Bringing physically or mentally disabled people into the discussion does not add or prove anything, I think we both agree they understand and experience the world as they are conscious beings.

This has, as usual, descended into a discussion about the word "understanding". We differ in that I actually do consider it mystical to some degree as it is poorly defined and implies some aspect of consciousness to myself and others.

Your definitions are remarkably vague and lack clear boundaries.

That's language for you I'm afraid, it's a tool to convey concepts that can easily be misinterpreted. As I've previously alluded to, this comes down to definitions and you can't really argue your point without reducing complexity of how living things experience the world.

I'm not overstating anything (it's difficult to overstate the complexities of the mind), but I can see how it could be interpreted that way given your propensity to oversimplify all aspects of a conscious being.

This is an argument from incredulity, repeatedly asserting that neural networks lack "true" understanding without any explanation or evidence. This is a personal belief disguised as a logical or philosophical claim. If a neural network can reliably connect images with their meanings, even for unseen examples, it demonstrates a level of understanding on its own terms.

The burden of proof here rests on your shoulders and my view is certainly not just a personal belief, it's the default scientific position. Repeating my point about the definition of "understanding" which you failed to counter does not make it an agrument from incredulity.

If you offer your definition of the word "understanding" I might be able to agree as long as it does not evoke human or even animal conscious experience. There's literally no evidence for that and as we know, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[–] Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Bringing physically or mentally disabled people into the discussion does not add or prove anything, I think we both agree they understand and experience the world as they are conscious beings.

This has, as usual, descended into a discussion about the word “understanding”. We differ in that I actually do consider it mystical to some degree as it is poorly defined and implies some aspect of consciousness to myself and others.

I'd appreciate it if you could share evidence to support these claims.

That’s language for you I’m afraid, it’s a tool to convey concepts that can easily be misinterpreted. As I’ve previously alluded to, this comes down to definitions and you can’t really argue your point without reducing complexity of how living things experience the world.

What definitions? Cite them.

I’m not overstating anything (it’s difficult to overstate the complexities of the mind), but I can see how it could be interpreted that way given your propensity to oversimplify all aspects of a conscious being.

Explain how I’m oversimplifying, don’t simply state that I’m doing it.

The burden of proof here rests on your shoulders and my view is certainly not just a personal belief, it’s the default scientific position. Repeating my point about the definition of “understanding” which you failed to counter does not make it an agrument from incredulity.

I've already provided my proof. I apologize if I missed it, but I haven't seen your proof yet. Show me the default scientific position.

If you offer your definition of the word “understanding” I might be able to agree as long as it does not evoke human or even animal conscious experience. There’s literally no evidence for that and as we know, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I've already shared it previously, multiple times. Now, I'm eager to hear any supporting information you might have.

If you have evidence to support your claims, I'd be happy to consider it. However, without any, I won't be returning to this discussion.

[–] Redacted@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I'd appreciate it if you could share evidence to support these claims.

Which claims? I am making no claims other than AIs in their current form do not fully represent what most humans would define as a conscious experience of the world. They therefore do not understand concepts as most humans know it. My evidence for this is that the hard problem of consciousness is yet to be solved and we don't fully understand how living brains work. As stated previously, the burden of proof for anything further lies with yourself.

What definitions? Cite them.

The definition of how a conscious being experiences the world. Defining it is half the problem. There are no useful citations as you have entered the realm of philosophical debate which has no real answers, just debates about definitions.

Explain how I’m oversimplifying, don’t simply state that I’m doing it.

I already provided a precise example of your reductionist arguing methods. Are you even taking the time to read my responses or just arguing for the sake of not being wrong?

I've already provided my proof. I apologize if I missed it, but I haven't seen your proof yet. Show me the default scientific position.

You haven't provided any proof whatsoever because you can't. To convince me you'd have to provide compelling evidence of how consciousness arises within the mind and then demonstrate how that can be replicated in a neural network. If that existed it would be all over the news and the Nobel Prizes would be in the post.

If you have evidence to support your claims, I'd be happy to consider it. However, without any, I won't be returning to this discussion.

Again, I don't need evidence for my standpoint as it's the default scientific position and the burden of proof lies with yourself. It's like asking me to prove you didn't see a unicorn.