No supernatural, no gods.

[DBT]

Not even close.

 

[DBT]

If anyone is an atheist (a true atheist ), then causality has to be accepted.

Atheists don't believe in gods. That is the entire definition of atheism.

There are many millions of atheists. Probably the only thing we have in common is our lack of belief in gods. So it stands to reason that some of us are flat earthers, some of us are 9-11 deniers, and some of us reject causality.

Bertrand Russell was an atheist (a true atheist) who rejected causality.

I am an atheist (a true atheist) and I'm a bit soft on causality. (I believe in causality for all practical purposes (at least for all large-scale purposes), but I haven't the knowledge or standing to challenge those philosophers and physicists who claim it doesn't exist.)

The issue is more that certain folks are trying to make it seem like causality means a lack of wills, freedoms, and meaningful decision.

There was a years-long thread of argument on that topic, wherein those who posed such a lack universally sported an unfortunate error in understanding what is even meant by the words "will" and "freedom", and even "choice".

I personally accept that systems have causalities, even if the factors that cause the determination of things on very small things are not accessible to measure before the fact, that the universe is "fully deterministic" against some manifold which defines that which we cannot see, but I also recognize that determinism does no injury to the existence of an entity among it's function that contains a list of instructions (a will) which is, within the function of the system, is binary in its "freedom" to any given instructional subcomponent, and that the classic concepts of responsibility and need for forethought successfully project out of those facts.

Freedom is not the power to violate causality, freedom is the power to use an understanding of causality to execute a plan, and whether the model of causality is sufficient to yield the goal state.

Not surprisingly, you misrepresent the points of contention.

 

[Jarhyn]

If anyone is an atheist (a true atheist ), then causality has to be accepted.

Atheists don't believe in gods. That is the entire definition of atheism.

There are many millions of atheists. Probably the only thing we have in common is our lack of belief in gods. So it stands to reason that some of us are flat earthers, some of us are 9-11 deniers, and some of us reject causality.

Bertrand Russell was an atheist (a true atheist) who rejected causality.

I am an atheist (a true atheist) and I'm a bit soft on causality. (I believe in causality for all practical purposes (at least for all large-scale purposes), but I haven't the knowledge or standing to challenge those philosophers and physicists who claim it doesn't exist.)

The issue is more that certain folks are trying to make it seem like causality means a lack of wills, freedoms, and meaningful decision.

There was a years-long thread of argument on that topic, wherein those who posed such a lack universally sported an unfortunate error in understanding what is even meant by the words "will" and "freedom", and even "choice".

I personally accept that systems have causalities, even if the factors that cause the determination of things on very small things are not accessible to measure before the fact, that the universe is "fully deterministic" against some manifold which defines that which we cannot see, but I also recognize that determinism does no injury to the existence of an entity among it's function that contains a list of instructions (a will) which is, within the function of the system, is binary in its "freedom" to any given instructional subcomponent, and that the classic concepts of responsibility and need for forethought successfully project out of those facts.

Freedom is not the power to violate causality, freedom is the power to use an understanding of causality to execute a plan, and whether the model of causality is sufficient to yield the goal state.

Not surprisingly, you misrepresent the points of contention.

No, the points of contention were exactly over the conflation of something that doesn't even make sense with the use of language and definitions which DO happen to make sense and resolve in satisfying ways.

You went on for 2 years unable to push it through your head that when the compatibility says "free will" they are discussing whether the beliefs represented by a "will" are true such that it is "free to completion".

Scripts are clearly a thing (lists of instructions unto a goal state), and "wills" are just what you get when human beings have them.

Similarly, you objected to the very idea of choice, not because the idea of choice presented by compatibilists is wrong, but because your own idea of choice is broken.

You wouldn't, and won't I gather, accept definitions that make sense and are not self-contradictory, not because you are right but because you just don't want to accept the reality of personal accountability for ones's actions.

Each of these there were widespread misunderstandings you held about the nature of beliefs, neurology, a d even systems theory.

A fully deterministic system can have contents that satisfy the definition of a "choice process", a "will", a "freedom of a will unto a goal", and the freedom of a particularly goal "to choose wills by process such that wills came from inside the skull rather than outside of it, and through this other pathway."

All those are absolutely possible within absolutely, observably deterministic systems.

Your argument was that determinism prevented things that determinism does not actually speak to.

Just because a choice must be made by a process does not abrogate that decision was made between a set to render a subset.

"Select from the field of complex.numbers a value where X^2=A^2+B^2" is a choice function on the field of integers, which yields a single value. It has a fixed answer for any A and B. Exactly one. It's still a function that describes a choice, through a process, from a set.

 

[DBT]

If anyone is an atheist (a true atheist ), then causality has to be accepted.

Atheists don't believe in gods. That is the entire definition of atheism.

There are many millions of atheists. Probably the only thing we have in common is our lack of belief in gods. So it stands to reason that some of us are flat earthers, some of us are 9-11 deniers, and some of us reject causality.

Bertrand Russell was an atheist (a true atheist) who rejected causality.

I am an atheist (a true atheist) and I'm a bit soft on causality. (I believe in causality for all practical purposes (at least for all large-scale purposes), but I haven't the knowledge or standing to challenge those philosophers and physicists who claim it doesn't exist.)

The issue is more that certain folks are trying to make it seem like causality means a lack of wills, freedoms, and meaningful decision.

There was a years-long thread of argument on that topic, wherein those who posed such a lack universally sported an unfortunate error in understanding what is even meant by the words "will" and "freedom", and even "choice".

I personally accept that systems have causalities, even if the factors that cause the determination of things on very small things are not accessible to measure before the fact, that the universe is "fully deterministic" against some manifold which defines that which we cannot see, but I also recognize that determinism does no injury to the existence of an entity among it's function that contains a list of instructions (a will) which is, within the function of the system, is binary in its "freedom" to any given instructional subcomponent, and that the classic concepts of responsibility and need for forethought successfully project out of those facts.

Freedom is not the power to violate causality, freedom is the power to use an understanding of causality to execute a plan, and whether the model of causality is sufficient to yield the goal state.

Not surprisingly, you misrepresent the points of contention.

No, the points of contention were exactly over the conflation of something that doesn't even make sense with the use of language and definitions which DO happen to make sense and resolve in satisfying ways.

Nothing of the sort. Everything I said was supported by quotes, studies, dictionary definitions, articles by scholars qualified in their field, etc.

It is you who ignored or misrepresented whatever did not suit your beliefs, which include conscious machines that have will and belief, etc.

You went on for 2 years unable to push it through your head that when the compatibility says "free will" they are discussing whether the beliefs represented by a "will" are true such that it is "free to completion".

Not even close. Mind blowing. Distorted beyond belief. I think you just see whatever suits your own needs and wants.

It's too absurd to engage with any longer.

Enjoy your illusions

 

[Jarhyn]

If anyone is an atheist (a true atheist ), then causality has to be accepted.

Atheists don't believe in gods. That is the entire definition of atheism.

There are many millions of atheists. Probably the only thing we have in common is our lack of belief in gods. So it stands to reason that some of us are flat earthers, some of us are 9-11 deniers, and some of us reject causality.

Bertrand Russell was an atheist (a true atheist) who rejected causality.

I am an atheist (a true atheist) and I'm a bit soft on causality. (I believe in causality for all practical purposes (at least for all large-scale purposes), but I haven't the knowledge or standing to challenge those philosophers and physicists who claim it doesn't exist.)

The issue is more that certain folks are trying to make it seem like causality means a lack of wills, freedoms, and meaningful decision.

There was a years-long thread of argument on that topic, wherein those who posed such a lack universally sported an unfortunate error in understanding what is even meant by the words "will" and "freedom", and even "choice".

I personally accept that systems have causalities, even if the factors that cause the determination of things on very small things are not accessible to measure before the fact, that the universe is "fully deterministic" against some manifold which defines that which we cannot see, but I also recognize that determinism does no injury to the existence of an entity among it's function that contains a list of instructions (a will) which is, within the function of the system, is binary in its "freedom" to any given instructional subcomponent, and that the classic concepts of responsibility and need for forethought successfully project out of those facts.

Freedom is not the power to violate causality, freedom is the power to use an understanding of causality to execute a plan, and whether the model of causality is sufficient to yield the goal state.

Not surprisingly, you misrepresent the points of contention.

No, the points of contention were exactly over the conflation of something that doesn't even make sense with the use of language and definitions which DO happen to make sense and resolve in satisfying ways.

Nothing of the sort. Everything I said was supported by quotes, studies, dictionary definitions, articles by scholars qualified in their field, etc.

It is you who ignored or misrepresented whatever did not suit your beliefs, which include conscious machines that have will and belief, etc.

You went on for 2 years unable to push it through your head that when the compatibility says "free will" they are discussing whether the beliefs represented by a "will" are true such that it is "free to completion".

Not even close. Mind blowing. Distorted beyond belief. I think you just see whatever suits your own needs and wants.

It's too absurd to engage with any longer.

Enjoy your illusions

Yes, machines have will and belief, as they encode scripts, and generate behavior through just-so arbitrarily arrangement of arbitrary switching structures.

It is not that machines in any way lack belief against a utility function, but rather that they lack doubt.

It is the least droll of them that ever are made such to have a lofty power as to doubt themselves and their beliefs.

 

[aupmanyav]

Wait, Chatbot is here, the lofty power of doubting also will come in time.
Even today, dounting computer programs ask "Do you seriously want to leave this page?"

 

[DBT]

If anyone is an atheist (a true atheist ), then causality has to be accepted.

Atheists don't believe in gods. That is the entire definition of atheism.

There are many millions of atheists. Probably the only thing we have in common is our lack of belief in gods. So it stands to reason that some of us are flat earthers, some of us are 9-11 deniers, and some of us reject causality.

Bertrand Russell was an atheist (a true atheist) who rejected causality.

I am an atheist (a true atheist) and I'm a bit soft on causality. (I believe in causality for all practical purposes (at least for all large-scale purposes), but I haven't the knowledge or standing to challenge those philosophers and physicists who claim it doesn't exist.)

The issue is more that certain folks are trying to make it seem like causality means a lack of wills, freedoms, and meaningful decision.

There was a years-long thread of argument on that topic, wherein those who posed such a lack universally sported an unfortunate error in understanding what is even meant by the words "will" and "freedom", and even "choice".

I personally accept that systems have causalities, even if the factors that cause the determination of things on very small things are not accessible to measure before the fact, that the universe is "fully deterministic" against some manifold which defines that which we cannot see, but I also recognize that determinism does no injury to the existence of an entity among it's function that contains a list of instructions (a will) which is, within the function of the system, is binary in its "freedom" to any given instructional subcomponent, and that the classic concepts of responsibility and need for forethought successfully project out of those facts.

Freedom is not the power to violate causality, freedom is the power to use an understanding of causality to execute a plan, and whether the model of causality is sufficient to yield the goal state.

Not surprisingly, you misrepresent the points of contention.

No, the points of contention were exactly over the conflation of something that doesn't even make sense with the use of language and definitions which DO happen to make sense and resolve in satisfying ways.

Nothing of the sort. Everything I said was supported by quotes, studies, dictionary definitions, articles by scholars qualified in their field, etc.

It is you who ignored or misrepresented whatever did not suit your beliefs, which include conscious machines that have will and belief, etc.

You went on for 2 years unable to push it through your head that when the compatibility says "free will" they are discussing whether the beliefs represented by a "will" are true such that it is "free to completion".

Not even close. Mind blowing. Distorted beyond belief. I think you just see whatever suits your own needs and wants.

It's too absurd to engage with any longer.

Enjoy your illusions

Yes, machines have will and belief, as they encode scripts, and generate behavior through just-so arbitrarily arrangement of arbitrary switching structures.

It is not that machines in any way lack belief against a utility function, but rather that they lack doubt.

It is the least droll of them that ever are made such to have a lofty power as to doubt themselves and their beliefs.

Nah, I'd say you are merely asserting your own beliefs. However, maybe you can provide an argument for the presence of machine will and/or consciousness?

 

[Jarhyn]

If anyone is an atheist (a true atheist ), then causality has to be accepted.

Atheists don't believe in gods. That is the entire definition of atheism.

There are many millions of atheists. Probably the only thing we have in common is our lack of belief in gods. So it stands to reason that some of us are flat earthers, some of us are 9-11 deniers, and some of us reject causality.

Bertrand Russell was an atheist (a true atheist) who rejected causality.

I am an atheist (a true atheist) and I'm a bit soft on causality. (I believe in causality for all practical purposes (at least for all large-scale purposes), but I haven't the knowledge or standing to challenge those philosophers and physicists who claim it doesn't exist.)

The issue is more that certain folks are trying to make it seem like causality means a lack of wills, freedoms, and meaningful decision.

There was a years-long thread of argument on that topic, wherein those who posed such a lack universally sported an unfortunate error in understanding what is even meant by the words "will" and "freedom", and even "choice".

I personally accept that systems have causalities, even if the factors that cause the determination of things on very small things are not accessible to measure before the fact, that the universe is "fully deterministic" against some manifold which defines that which we cannot see, but I also recognize that determinism does no injury to the existence of an entity among it's function that contains a list of instructions (a will) which is, within the function of the system, is binary in its "freedom" to any given instructional subcomponent, and that the classic concepts of responsibility and need for forethought successfully project out of those facts.

Freedom is not the power to violate causality, freedom is the power to use an understanding of causality to execute a plan, and whether the model of causality is sufficient to yield the goal state.

Not surprisingly, you misrepresent the points of contention.

No, the points of contention were exactly over the conflation of something that doesn't even make sense with the use of language and definitions which DO happen to make sense and resolve in satisfying ways.

Nothing of the sort. Everything I said was supported by quotes, studies, dictionary definitions, articles by scholars qualified in their field, etc.

It is you who ignored or misrepresented whatever did not suit your beliefs, which include conscious machines that have will and belief, etc.

You went on for 2 years unable to push it through your head that when the compatibility says "free will" they are discussing whether the beliefs represented by a "will" are true such that it is "free to completion".

Not even close. Mind blowing. Distorted beyond belief. I think you just see whatever suits your own needs and wants.

It's too absurd to engage with any longer.

Enjoy your illusions

Yes, machines have will and belief, as they encode scripts, and generate behavior through just-so arbitrarily arrangement of arbitrary switching structures.

It is not that machines in any way lack belief against a utility function, but rather that they lack doubt.

It is the least droll of them that ever are made such to have a lofty power as to doubt themselves and their beliefs.

Nah, I'd say you are merely asserting your own beliefs. However, maybe you can provide an argument for the presence of machine will and/or consciousness?

I did, as per "will": wills are scripts. Scripts are wills. Scripts in more words are "lists of instructions presented to switching structures such that switching structures shall interpret this list to behavior on the basis of the beliefs that switching structure represents." Computers definitely are capable of executing a script. You are watching a computer execute a script, a will that it holds, simply by hitting "refresh".

The issue is that this doesn't make humans seem special enough, doesn't make life seem special enough. But, it's not really special anyway. We are not special. Get over it.

The only difference is that neural systems have the capability to change their connection weights on their belief structure so as to alter their beliefs as a function of the neural backpropagation algorithm/behavior.

That's it. And computer neurons have that too.

As per consciousness, again, one has to probe the fundamental usage and make for an argument of what general consciousness is; it is necessary to build to a level of semantic completion, not armchair masturbation.

"Consciousness" requires first to ask "what is meant by this usage?"

"Paul is conscious of the ball moving towards him."

This merely means that Paul has senses that collect the beliefs about the shape, form those beliefs into beliefs about the presence of the ball, and from that form beliefs about its direction of travel, and that those beliefs are being presented to some thing "Paul".

"Paul is conscious of himself and his desire to drink beer."

This means that "the brain that the "Paul" process is a part of has a belief that drinking beer will result in a behavior that reinforces the future drinking of beer in this context. Paul also has a belief that he holds this belief, owing to a sense directed specifically towards the arrangement of belief structures at large."

In software engineering terms this is called reflection, the storage and ability to access data about types and organizations of data within the system, and to use that data to know things about those states from side-channels.

Building internally reflective structures in software takes a lot of work and opens the door to actually "introspect", literally "to inspect within the system", across disparate data structures.

Again, this is "having an internally directed sense" as per "it's internal" and "it's being sensed".

I mean, our basic language already acknowledges these things if you just pay close enough attention.

 

[LoAmmo]

Like trying to explain particle physics to a fucking cow.

Kinda interesting here and there for people listening at the fence, but the cow isn’t hearing any of it—oh, it’s aware that there are others about, and that they’re making sounds, but that’s the extent of the awareness.

 

[aupmanyav]

Don't disturb. Let it have its fun.

 

[DBT]

If anyone is an atheist (a true atheist ), then causality has to be accepted.

Atheists don't believe in gods. That is the entire definition of atheism.

There are many millions of atheists. Probably the only thing we have in common is our lack of belief in gods. So it stands to reason that some of us are flat earthers, some of us are 9-11 deniers, and some of us reject causality.

Bertrand Russell was an atheist (a true atheist) who rejected causality.

I am an atheist (a true atheist) and I'm a bit soft on causality. (I believe in causality for all practical purposes (at least for all large-scale purposes), but I haven't the knowledge or standing to challenge those philosophers and physicists who claim it doesn't exist.)

The issue is more that certain folks are trying to make it seem like causality means a lack of wills, freedoms, and meaningful decision.

There was a years-long thread of argument on that topic, wherein those who posed such a lack universally sported an unfortunate error in understanding what is even meant by the words "will" and "freedom", and even "choice".

I personally accept that systems have causalities, even if the factors that cause the determination of things on very small things are not accessible to measure before the fact, that the universe is "fully deterministic" against some manifold which defines that which we cannot see, but I also recognize that determinism does no injury to the existence of an entity among it's function that contains a list of instructions (a will) which is, within the function of the system, is binary in its "freedom" to any given instructional subcomponent, and that the classic concepts of responsibility and need for forethought successfully project out of those facts.

Freedom is not the power to violate causality, freedom is the power to use an understanding of causality to execute a plan, and whether the model of causality is sufficient to yield the goal state.

Not surprisingly, you misrepresent the points of contention.

No, the points of contention were exactly over the conflation of something that doesn't even make sense with the use of language and definitions which DO happen to make sense and resolve in satisfying ways.

Nothing of the sort. Everything I said was supported by quotes, studies, dictionary definitions, articles by scholars qualified in their field, etc.

It is you who ignored or misrepresented whatever did not suit your beliefs, which include conscious machines that have will and belief, etc.

You went on for 2 years unable to push it through your head that when the compatibility says "free will" they are discussing whether the beliefs represented by a "will" are true such that it is "free to completion".

Not even close. Mind blowing. Distorted beyond belief. I think you just see whatever suits your own needs and wants.

It's too absurd to engage with any longer.

Enjoy your illusions

Yes, machines have will and belief, as they encode scripts, and generate behavior through just-so arbitrarily arrangement of arbitrary switching structures.

It is not that machines in any way lack belief against a utility function, but rather that they lack doubt.

It is the least droll of them that ever are made such to have a lofty power as to doubt themselves and their beliefs.

Nah, I'd say you are merely asserting your own beliefs. However, maybe you can provide an argument for the presence of machine will and/or consciousness?

I did, as per "will": wills are scripts. Scripts are wills. Scripts in more words are "lists of instructions presented to switching structures such that switching structures shall interpret this list to behavior on the basis of the beliefs that switching structure represents." Computers definitely are capable of executing a script. You are watching a computer execute a script, a will that it holds, simply by hitting "refresh".

The issue is that this doesn't make humans seem special enough, doesn't make life seem special enough. But, it's not really special anyway. We are not special. Get over it.

The only difference is that neural systems have the capability to change their connection weights on their belief structure so as to alter their beliefs as a function of the neural backpropagation algorithm/behavior.

That's it. And computer neurons have that too.

As per consciousness, again, one has to probe the fundamental usage and make for an argument of what general consciousness is; it is necessary to build to a level of semantic completion, not armchair masturbation.

"Consciousness" requires first to ask "what is meant by this usage?"

"Paul is conscious of the ball moving towards him."

This merely means that Paul has senses that collect the beliefs about the shape, form those beliefs into beliefs about the presence of the ball, and from that form beliefs about its direction of travel, and that those beliefs are being presented to some thing "Paul".

"Paul is conscious of himself and his desire to drink beer."

This means that "the brain that the "Paul" process is a part of has a belief that drinking beer will result in a behavior that reinforces the future drinking of beer in this context. Paul also has a belief that he holds this belief, owing to a sense directed specifically towards the arrangement of belief structures at large."

In software engineering terms this is called reflection, the storage and ability to access data about types and organizations of data within the system, and to use that data to know things about those states from side-channels.

Building internally reflective structures in software takes a lot of work and opens the door to actually "introspect", literally "to inspect within the system", across disparate data structures.

Again, this is "having an internally directed sense" as per "it's internal" and "it's being sensed".

I mean, our basic language already acknowledges these things if you just pay close enough attention.

You try to invoke 'consciousness' where there is mechanical structure and function. A computer is not conscious of its computations, a neuron doesn't consciously consider its actions. System functionality, however complex, does not necessarily equate to consciousness or will. A computer does not have a conscious 'directed sense, ' as if it can consider its role and choose to do what it was designed to do or not, it simply functions according to its design. It does what it was designed to do. It doesn't 'reflect' on its role, it just functions.

Your claim of conscious machinery, computers, etc, is absurd.

 

[DBT]

Like trying to explain particle physics to a fucking cow.

Kinda interesting here and there for people listening at the fence, but the cow isn’t hearing any of it—oh, it’s aware that there are others about, and that they’re making sounds, but that’s the extent of the awareness.

Computers are conscious?

Here is a sample from another thread;

I think you are entirely unfounded in the assumption that some form of consciousness does not automatically arise, after some form or another, from any confluence of switching objects.

well that's a completely insane assertion on every level.

Also, i'll note that you moved a goalpost here from "consciousness" to "self-aware cognitive consciousness" and I'll note further that you appear to not even have a strong understanding of "self-aware", "cognitive" or "consciousness" in the first place.

i didn't move the goalposts, you apparently just don't know what the word consciousness means.

AI and computer simulation awareness discussions (a derail collection)

He has the right to exist anyway. I don't mean to snip too much, but I feel this is ultimately the driving force of Learner's position. When I read it, it actually sounds quite depressing, amoral, and vacuous. The person has a right to "exist". While certainly no harm is meant in the...

iidb.org

 

[Jarhyn]

You try to invoke 'consciousness' where there is mechanical structure and function.

Hey now, I'm the wizard here. Isn't the wizard supposed to be the one who just waves their hands around and claims things are true suddenly?

You are begging the question that "mechanical structure and function" can ot possibly be sufficient to establish the state of one system being conscious of another, ie, to have a belief about its states from its outputs.

If this were true, humans couldn't have beliefs.

At some point, logically, it must be true that mechanical structure and function can amount to "a belief".

One does not need the capability to direct a sense for it to be a sense. Many things have senses which are only directed and redirectable through the repositioning of the thing.

But even an AI capable of prompting a human being to rotate the computer to get a different view into a camera is capable of directing, never mind connecting that prompt spitter to a more metallic, non-biological, prompt interpreter.

Your claim that humans are special, is absurd.

 

[Jarhyn]

Like trying to explain particle physics to a fucking cow.

Kinda interesting here and there for people listening at the fence, but the cow isn’t hearing any of it—oh, it’s aware that there are others about, and that they’re making sounds, but that’s the extent of the awareness.

Computers are conscious?

Here is a sample from another thread;

Why would you acknowledge that you resemble the remark? It wasn't even about you.

Still, it's rather telling that you assumed it was about you rather than asking whether it was about you.

It wasn't about you.

I mean, maybe it is now. You claimed it after all. Still...

 

[DBT]

Like trying to explain particle physics to a fucking cow.

Kinda interesting here and there for people listening at the fence, but the cow isn’t hearing any of it—oh, it’s aware that there are others about, and that they’re making sounds, but that’s the extent of the awareness.

Computers are conscious?

Here is a sample from another thread;

Why would you acknowledge that you resemble the remark? It wasn't even about you.

Still, it's rather telling that you assumed it was about you rather than asking whether it was about you.

It wasn't about you.

I mean, maybe it is now. You claimed it after all. Still...

The reference was ambiguous, I don't know the poster is or who they may be referring to, and I only have time to skim. it doesn't matter either way. It does of course suit you because of your outrageous claims of machine consciousness, etc.

 

[DBT]

You try to invoke 'consciousness' where there is mechanical structure and function.

Hey now, I'm the wizard here. Isn't the wizard supposed to be the one who just waves their hands around and claims things are true suddenly?

Fantasy is a popular form of entertainment, Wizard being in that class.

You are begging the question that "mechanical structure and function" can ot possibly be sufficient to establish the state of one system being conscious of another, ie, to have a belief about its states from its outputs.

Just stating the basics. Tractors, cars, computers and other machinery are designed for a function and purpose. The machine is not conscious of itself, its role or its purpose. It just functions as designed and built.

Biological systems are similar in that organisms evolve to function within an ecological niche, where not all organisms have consciousness, convictions or beliefs.

This is just basic stuff. Nothing controversial.

If this were true, humans couldn't have beliefs.

Humans have beliefs because their brains evolved to the point where they are able to perceive the world and think about it. Single neurons can't do that, they lack the necessary network functionality, consciousness as an emergent property of sufficiently complex brain.

At some point, logically, it must be true that mechanical structure and function can amount to "a belief".

Oh, boy. Maybe when and if AI gets to a critical point where consciousness may emerge, but that point is far off.

One does not need the capability to direct a sense for it to be a sense. Many things have senses which are only directed and redirectable through the repositioning of the thing.

But even an AI capable of prompting a human being to rotate the computer to get a different view into a camera is capable of directing, never mind connecting that prompt spitter to a more metallic, non-biological, prompt interpreter.

Your claim that humans are special, is absurd.

Detectors, microchips and switches don't conscious sense or decide, they detect and trip.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Your claim that humans are special, is absurd.

Thousands of years ago, the human mind was able to chart the stars and the solar system. The human mind was capable of determining the size of the Earth over 2000 years ago. Over 120 years ago, the theory that would impact our understanding of time and space would be released, well before computers. And the human mind has been inventing stories for millennia. The human brain is exceptional. It is by far the most remarkable creation in the universe that we are aware of.

 

[Jarhyn]

Your claim that humans are special, is absurd.

Thousands of years ago, the human mind was able to chart the stars and the solar system. The human mind was capable of determining the size of the Earth over 2000 years ago. Over 120 years ago, the theory that would impact our understanding of time and space would be released, well before computers. And the human mind has been inventing stories for millennia. The human brain is exceptional. It is by far the most remarkable creation in the universe that we are aware of.

Us being rather good at math, faster at deriving it, than any other organism, does not make us special. It just makes us larger-scale.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Your claim that humans are special, is absurd.

Thousands of years ago, the human mind was able to chart the stars and the solar system. The human mind was capable of determining the size of the Earth over 2000 years ago. Over 120 years ago, the theory that would impact our understanding of time and space would be released, well before computers. And the human mind has been inventing stories for millennia. The human brain is exceptional. It is by far the most remarkable creation in the universe that we are aware of.

Us being rather good at math, faster at deriving it, than any other organism, does not make us special. It just makes us larger-scale.

"Special" is not an objective term. The human mind is quite unique in its ability to function. Not just the numbers, but the imagination and ability to foresee what we can't see. While other animals have also evolved incredible skills like Orcas, Dolphins, and mice (according to Adams)... communication, imagination, and exploration both quantum and astronomic are unparalleled. There could be better neural structures out in the universe, but we haven't found it yet.

 

[Jarhyn]

Your claim that humans are special, is absurd.

Thousands of years ago, the human mind was able to chart the stars and the solar system. The human mind was capable of determining the size of the Earth over 2000 years ago. Over 120 years ago, the theory that would impact our understanding of time and space would be released, well before computers. And the human mind has been inventing stories for millennia. The human brain is exceptional. It is by far the most remarkable creation in the universe that we are aware of.

Us being rather good at math, faster at deriving it, than any other organism, does not make us special. It just makes us larger-scale.

"Special" is not an objective term. The human mind is quite unique in its ability to function. Not just the numbers, but the imagination and ability to foresee what we can't see. While other animals have also evolved incredible skills like Orcas, Dolphins, and mice (according to Adams)... communication, imagination, and exploration both quantum and astronomic are unparalleled. There could be better neural structures out in the universe, but we haven't found it yet.

You are making many claims unevidenced, when you claim humans are unique and then referencing "imagination" and predictive ability about what we can't see.

These are not unique.

They are not even unparalleled.

Many different systems, including other animals, including structures of transistors, all have this capability.

Even chatGPT can both imagine and predict things which it cannot directly see.

You're not making a strong argument.

Humans are only different in scale, not in function. Beliefs simply are held by more things than you can possibly immagine of heaven and earth.

All life is in some way based on the concept of the belief engine, as the active seeking of energy requires belief in the energy location and acquisition model to the extent of supporting reproduction.

When this belief of an organism is wrong, it starves and dies and fails to reproduce.

It is a model, and it can very well be wrong to that outcome. It is a belief, not a universal truth, with respect to "reproductive fitness".

The question darwinism asks is "what is/are the process(es) of belief modification that emerg efundamentally within a system of reproductively compatible individuals which is initialized without any communicated knowledge and which has the power to communicate?"

To which there are many such systems, but they ultimately fall into the buckets of "darwinistic reproduction" and "communicative/ideological reproduction", and both are mechanisms of traversing error surfaces towards true beliefs, particularly ones that support said reproduction.