Top 10 AI hype stories of 2018

It's too bad that with these discussions of consciousness science and the possibility of conscious AI, materialists stay strictly in the philosophical realm, carefully never examining what the empirical evidence has to say. For instance, the great amount of empirical evidence from veridical NDE accounts, evidence that shows clearly that human consciousness is ultimately independent of the physical brain (and therefore is not the mechanistic product of neurological brain processes).  Of course, since it conflicts with their paradigm the materialists complacently dismiss this as anecdotal rubbish, regardless of data quality and degree of investigation. To think again on this, all it takes is an unbiased perusal of NDE investigations and analyses such as The Self Does Not Die, by Titus Rivas, Dirven and Smit. I'm not going to hold my breath.

One reason I steer clear of these debates is that I think it's quite hard to have empirical evidence even of the existence of consciousness in anyone else's mind but my own - let alone empirical evidence that it exists independently of the brain. Particularly if people are going to deny the possibility of having empirical evidence of consciousness produced by an artificial intelligence - or even of an artificial intelligence per se.

Particularly if people are going to deny the possibility of having empirical evidence of consciousness produced by an artificial intelligence - or even of an artificial intelligence per se.

I still don't agree that intelligence and consciousness belong in the same sentence. They seem fundamentally different types to me. And the question of one being produced by the other, seems just as much of a disconnect. The way these things are glibly lumped together continues to amaze. Note that the topic of this thread is AI. Not AC.

I still don't agree that intelligence and consciousness belong in the same sentence. They seem fundamentally different types to me. And the question of one being produced by the other, seems just as much of a disconnect. The way these things are glibly lumped together continues to amaze. Note that the topic of this thread is AI. Not AC.

People do seem to have been lumping them together in this thread since the first page.

It's too bad that with these discussions of consciousness science and the possibility of conscious AI, materialists stay strictly in the philosophical realm, carefully never examining what the empirical evidence has to say. For instance, the great amount of empirical evidence from veridical NDE accounts, evidence that shows clearly that human consciousness is ultimately independent of the physical brain (and therefore is not the mechanistic product of neurological brain processes).  Of course, since it conflicts with their paradigm the materialists complacently dismiss this as anecdotal rubbish, regardless of data quality and degree of investigation. To think again on this, all it takes is an unbiased perusal of NDE investigations and analyses such as The Self Does Not Die, by Titus Rivas, Dirven and Smit. I'm not going to hold my breath.

But a machine could simply have an animal-level consciousness, or consciousness without a soul?

There are people who believe in NDEs showing post-mortem survival but also believe in AI of some variety as possible.

I honestly don't know much about consciousness outside of materialism being false, am skeptical that a program will make a Turing machine that was non-conscious suddenly conscious...

...but I think it's the best metaphysically neutral position to believe that some as-yet-unknown structural equivalence between our brains and synthetic life would produce a conscious entity.

Of course I might be wrong, and even getting the right bits - say EM fields + microtubules for sake of example - in the synthetic creation may not actually produce anything but a motionless statue. We'd at least learn something interesting though...

I stop at the conflating of computer processing power and consciousness.  The leap there seems to be one of complete faith since we have no explanation of consciousness as a computational-based thing.  I realize many believe that consciousness is emergent from computations happening in the brain, but this isn't a scientific fact.

I stop at the conflating of computer processing power and consciousness.  The leap there seems to be one of complete faith since we have no explanation of consciousness as a computational-based thing.  I realize many believe that consciousness is emergent from computations happening in the brain, but this isn't a scientific fact.

Just to be clear, you are separating Emergence-from-Brain & Computationalist theories of Mind?

I ask b/c it seems to me one can say consciousness comes from brain processes without saying those processes are akin to the running of a computer program.

As I said, I usually stay out of these discussions, which I think tend to be more faith-based than evidence-based.

I just think the best thing is not for anyone to have ideas that are set in stone, because we really don't understand what's going on here.

One reason I steer clear of these debates is that I think it's quite hard to have empirical evidence even of the existence of consciousness in anyone else's mind but my own - let alone empirical evidence that it exists independently of the brain. Particularly if people are going to deny the possibility of having empirical evidence of consciousness produced by an artificial intelligence - or even of an artificial intelligence per se.

A few of the chapter headings from The Self Does Not Die compendium gives a flavor of the types of well-investigated, confirmed and documented NDE cases covered in the book. The researcher-writers of the book have carefully selected and meticulously checked their sources. They did not spare any effort in this, to gain maximum certainty regarding authenticity and completeness. I'm curious - what would be the grounds you would have to reject these kinds of cases as empirical evidence that human consciousness exists independently of the brain?

1. Extrasensory Veridical Perception of the Immediate Environment 
2. Extrasensory Veridical Perception of Events Beyond the Reach of the Physical Senses
3. Awareness and Extrasensory Veridical Perception During Cardiac Arrest and Other Conditions Seemingly Incompatible With Consciousness
4. Telepathy
5. After-Death Communication With Strangers
6. After-Death Communication With Familiar People

A few of the chapter headings from The Self Does Not Die compendium gives a flavor of the types of well-investigated, confirmed and documented NDE cases covered in the book. The researcher-writers of the book have carefully selected and meticulously checked their sources. They did not spare any effort in this, to gain maximum certainty regarding authenticity and completeness. I'm curious - what would be the grounds you would have to reject these kinds of cases as empirical evidence that human consciousness exists independently of the brain?

1. Extrasensory Veridical Perception of the Immediate Environment 
2. Extrasensory Veridical Perception of Events Beyond the Reach of the Physical Senses
3. Awareness and Extrasensory Veridical Perception During Cardiac Arrest and Other Conditions Seemingly Incompatible With Consciousness
4. Telepathy
5. After-Death Communication With Strangers
6. After-Death Communication With Familiar People

Not having read the book, I can't say anything very specific. I don't know how ESP in general is meant to demonstrate consciousness is independent of the brain. The rest of it seems to be based on the assumption that precognition/retrocognition is impossible, which I don't understand.