Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Blakut t1_j9k4ur3 wrote

Reply to comment by Disastrous_Nose_1299 in [Discussion] Exploring the Black Box Theory and Its Implications for AI, God, and Ethics by Disastrous_Nose_1299

Well, if a function takes any input and gives you only one output, what are you going to do with it? How useful is a logic like the one above? What is the connection with the AI part anyway, since we're not here to debate if god exists in black holes?

The better argument would go:
- does god exist?
- idk, but i see no proof of him existing, so i don't think so.
- what if he is in a black hole?
- prove it.

2

Disastrous_Nose_1299 OP t1_j9k583y wrote

Can you explain what it means "if a function takes any input and gives you only one output," and also what it has to do with AI because we cannot tell if AI is conscious, even if it is because we cannot read minds. This is furthermore a possibility because there are things about AI that are not well understood therefore within what we don't understand (like a black hole) it is possible AI is sentient (god).

0

Blakut t1_j9k67q9 wrote

>Can you explain what it means "if a function takes any input and gives you only one output,"

The argument you give takes any input, god, santa, aliens, a basketball, and gives the same answer, i.e. result. Not hard to look at it like a function.

>AI because we cannot tell if AI is conscious, even if it is because we cannot read minds.

But then how do you know another person is conscious? You cannot read their mind either.

>This is furthermore a possibility because there are things about AI that are not well understood therefore within what we don't understand (like a black hole)

See, this is the problem, you conflate not understood with forever hidden from view (if we assume some things about black holes). Just because it's not understood doesn't mean it's not understandable.

> AI is sentient (god).

what?

2

Disastrous_Nose_1299 OP t1_j9k7big wrote

"The argument you give takes any input, god, santa, aliens, a basketball, and gives the same answer, i.e. result. Not hard to look at it like a function."

I think it is well worth the fact that it suggests god can exist. It gives hope to those who think god cannot exist and want god to be able to exist.

"But then how do you know another person is conscious? You cannot read their mind either."

This is valid criticism; however, I fail to see how I should respond, i could say something like, "No, it is obvious that you cannot read other people's minds," which would suggest that we don't know if other people are conscious. Or i could say it is obvious that other people are conscious, and then i would fall into the trap I created.

"See, this is the problem, you conflate not understood with forever hidden from view (if we assume some things about black holes). Just because it's not understood doesn't mean it's not understandable."

I think this is valid criticism. In the future it may be understood what is behind a black hole, and this frame of this argument will be useless.

AI is sentient (god).

what?

Im sorry you misunderstood, i didn't do very well of explaining what i meant i now see that its funny because it looks like i am saying Ai is god, however i am comparing black holes and god to the mystery surrounding ai and sentience.

​

"

1

Blakut t1_j9k875d wrote

>I think it is well worth the fact that it suggests god can exist. It gives hope to those who think god cannot exist and want god to be able to exist.

If you think god cannot exist, turning to black holes won't change your mind i'm afraid. In any case, this debate has no place here.

>i am comparing black holes and god to the mystery surrounding ai and sentience.

Well, I'm not sure what mystery you're talking about regarding AI. There's tons of complexity, in the human brain, and, presumably, in a general AI too. I'm not really sure that black holes are even a good comparison here. There are other things that are also unkowable, by default, like the position and momentum of a particle, and that's just how nature works in that case. However, nothing i know of so far suggests there is something inherently unknowable about AI.

1

Disastrous_Nose_1299 OP t1_j9k8vz8 wrote

I understand that this tangent has gone off topic, and as for the second paragraph, i am not saying that something needs to be unknowable to suggest the possibility that something can exist. It just means that we don't know yet.

1

Blakut t1_j9k9cmx wrote

we don't know yet is a much clear thing to say than all the statements above tho.

1

Disastrous_Nose_1299 OP t1_j9k9joi wrote

i have to say all of the statements above to people who people who wouldn't believe what you say.

0

Disastrous_Nose_1299 OP t1_j9k5f2b wrote

I'm glad we're having this conversation. I really wanted to talk about what I think. Thank you for taking some time out of your day to talk to me.

1

Disastrous_Nose_1299 OP t1_j9k5n5f wrote

this is flawed because it ignores the idea that rather than needing to be proved, it is a virtue in its own that god is a possibility.

0

Blakut t1_j9k6jdn wrote

I don't understand what you mean. If you take away the need to prove statements, then the truth value of a statement is meaningless. Contradictory statements have equal value in this kind of world.

3

Disastrous_Nose_1299 OP t1_j9k82y8 wrote

It is true currently, because what I am saying is that God has the possibility of existing. This truth stands strong because, using this logic, it is difficult to disprove the existence of God. (I do not believe in god but i like this thought experiment)

1

Blakut t1_j9k8y0f wrote

>It is true currently, because what I am saying is that God has the possibility of existing. This truth stands strong because, using this logic, it is difficult to disprove the existence of God.

And i can equally say that the same thing about absolutely anything. Even about anti-god, a thing of opposite charge of god that if it exists would annihilate with god and create two gamma rays. I can say that that our universe is one where god doesn't exist, and those would be equally hard to disprove. So by this logic, anything is true at the same time, 0 = 1 etc. Makes little sense to me.

2

Disastrous_Nose_1299 OP t1_j9k9f3t wrote

Yes, it's true that god might not exist. But the point i am trying to make is that it is a possibility that God exists. This argument is for people who say it is impossible for God to exist. the argument saying that it is like saying 0=1 is unfair because we have enough to definitively prove that 0 does not equal one making it different than what I am saying, we do not have enough evidence to suggest that god exists or does not exist in a black hole.

1

Blakut t1_j9ka6sn wrote

>But the point i am trying to make is that it is a possibility that God exists.

Ok, but you are going about it the wrong way. The possibility of god existing or not is irrelevant to what we can know about his existence. If something is unkowable, then any categorical statements about it are invalid. Yes, we can consider the possibility, but if you can't ever tell if it's true or not, this approach makes no sense.

>we do not have enough evidence to suggest that god exists or does not exist in a black hole.

And what i'm saying is that since we will never have that evidence, no matter what, it is pointless to approach the problem from this angle.

2

Disastrous_Nose_1299 OP t1_j9kai85 wrote

"Ok, but you are going about it the wrong way. The possibility of god existing or not is irrelevant to what we can know about his existence. If something is unkowable, then any categorical statements about it are invalid. Yes, we can consider the possibility, but if you can't ever tell if it's true or not, this approach makes no sense.

we do not have enough evidence to suggest that god exists or does not exist in a black hole.

And what i'm saying is that since we will never have that evidence, no matter what, it is irrelevant to approach the problem from this angle."

I respect your position, but this is where we are going to have to agree to disagre, Ive got to shovel some ones drive way. It was nice talking to you.

1