dreamlessfate

>There is no such thing as "fair", people will take what they can according to market forces

By that same logic, there is no such thing as "justice" and the entire legal system is a mirage? :)

Making left turns...stopping at red lights...these are success/failure criteria.

In contrast, having a favorite food, or an opinion on politics, or a preference on what should be considered the best movie from the 1990's, or what kind of music you want to blast on your stereo to listen to on your drive as you make your left turn...these are not success/failure criteria.

Huge difference.

>Consciousness is a physical property of matter

No. Wrong. Not a physical property. At all. This is completely the wrong way to describe it.

Consciousness is better described as an "emergent phenomenon". This is how serious researchers and academics define it.

Like I said in another reply to you, you really should go talk with a neuroscientist or cognitive psychologist. It sounds like you need to catch up quickly on the field of research.

>We're not interested in people's extremely poor self-modelling which is pragmatically useful for managing their lives, we're interested in what they are trying to model: their properties.

>Experiments, measures, validity, reliability, testing, falasification, hypotheses, properties and their degrees....This is required, it is non-negotiable.

Whoa, whoah, whoah, hold on there.

Who says that Q&A in Psychological Research doesn't involve "Experiments, measures, validity, reliability, testing, falasification, hypotheses, properties and their degrees...."

?

Where are you coming from? Your responses don't sound very scientific. You don't sound like you're even aware of the different research methods within neuroscience and cognitive psychology. Your responses sound like someone who wants to be perceived as supporting a scientific approach, but doesn't understand how to actually do these things.

This is why I quized you and gave you the chance to respond about your issues with Q&A in psychological research. You just came back with surface level platitudes. which doesn't lend much confidence to the ideathat you have anything other prejudice.

Go talk to a neuroscientist, a cognitive psychologist, you need to catch up and quick if you want to speak on these topics.

>Side question: how do we know if humans possess qualia?

Can you express an opinion? Can you form a judgement? Do you have preferences? Do you like certain foods or dislike others?

Then you possess qualia.

You nailed it. Thank you for cutting right to the heart of this debate.

It sounds like you're contradicting yourself.

--

>Whatever way we demonstrate it, it isnt via Q&A. This is the worst form of pseudoscientific psychology you can imagine.

...versus...

>Hash tables dont think, hash tables model conversations, thef. being a model of a conversation is not grounds to suppose consciousness.

--

Before I dissect your contradiction and lay it out, I'll give you the chance to respond.

Why do you feel that Q&A is "the worst form of pseudoscientific psychology you can imagine"

?

You're just describing RSS feeds.

This is just RSS. It was released 23 years ago.

It was very popular and a big part of the web.

The model that harryvederci is describing is exactly what the internet looked like prior to the rise of Facebook/Twitter, during the dawn of Web 2.0.

Everyone had their own blog, on their own site. And you could curate your own feed of people you wanted to following using RSS feeds.

Like did the evolution of AI & ML research go like this?

> We're stuck. After decades of research, we've hit a dead end. All we're left with is a byzantine maze of IF/THEN statements. We cannot simulate intelligence using pure logic. We have failed.

> Ok but what if we throw in PROBABILITIES into a byzantine maze of IF/THEN statements??????

>GENIUS!