Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

MarkArrows t1_ivg8aua wrote

Reply to comment by Glitched-Lies in Nick Bostrom on the ethics of Digital Minds: "With recent advances in AI... it is remarkable how neglected this issue still is" by Smoke-away

> I'm not wrong with assumptions. That's not an assumption anyways.

https://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/ENGL1311/fallacies.htm

This is literally the very first logical fallacy people run into: I'm right, and I am unable to entertain the notion that I could be wrong.

The point of logical reasoning is to be able to take assumptions you do not believe in, and examine them starting from both sides - A serious attempt, not some pretend strawman. Once you have the full fallout of both sides, right or wrong, you can compare them.

Besides, the very fact that other people don't agree with your assumption in the first place shows you there's something more to it that you're not seeing or that they're not seeing. Whatever logic convinced you, it didn't convince others intuitively. From here, your question should be "Am I the strange one, or are they?" Instead, it seems more like you simply write other people off.

Start from the assumption that you're wrong and explore from that root downwards. It doesn't matter how you're wrong in this case, it's hypothetical. For example, some divinity shows up and tells the world outright that consciousness is a pattern, and computers are able to generate this pattern the same way we are. Or any number of reasons that you can't refute, make up your own if you want. We're interested in the fallout from that branch of logic.

1

Glitched-Lies t1_ivg9geg wrote

It's actually by fact of first order logic of phenomenal, actually. A straight line of reasoning determines it and upon evidence gathering of both empirical differences and not emprerical points. It's like 1+1=2, 1+1+1=3, 1+1+1+1=4 ... In a series ex. Because confusion upon any belief reasoning, as that's not truly belief. Exploring the notion of this being wrong is a waste of time for the explanation above.

1

MarkArrows t1_ivgbxrc wrote

I'm a little impressed at how I show it's literally a logical fallacy to think "I can't be wrong because my argument has convinced myself." And your response is: "My argument has convinced myself, so it's a waste of time to consider alternate arguments."

RNA and DNA work on similar rulesets and determination. If you look at the base point of what makes cells function, you'll find plenty of similarities to mechanical true/false - if/else logic at the bottom of the pole. Everything ends up being math.

We wouldn't consider them conscious, but they are organic. A variation of all these rule-abiding proteins and microorganisms eventually evolved into us.

Thus because machines follow a line of rules right now, there exists a possibility that they build on this until it's complex enough to form an artificial lifeform with consciousness, in the same way we did.

That said, I think it's a lost cause to argue with you. You aren't even able to do the basics of debate, even when it's directly pointed out.

1

Glitched-Lies t1_ivgce1c wrote

I'm not debating it or starting an argument. Or over cells that don't work as comparison because they are not one human being of consciousness.

1

Glitched-Lies t1_ivgclwe wrote

Also, it's not actually a fallacy at all to ignore arguments.

1