And I would differentiate spontaneity from randomness, because a simple random number generator can be random. I suppose spontaneity requires, to some degree, intent?
[ - ] Sector2 1 point 9 monthsAug 4, 2024 12:51:55 ago (+1/-0)
Spontaneous: (of a process or event) occurring without apparent external cause.
Yes, an AI could exhibit a result or "behavior" where an apparently unlikely option could be elevated in importance to the primary choice. Think of it as like a 'rogue wave' in the decision tree.
Spontaneity in humans can range from sudden inclinations to hold up a spork and tout ones randomness, to "getting a wild hair" and making decisions without regard to consequences.
a) Artifice (suggestion) can only be shaped within natural (perception), hence internally in response to external.
b) Spontaneous implies by ones free will of choice aka either adapting to natural or ignoring natural for artificial.
c) Random (motion within direction) contradicts motion (inception towards death) directing matter (life) forwards. Matter can be tempted to ignore motion, hence few suggesting artifice to tempt many to hold onto it, while ignoring that nature moves.
Number implies "designation of unit (unus/one)"...nature generates (inception towards death) units (life) by setting each one apart from one another.
Others suggest pluralism (numbers) to tempt ONE to enumerate (count) other ones as 2,3,4,33,666,911,6000000 etc. If many count; then few are chosen as accountants, while being permitted to spontaneously generate random numbers towards anyONE ignoring self.
randomness is a statistical property. simple RN generators (like Math.rand()) follow a pattern based on an initial seed. security-minded RN generators use a naturally random process, and is therefore mathematically random.
spontaneity is a different concept. unless an algorithm is programmed to appear spontaneous, it won't exhibit that property (however you define it).
to the broader question of "can a computer become conscious" the answer is unequivocally NO.
Apart from the solipsism thing (can't be sure anything outside your own mind exists so where exactly would novel information even come from) you interpret info based on what? Your prior hardware and software settings. Just like an AI. Basically, free will is computational gender dysphoria.
Coming up with something spontaneously just means an observer didn't anticipate it. Which is exactly what happens when you keep adding complexity to AI. If you're not sufficiently impressed with AI just wait a decade.
Coming up with something spontaneously just means an observer didn't anticipate it.
Well that's not true at all...
There doesn't even need to be an observer for an entity to do something spontaneously. So your definition of what spontaneously is can't be dependent on the role of the observer. Everything you said after that is incorrect as well.
SPONTANEOUS; adjective - "occurring without external stimulus, proceeding from an internal impulse"...an inversion of processing (inception towards death) generating occurrence (life).
Being implies internal within external aka reaction within action aka partial within whole aka matter within motion aka choice within balance aka one within all etc. The trick...internal (perception) can be tricked to ignore external (perceivable) for what other internals suggest.
[ + ] Sector2
[ - ] Sector2 1 point 9 monthsAug 4, 2024 12:51:55 ago (+1/-0)
Yes, an AI could exhibit a result or "behavior" where an apparently unlikely option could be elevated in importance to the primary choice. Think of it as like a 'rogue wave' in the decision tree.
Spontaneity in humans can range from sudden inclinations to hold up a spork and tout ones randomness, to "getting a wild hair" and making decisions without regard to consequences.
[ + ] ImplicationOverReason
[ - ] ImplicationOverReason 0 points 9 monthsAug 4, 2024 12:07:45 ago (+0/-0)
b) Spontaneous implies by ones free will of choice aka either adapting to natural or ignoring natural for artificial.
c) Random (motion within direction) contradicts motion (inception towards death) directing matter (life) forwards. Matter can be tempted to ignore motion, hence few suggesting artifice to tempt many to hold onto it, while ignoring that nature moves.
[ + ] yesiknow
[ - ] yesiknow 0 points 9 monthsAug 4, 2024 12:05:15 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Deleted
[ - ] deleted 1 point 9 monthsAug 4, 2024 11:29:40 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] we_kill_creativity
[ - ] we_kill_creativity [op] 0 points 9 monthsAug 4, 2024 11:33:16 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] ImplicationOverReason
[ - ] ImplicationOverReason 0 points 9 monthsAug 4, 2024 12:20:58 ago (+0/-0)
Others suggest pluralism (numbers) to tempt ONE to enumerate (count) other ones as 2,3,4,33,666,911,6000000 etc. If many count; then few are chosen as accountants, while being permitted to spontaneously generate random numbers towards anyONE ignoring self.
[ + ] shitface9000
[ - ] shitface9000 0 points 9 monthsAug 4, 2024 13:53:49 ago (+0/-0)
spontaneity is a different concept. unless an algorithm is programmed to appear spontaneous, it won't exhibit that property (however you define it).
to the broader question of "can a computer become conscious" the answer is unequivocally NO.
[ + ] Tallest_Skil
[ - ] Tallest_Skil 1 point 9 monthsAug 4, 2024 09:37:09 ago (+2/-1)
[ + ] jerkofalltrades
[ - ] jerkofalltrades 0 points 9 monthsAug 4, 2024 09:46:06 ago (+1/-1)*
Apart from the solipsism thing (can't be sure anything outside your own mind exists so where exactly would novel information even come from) you interpret info based on what? Your prior hardware and software settings. Just like an AI. Basically, free will is computational gender dysphoria.
Coming up with something spontaneously just means an observer didn't anticipate it. Which is exactly what happens when you keep adding complexity to AI. If you're not sufficiently impressed with AI just wait a decade.
[ + ] Tallest_Skil
[ - ] Tallest_Skil 1 point 9 monthsAug 4, 2024 10:03:33 ago (+1/-0)
Okay, nihilist jew. Run along now.
Can.
Get psychiatric help immediately.
For it to… still not be able to do these things.
[ + ] we_kill_creativity
[ - ] we_kill_creativity [op] 0 points 9 monthsAug 4, 2024 10:01:42 ago (+1/-1)
Well that's not true at all...
There doesn't even need to be an observer for an entity to do something spontaneously. So your definition of what spontaneously is can't be dependent on the role of the observer. Everything you said after that is incorrect as well.
[ + ] ImplicationOverReason
[ - ] ImplicationOverReason 2 points 9 monthsAug 4, 2024 12:14:29 ago (+2/-0)
Being implies internal within external aka reaction within action aka partial within whole aka matter within motion aka choice within balance aka one within all etc. The trick...internal (perception) can be tricked to ignore external (perceivable) for what other internals suggest.
[ + ] we_kill_creativity
[ - ] we_kill_creativity [op] 0 points 9 monthsAug 4, 2024 09:51:11 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] DitchPig
[ - ] DitchPig 0 points 9 monthsAug 4, 2024 13:05:44 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Tallest_Skil
[ - ] Tallest_Skil 0 points 9 monthsAug 4, 2024 13:57:53 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] DitchPig
[ - ] DitchPig 0 points 9 monthsAug 4, 2024 14:05:09 ago (+0/-0)