AI Research

Notice that modern "AI" devs have categorically rejected the Turing test as outside the scope of anything they have even the vaguest plans of attempting. We're making all sorts of progress, but not in anything intentionally related to reverse-engineering human consciousness.
Dualism a shit. Whatever it is, it's entirely at the molecular level, since the complete designs are stored in DNA that we can artificially synthesize from scratch, and constructed exclusively using molecular chemistry (granted, chemistry complex enough we haven't quite managed artificial abiogenesis of a whole organism... yet). If atomic or lower transmutations were occurring, the amount of energy needed would be quite conspicuous.

continue... not even remotely in the same category of advances i described. you'll need to do better than that to convince us we're no different than the dark ages today user.

kek. this.

I like the way you think. I'd suggest that insofar as the mystical nature of the human soul and human spirit, there surely exists some 'membrane' or interface between that which is physical, ie the human brain and all it's bio-electro-chemical nuance thereto, and that which is non-physical, namely the soul. The spirit is much deeper still.

Descartes was pretty smart, but the Biblical writers were wiser still, having the Spirit of God Himself.

I never brought dualism up. If you believe that it is implied by anything I wrote and would like to rebut that then you're free to. Also, you may have missed that the portion you quoted re: dualism was part of a case that I don't even consider to be important due to the preceeding paragraph. If you think it is possible to model the conscious mind in the same way we model observation and theory in the hard sciences (i.e. symbolically) then perhaps you might give an example of what this would look like.

Christcucks will be forever btfo when general AI is developed.

Or we could go in the opposite direction, and attempt to create AGI comparable in capability to the human mind on a physical substrate with little or no similarity to the human brain.

Either way, the main problem is simply that the system in question is so incredibly complex that we have yet to scratch the surface of its operation.

A much simpler example of the same problem is the genome. Our understanding of how DNA works has been complete for decades, yet the exact function of all the DNA in our genome remains the extremely incomplete subject of intensive study, because we're essentially attempting to reverse-engineer and fully document 700MB of the densest and most labyrinthine spaghetti code ever written.

I'm an atheist, but threadly reminder that every mainstream church in the entire world (Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, every major Protestant church) was ambivalent to or soon endorsed evolution after Darwin, and all of them have retained that position to this day.

Religious opposition to evolution (much like young earth creationism) is an extremely recent phenomenon, dating back no further than 1923, when a burgerstani fundie cult called the Seventh-day Adventists began publishing pseudoscientific screeds, whose circulation eventually spread beyond burgerland via the Anglosphere by the 1930s, thence to other fundie sects around the world by the 1950s.

I don't know whether invoking some sort of membrane or any other interface between consciousness and observable phenomena is possible or necessary but I doubt both.

The problem in specifying an interface is, as mentioned above, the nature of the physical sciences itself. There are only three possible states that a scientific factoid is able to take (and only two of these have ever been encountered):

1) A statement about the world is "understood" by means of further, "deeper" statements about the nature of the physical world. E.g. copper is a good conductor of electricity *because* of the "deeper" fact that this element has a band structure (further caused by the Pauli exclusion principle) such that many electrons are forced above the Fermi level and may easily move from atom to atom. Note that this is recursive until...

2) A statement about the world is empirically verified, is not described by any existing theoretical framework, and a modification of an existing framework or the creation of a new framework is both required and expected. This is the cutting edge of science. A potentially absurd goal of progress in this direction is what we haven't yet seen:

3) A statement about the physical world that can be used to "explain" all other statements about the physical world and which itself needs no further explanation. The Theory Of Everything. This seems absurd because it would stand as a bare statement/assertion that is not understood in the same way as all other scientific statements. It falls prey to the problem of induction since it cannot be deduced which means that every statement deduced from it (all of science) also falls to the problem of induction.

We get either "turtles all the way down" or an impenetrable mystery. Attempting to square this with the problem of consciousness is... I'm not sure how one would even find a point to jump off of from one to another. Where does one even make a stand?

I suppose this implies dualism or idealism (inb4 somebody decides to mince words and bring more jargon) but that doesn't matter much to me. The only thing I believe to have learned is that a physical description of things doesn't suffice for consciousness. Sort of wrapping back around to my first post now so I'll stop.

You're missing the point. Take a piece of paper and write down a high-school physics version of Newton's law of gravitation. One side will contain a force and the other will contain some constants, a mass, and an acceleration. Every symbol in this equation can be measured or defined in terms of other measurements. Springs/rulers/stopwatches/etc can be used to determine whether an equation holds for a given experiment.

Now try to do the same thing for consciousness. Obviously you can't spell it all out. I mean that you probably can't even imagine what to begin writing opposite whichever physical state you choose for measurable brain description:

Phyiscal description of brain state = (What do you write here? What do you measure it with? In which units?)