Markup /zellig/20646

Comment
>>20640
I don't really see how "beholding" (which I assume is how you call the qualia of being conscious) from information processing. It's a distinction without difference. The Chinese room argument you have invoked isn't really an argument, it's a verbal trick comparable to insisting that if you use a excavator to dig a hole in the ground then the hole isn't dug as the excavator cannot feel the weight of dirt. Understanding is proved by ability to give correct responses, no matter if it's the understanding of an language or a branch of science. Information processing belongs to the material world, it's purely based on processing physical signals. Consciousness and more precisely self-consciousness is just sensing and processing information about one's own internal state (which can recurse infinitely btw - you can be conscious of your own consciousness and so on). What is more interesting is the action selection mechanism, and in particular the possibility of it being independent of the information coming from the environment, which boils down to the question if a human can be described as a mathematical function (no matter whether probabilistic or not) as all AI models can, or if such a description is not possible due to intrinsic non-casuality of human behaviour.
>For a machine, it has to look for binary patterns in the memory cells, if an AI is learning to draw it needs to analyze millions of pictures to identify what are essentially nonsensical patterns. You can show a human a single picture of an object and he will understand exactly what the object looks like and will know how to reimagine it.
This is just a matter of intelligence and people also differ in their ability to infer patterns from the data. You could take a retard and try to teach him mathematics by showing him countless examples, but it would be a rather pointless exercise as he would never learn.