the human mind is inordinately complex, the universe in its entirety, I would wager, is equally as or more complex than a human mind.

So your first argument invalidates the possibility of the second.

No for two reasons. First, the universe is not infinite, hence its finiteness allows - in theory - for a more complex machine capable of simulating it (not forgetting that the machine projecting the simulation might just be giving us an impression of the universe's hugeness. We can't actually measure the size and distance of all those galaxies).

Secondly, the point about consciousness is not its complexity but its nature. A conscious intelligence is capable of understanding at least simple abstract concepts, the most complex computer is not.

Unless the simulation, of course, really is not "complete" and does not render the universe in its entirety.

In that case, per the above requirement that the simulation receives already-existing consciousnesses, our consciousness' true existence would be perceptually attuned to its own physical perceptual processes from its true existence. The consciousness itself, per the earlier provided argument that sensory input proves reality is real, would then necessarily be "out of place" in the simulation. No matter how closely it appeared to match "real reality," it would never be a "correct" match to the perceptual inputs demanded by the consciousness.

In effect, the conscious mind would by necessity recognize the simulation as unreal, or a simulation.

Sorry, I don't follow the logic of this. When we dream we can be perfectly convinced of the reality of what we dream even though no dream can ever match the sensory detail of the real world, hence of the world supposedly we are properly attuned to perceive.

 

[Justin Swanton]

Similarly, @Justin Swanton, I'm afraid I'm not finding your arguments especially convincing.

Oh dear. Let's see if I can improve things.

That IS an assumption, yes, but not an especially challenging one -- since the alternative demands vastly greater assumptions: either an extra-universal creator force, by definition being more complex than a universe incapable of generating life/intelligent life; or (at the very least) a whole other universe that is capable of creating life/int-life (or a God - has to come from somewhere, right?) and transmitting one or the other across an unspecified boundary condition into the universe we can observe life occurring in; either of which has left no apparent traces.

'Vastly greater assumptions' is also an assumption. Right now the common assumption is that natural, unguided physical processes are able to generate the city-like complexity and organisation of life (including the gigabyte-sized instructions of DNA) - by pure chance. The second assumption is that biological evolution is able by itself to generate human intelligence. The odds of the first are effectively zero. The odds of the second are entirely zero. Any alternative explanation is less unlikely. Where's the assumption in that conclusion?

But the second of those (well, both really) just demands extra complexity for the sake of it. Why do we need to make a negating assumption about whether life could be initiated here, when life is here and seems okay with it? How does assuming we needed a prior step help us, when there's no evidence of that step being taken? Also, your bolded this isn't necessary: you can just say "the universe contains DNA-based life-maintaining conditions" without the need to postulate other universes with different set-ups.

Firstly, this comes from the anthropic principle itself. Second, the problem is that when it comes to life and intelligence/consciousness the proposed causes are simply inadequate for the effects. Granted one can get round the problem of consciousness by denying that the human mind is capable of grasping any immaterial reality. In this optic our thinking is just a play between survival instincts and sensory perceptions. So appreciating music is on exactly the same level as a dog sniffing a bone. Fine, if one likes. All I can say is that that is patently untrue.

You're also happy to criticise other assumptions, but then you just assert your own without offering any kind of foundation for them, which doesn't help.Like the claim that computers/robots/etc. will never be able to achieve intelligence,

Not sure how to reply to this. I said that intelligence involves the mental grasping of abstract/immaterial concepts and cannot be duplicated by the imitative mathematical processing power of a computer. For me it's a first principle - self-evident. A bit like knowing I exist is a first principle. Do I have to prove it?

ending up with this:
But so do you, so does everyone. There's nothing in your robot example that can't also be applied to a human being who lacks a particular "verbal expression". If I ask for your opinion on ingular pherantics, for example, I'd hope you'd admit you have no idea what I'm talking about, and say as much.

Except perhaps that 'ingular pherantics' are made-up words?

Are you, therefore, no more than a toaster? What about a five year old who hasn't learned any three syllable words -- philosophical zombie, or simply not yet fully educated? Or the dog who hasn't yet figured out that when you make the sound heerboi you're eager for a face-full of saliva?

Sorry, let me make it clearer. A robot is capable of sustaining a conversation with humans provided it is already supplied with the necessary phrases to give appropriate responses on cue. But start discussing something new with it - teach it the words as you go along and question it to see if it understands what you are talking about - it needs to find original phrases to formulate its responses - and you will get a very blank robotic face.

For robots/computers/etc., you can't know what future discoveries will achieve, so to claim the impossibility of their achieving intelligence is clearly a flawed position. This is the aspect of Musk's statement that I'm on-board with: that tech is advancing with amazing speed, astounding complexity is both ever closer to our grasp and ever less graspable for having that very nature, and so -- in theory -- reality simulations could very well become "a thing".

I'm as confident that CPUs will never recreate true intelligence no matter how complex they get as I am confident that no matter how big a lego set one has, one will never create life out of it. It's not about processing power, but an entirely different order of activity.[/QUOTE]

 

[RX-79G]

Justin,

Are you aware that you are making non-logical assertions based on your faith, or do you actually believe that simply insisting something is not possible makes it impossible?

I've read everything you've written in this topic, and all of your objections come down something can't happen or isn't a certain way. But all you're offering is that there are these invisible limits that only you can see.

I think a computer could be made to think for the same reason that I believe a Lego set of sufficient complexity could be a living organism. And I think that because there is no logical limit on the shape of life or intelligence. They are concepts that we have only observed once and aren't bounded by our shape.

But there are belief systems that are incompatible with ideas about where and how life and sentience can come from, and the basic buildingblock of belief is faith. Faith answers to no one, faith is not logical and faith cannot be proved empirically. If it could it would stop being faith. I think faith is just fine, but not when it gets substituted for reason in a discussion.

All you need to say is "God would not allow that to happen." It is a cleaner, more honest response than constructing false tautologies and defending them with more of the same. That way no one is confused that there is an actual exchange of ideas, when no idea presented has even a fraction of the power of your faith.

 

[Justin Swanton]

Justin,

Are you aware that you are making non-logical assertions based on your faith, or do you actually believe that simply insisting something is not possible makes it impossible?

I've read everything you've written in this topic, and all of your objections come down something can't happen or isn't a certain way. But all you're offering is that there are these invisible limits that only you can see.

I think a computer could be made to think for the same reason that I believe a Lego set of sufficient complexity could be a living organism. And I think that because there is no logical limit on the shape of life or intelligence. They are concepts that we have only observed once and aren't bounded by our shape.

But there are belief systems that are incompatible with ideas about where and how life and sentience can come from, and the basic buildingblock of belief is faith. Faith answers to no one, faith is not logical and faith cannot be proved empirically. If it could it would stop being faith. I think faith is just fine, but not when it gets substituted for reason in a discussion.

All you need to say is "God would not allow that to happen." It is a cleaner, more honest response than constructing false tautologies and defending them with more of the same. That way no one is confused that there is an actual exchange of ideas, when no idea presented has even a fraction of the power of your faith.

So far I haven't brought God, faith or religion into the picture at all and I'm not going to as there is no need. The topic of the thread is Elon Musk's idea that we are almost certainly virtual reality consciousnesses in a virtual reality universe, created by a superior alien civilisation using computing technology fundamentally similar to our own only exponentially more powerful. My interest is in examining the nature of a CPU's computing ability, the nature of a rational consciousness, and seeing if one is at all able to duplicate the other. The only way IMO that anyone can claim a computer to be capable of creating an intelligence is by reducing intelligence to a refined form of an animal's instinctive reactions to sensory input. So admiring a beautiful sunset or an elegant mathematical equation is exactly the same thing as enjoying a tasty hamburger or having a refreshing swim. Only problem is it isn't.

 

[N. E. White]

I'm going to jump in here. I'm sure to put my foot in my mouth, since I'm not very good with these sorts of discussions, but the way I see it, Justin is hung up on the 'intelligence' thing.

That only humans (with her god-given abilities) can perceive and understand the world and concepts the way humans do.

And he's right.

Only humans can perceive the world the way humans do.

But that doesn't mean any other way of perceiving the world is not sentience, is not consciousness, is not intelligence. To think that humanity's way of thinking and perceiving is the only way to reach...transcendence?...is arrogant and, in my opinion, wrong.

Computers, AIs, animals, etc DO exhibit sentience, consciousness, and intelligence - we just can't recognize it or ignore it (because we don't understand it).

Back to Musk's theory...that we are in a virtual reality of our own design (or someone else's) that mimics reality to such a degree we can't tell the difference, then what does it matter? If we're in a made up world that's just like (or just as complex) as the 'real' world, then run with it.

In other words, just because Musk thinks that, so what? Let him live in his imagination. I'm living in mine.

Just my two cents worth.

 

[RX-79G]

So far I haven't brought God, faith or religion into the picture at all and I'm not going to as there is no need.

You don't need to bring God into it if you don't want to, but your statements about what is or is not possible are statements of faithful belief about currently unknowable limits on reality. You don't have to identify them with any particular system or diety, but the surety of the faith that informs you of things the rest of us can't know is obvious in your arguments.

 

[Edward M. Grant]

The only way IMO that anyone can claim a computer to be capable of creating an intelligence is by reducing intelligence to a refined form of an animal's instinctive reactions to sensory input.

You've basically got three choices:

1. human behaviour is a very complex stimulus/response program. Data goes in, gets processed in a deterministic manner, data comes out. Give the same data to a human in the same state, and you'll get the same response.
2. human behaviour is a very complex stimulus/response program, with random elements. Data goes in, gets processed in a non-deterministic manner, data comes out. Give the same data to a human in the same state, and you'll get different responses each time.
3. human behaviour has nothing to do with the brain, and there's some kind of disembodied 'soul' out there which is pulling the strings (this could also be considered a subset of #2, since the 'soul' could be generating the random input that makes it look like the brain is a purely mechanistic organ).

I don't really see any other options. The VR simulation idea is basically option #3, but doesn't then explain where the 'soul' comes from, and where it exists.

 

[Justin Swanton]

You don't need to bring God into it if you don't want to, but your statements about what is or is not possible are statements of faithful belief about currently unknowable limits on reality. You don't have to identify them with any particular system or diety, but the surety of the faith that informs you of things the rest of us can't know is obvious in your arguments.

Not really. I could be a militant atheist and still produce the same argumentation. The whole thing boils down to this: do we intellectually grasp concepts that cannot be expressed mathematically, or don't we?

Take 'principle' for example. A principle is a real, specific idea. We know what is meant by it. But it doesn't correspond to any concrete object or sensory experience. We don't attach an image to it. It isn't anything physical at all.

Mathematics is a kind of abstraction in that it deals with discrete quantities separated from their objects. So a collection of five bears is considered in mathematics simply as five discrete quantities, distinct entities, with all other defining characteristics ruled out. The relations between the discrete quantities as discrete quantities are then examined and developed (as I understand it). However a concept that abstracts from quantity as well as other characteristics falls out of the domain of mathematics. There is no way of representing 'principle' mathematically since it does not have quantity attached to it. You're in a higher order of abstraction. An entity that can understand that kind of abstraction can be created only by a process that does not depend on mathematics. Notice that there's nothing of God in this. It's not immediately necessary to posit a God as cause of a rational consciousness. Another rational consciousness could be enough to create it.

 

[Andrew LH]

I'm going to make a target of myself, go out on a limb, and state that I don't think Lego is going to be the foundational matter of future life, intelligent or otherwise. @RX-79G, I thought you were on fairly solid ground until you took that step. In the service of a scaling-up of complexity metaphor, I don't think macro-level chunks of inert plastic are going to cut it (not even Lego Technic).

Anyway:

'Vastly greater assumptions' is also an assumption.

Absolutely, it is - but it is a justified assumption: I noted the assertion that life exists in the universe, with the (perhaps unspoken, though it's certainly obvious) acknowledgement that the universe is remarkably complex; the assumption is that life originated here as well, by some no doubt fantastically complex process currently in the process of being better understood; and, from there, it is by definition a vastly greater assumption to claim an alternative process that either involves one or more additional universes of similar or greater complexity, or an extra-universal creator entity which by definition would also be more complex than Just One Universe, not to mention undetectable by material means.

We can point to there being One Universe (until Elon Musk turns it off...). We cannot (yet) point to there being any others, and we can't ever point to there being a God (apart from in our heads). Assuming we need either of those bonuses to explain Thing X makes for a Vastly Greater Assumption than one that does not demand them. If you think that claim is up for debate, then you're not using terms that have any value.

Right now the common assumption is that natural, unguided physical processes are able to generate the city-like complexity and organisation of life (including the gigabyte-sized instructions of DNA) - by pure chance. The second assumption is that biological evolution is able by itself to generate human intelligence.

Well, setting aside the words "pure chance" -- which, I'm afraid, totally undermine your credibility as someone who might know how the principle of evolution actually works -- Yes, that's more or less correct. But it's an assumption in the same sense that a person assumes a falling object will obey the rules specifying our current understanding of gravity. Which is to say, "it's a massive simplification of extremely well studied phenomena, the research into which has borne testable fruit and pointed the way to further research". Yeah, that kind of "assumption".

The odds of the first are effectively zero. The odds of the second are entirely zero. Any alternative explanation is less unlikely. Where's the assumption in that conclusion?

Those three sentences are nothing BUT assumption! Bald assumption, nothing more than your claim that That Is How It Is. Why do we accept them for discussion? You've given no reason for us to do so.

Firstly, this comes from the anthropic principle itself.

Actually, that comes from Wikipedia. Which is a valuable source of information that I personally accept as trustworthy until proven otherwise... but you're playing with semantics if you think the use of "this" in that article is a tacit assertion that the anthropic principle implies other universes do or must exist. It can be interpreted that way, as by the multiverse concept, but all the anthropic principle implies is that there is intelligent life here and it thinks about stuff. No more than that. It's philosophy, not science.

Second, the problem is that when it comes to life and intelligence/consciousness the proposed causes are simply inadequate for the effects. Granted one can get round the problem of consciousness by denying that the human mind is capable of grasping any immaterial reality. In this optic our thinking is just a play between survival instincts and sensory perceptions. So appreciating music is on exactly the same level as a dog sniffing a bone. Fine, if one likes. All I can say is that that is patently untrue.

Your assertions, lacking foundation. You say it is so, you back it up with nothing. It requires a wrecking ball of similar weightiness -- that is, none -- to knock down such a flimsy construction.

Not sure how to reply to this. I said that intelligence involves the mental grasping of abstract/immaterial concepts and cannot be duplicated by the imitative mathematical processing power of a computer. For me it's a first principle - self-evident. A bit like knowing I exist is a first principle. Do I have to prove it?

Comparing YOUR first principle on Issue X to cogito ergo sum doesn't put the two on an equal footing. In this case, Yes, you do have to prove it. Otherwise it's Just WHAT You Think, not THAT You Think.

Except perhaps that 'ingular pherantics' are made-up words?

Now we're getting somewhere! Yes, they are, but it isn't obviously the case (I googled them after I made them up, just in case). The point is that an example of what today's limited technology cannot do today in no way correlates with what tomorrow's unknown technology might do tomorrow. Yet you say "it won't happen, because it can't happen". That is assumption, pure and simple, and the only limits it demonstrates are of your imagination. Limits like these:

I'm as confident that CPUs will never recreate true intelligence no matter how complex they get as I am confident that no matter how big a lego set one has, one will never create life out of it. It's not about processing power, but an entirely different order of activity.

It's nice that you're confident about your assertions, enjoy that. Once again though, I'd suggest that Lego is never going to be the clarifying tool on this issue.

My feeling is that -- like highly complex chemical processes producing the building blocks of biological processes, and biological processes producing the building blocks of intelligent mind-brains -- the potential for advanced technology to produce something so comparable to human intelligence as to be worth of the label "intelligence" itself is at least possible. To deny the bare possibility, as you have repeatedly done, would be... what's the phrase? ...ah yes: "an entirely different order of activity". A worthless one, at least until you offer something beyond your say so.

 

[RX-79G]

Not really. I could be a militant atheist and still produce the same argumentation. The whole thing boils down to this: do we intellectually grasp concepts that cannot be expressed mathematically, or don't we?

Atheism is also a faith. I think your argument come down to the assumption that the substrate that consciousness is "running on" is somehow not something that could be understood mathematically - which is just another way of saying that it couldn't ever be understood by science.

But we ordinarily accept that everything else in our universe can be expressed in terms of mathematical function - whether it is the function and spin of a quark or the structure and function of a protein. Just because a "feeling" doesn't appear to be mathematical in nature doesn't mean that the network of nerves it exists on isn't following all the mathematical laws of physics and chemistry.

You call mathematics an abstraction, but that is from our view as we try to understand nature in our non-mathematical reasoning system. But that doesn't mean the underlying hardware of the the universe ever stops operating on a mathematical substrate.

@RX-79G, I thought you were on fairly solid ground until you took that step. In the service of a scaling-up of complexity metaphor, I don't think macro-level chunks of inert plastic are going to cut it (not even Lego Technic).

Building blocks are building blocks. It might not be technically feasible to build an organism from petroleum bits, but the fundemental rules that govern the Legos aren't of a different kind than the rules that govern chemistry - just the scale. Given enough space and the right interacting energies, Lego topological rules could be the basis of the types of reactions and decision gates that life is made out of. As could the interactions of the charged gas in a nebula, or the nuclear surface of a white dwarf. It's just that some things are much more likely than others.

 

[N. E. White]

Atheism is also a faith.

I wouldn't say that. (Just saying...)

 

[RX-79G]

I wouldn't say that. (Just saying...)

Any system that purports to have the truth about something essentially unknowable is a faith. Atheism is a decision to reject an idea as false on no empiracal evidence. Agnosticism is the term for "I do not know", even if you harbor doubts one way or the other.

Dawkins relies as much on faith to inform his view of the existence of God as the Pope does. Their faiths just come to different conclusions.

 

[Fung Koo]

My argument was that a CPU, no matter how sophisticated, cannot create a consciousness in the same way that a lego set, no matter how big, can create a living organism.

You're mixing terms here, substituting "living organism" for "consciousness" -- is this what we've been missing in your analysis all along?

There is far more evidence to suggest that it would be possible to get a super advanced cpu to "think" than there is to suggest that it absolutely could not. Consider your reflexes -- you whack a tendon/muscle/nerve and your body involuntarily jolts. We can absolutely make a computer do that. It is therefore eminently reasonable to assume that we can fabricate a functioning bodily form that satisfies all of the "requirements" of life. We can make a structure that receives input from and acts on the world, moves purposefully to sustain itself (by acquiring the fuel it needs to survive), contains repair mechanisms that fix damage it sustains and work to prevent damage from occurring, reproduces itself, etc.

We can, without doubt, create a machine that can appear to do everything a living thing can do.

The brain is made of neurons, and neurons are not really all that much more complex than a fairly basic cpu. They receive input from the dendrites and process that information out into the axon. A neuron receives a mix of chemical and electrical signals from other neurons, processes the information it receives, then sends out a signal along the axon to the next neuron in the chain.

Nearly all of the information a neuron receives can be thought of as binary. At the synapse, for the chemical part of the process, neurotransmitters fit into specific receptacles and they are either present or not (on/off). Various combinations of neurotransmitters determine whether or not and how the activation of the neuron (the electric part) happens. This combination of many sort of binary information are processed by the neuron, and it sends out its own activation down the axon to another neuron, along with neurotransmitters that "characterize" that activation.

Nothing in the evidence, biologically speaking, suggests that a compound complex binary processor could not do all the same things as neuronal chains do.

While it is true that no single CPU could produce consciousness, that's a false way of looking at it. Each neuron is a basic CPU by itself. There literally are not as many CPUs in the entire world and its entire history as there are in a single human brain (last I checked the numbers, anyway). There's also something like 10,000 or more different specialized sorts of neurons. Sort of like we need GPUs and CPUs to work together, but lots, lots, lots more than that and really, really, reallllllllly specific processing functions.

So, given the nature of the organic elements that do the processing for us, the technology we have made appears to be capable of reproducing what we do, though it needs scaling up in major levels of magnitude to be able to actually do it anything like us.

If the turning point of this argument is whether or not it is "living," that's a different issue.

Are you saying that "life" is a necessary precondition to consciousness?

In that case I refer you back to the video I posted of that TED Talk for consideration, and also specifically have to wonder if Viruses can be considered alive or not.

 

[Andrew LH]

Building blocks are building blocks.

Indeed, and bricks are a kind of building block, but a house doesn't think and adding more bricks won't change that -- and nor will a really complicated piece of architecture for them to be arranged in. That's not to say that amazing things can't be made out of Lego, of course. But it's a pretty big leap from people making basic computers to thinking arrangements of wind-up plastic. Metaphors can be taken too literally. Not my biggest problem with this corner of the discussion, though!

...the fundemental rules that govern the Legos aren't of a different kind than the rules that govern chemistry...

If you join a red two-er to a blue four-er, do they ever become a yellow six-er? No? Then I think there are some differences in reactions and bonds between Lego and Chemistry...

Atheism is also a faith.

Not really. Unless not watching television is also watching television.

 

[N. E. White]

Dawkins relies as much on faith to inform his view of the existence of God as the Pope does. Their faiths just come to different conclusions.

I respectfully (and vehemently) disagree.

 

[RX-79G]

Indeed, and bricks are a kind of building block, but a house doesn't think and adding more bricks won't change that -- and nor will a really complicated piece of architecture for them to be arranged in. That's not to say that amazing things can't be made out of Lego, of course. But it's a pretty big leap from people making basic computers to thinking arrangements of wind-up plastic. Metaphors can be taken too literally. Not my biggest problem with this corner of the discussion, though!

If you join a red two-er to a blue four-er, do they ever become a yellow six-er? No? Then I think there are some differences in reactions and bonds between Lego and Chemistry...

Not really. Unless not watching television is also watching television.

I was rather assuming that we were taking into account Expert Builder/Technic that has been part of Legos for over 30 years. Or the more complex armatures, wheels, angles and sliders that were around for close to 40 years.

If "television" is having beliefs about the existence of God, then you are watching television when you have them. If you have no beliefs either way, it is rather hard to label oneself one way or the other. The very definition of atheism is in reference to God. It is hard to label something you aren't referring to.

But if you would prefer to confound atheism with agnosticism, it is no matter. But Dawkins is certainly not agnostic in writing a book trying to dispel the unknowable through science.


Which is all a bit different than what Musk is doing. He's citing the possibility of something, and evaluating the relative likelihood of that thing as high. His detractors are largely just saying the likelihood is different and lower. Neither side is making a faith based argument that something "cannot" or "must not" be.

 

[Dawnstorm]

Atheism is also a faith.

I wouldn't say that. (Just saying...)

Neither would I. "Atheism" describes the absence of one type of belief without describing any positive content that can be believed in.

Any system that purports to have the truth about something essentially unknowable is a faith. Atheism is a decision to reject an idea as false on no empiracal evidence. Agnosticism is the term for "I do not know", even if you harbor doubts one way or the other.

Simply rejecting a claim does not require faith. There are atheist systems that allow for faith (secular humanism, for example, or - probably in Dawkins' case - Naturalism), but atheism itself is an empty lable that merely says what you do not believe in. An atheist can hold a belief, but doesn't have to.

Agnosticism is not necessarily a term for "I do not know." There's quite a bit of variety here. My own brand of agnosticism is that the term "God" is a meaningless syllable and unless someone manages to make me see the point of it, I don't have to engage the term in any practical way. The only reason I'm interested in "God" at all is because I like to communicate with people who are theists and they use the term. My atheism rests on my agnosticism: I reject any appeal to God, because they seem to me to be because-I-say-so arguments.

Somewhere there's probably some sort of coherent belief system I follow, but it's implicit, and not accessible to ritual. It's not a faith. In fact, I like doubt. But I don't doubt God's non-existence, and I don't doubt God's non-existence for the same reason that I don't believe in God's existance. It's meaningless. It's wasted energy to bother with God (which is not to say that it's wasted energy to bother with people who believe in God, and to try to understand what it is they believe, but that's complicated).

Dawkins relies as much on faith to inform his view of the existence of God as the Pope does.

Yes, but that's not because he's an atheist but because he's a naturalist (if that's a fair label for what he believes; I'm not an expert on Dawkins). His atheism is only relevant when he talks about theism. His naturalism (see earlier disclaimer) is relevant whatever he does. I'm not convinced he takes to the level of faith, though (he might, I don't know).
***

Two things about mathematical probability:

1. If there are a lot of possible events, and all of them are equally unlikely, then it's certain that the event that occurs is unlikely. Basically, it's very unlikely that you win the lottery, but it's quite likely that someone wins. Also, the more often you roll the dice, the more likely it becomes that the result you want occurs at least once. Something having a likelihood of near zero doesn't matter much, if other events have similar likelihood or are inconsequential.

2. Probability doesn't work if you can't differentiate states in mathematical terms.

 

[N. E. White]

trying to dispel the unknowable

That's where we fundamentally disagree.

There is nothing "unknowable" to dispel.

Someone is making a claim, i.e. a specific god exists or we are in some virtual reality.

There is, as far as we can discern with are current capabilities, no PROOF of either. Some folks just came up with these ideas and foisted them upon the world.

Okay, that's fine. Ideas are great.

But there's no REASON for me to accept their claim. Nor is there anything for me to dispel, because those are just ideas. They're concepts. Because I don't accept those claims does not mean I have some "faith" in the opposite idea. There's nothing "unknowable" to disprove. Rather, the person making the claim should be providing some proof.