Cogito Ergo Sum

Your AI will never grasp this notion.

Therefore Strong AI will never truly exist.

Descartes waz 'ere!

>>40
And maybe you should stop being such a goddamn dickwad.

>>1
The problem with your argument is your one (and only) premise. There's no good reason to assume that a physical machine cannot understand "cogito ergo sum," since we know of one kind of physical machine that *can* understand it: Man.

>>21
Also, now I think that immortality+infinite VRs(=transhumanism) is the end point of our civilization.
I wouldn't say it's the end point. We'll probably still want to advance our science and eventually colonize space. This is because in a very long time, the sun will eventually die and it might be tricky to protect Earth itself. Earth also does not have infinite resources. However, achieving strong AI and some for of transhumanism is indeed one possible way to evolve our civilization, however I don't think it's the end. We'll keep evolving until we have nothing better to do, which is unlikely, or we'll be dead.

So OP, how will can you prove your statement? We ourselves can't describe consciousness properly. There is no reason to believe a machine different from humans can't achieve it.

Rene Descartes walks into a bar.

The bartender asks him if he would like a drink, to which Descartes replies, "I think not," and disappears.

ONE WORD 10 PRINT "I AM THINKING" THREAD OVER

>>46
HIBT?

>>44
My argument was pretty much just a loose philosophy version of John Searle's Chinese Room argument, that without symbol grounding a program is purely syntactical(is that even a word?) and is just following a set list of instructions.

Merely acting human, not thinking human.
Weak AI is weak.

>>47
How can you prove that you're the real deal either?

PROVE MY ANUS




...or is it PROBE MY ANUS?





Geez, now I'm confused.

My AI is sick and tired of being discriminated against merely because it doesn't have a pineal gland.

>>43
My bad, I shouldn't have said "civilization," I rather meant humanity. My point is that after we attain immortality, we'll be able to become "superhumans," and at that point the evolution of humans as a species will stop, and we'll be able to grow intellectually and spiritually by living through countless scenarios in VRs.
Though it's possible that even then there will be a lot of ways for our consciousnesses to develop, or it might be possible that our biological brains will impose a limit to how much we can become transhuman (I don't like this option :<). And things can get even more interesting if you subscribe to the 8-circuit model of consciousness.
And yeah, our civilization will still be able to advance, inventing superluminal travel or perhaps creating our own universe.

>>51 Obilgatory:

"I say your civilization, because as soon as we started thinking for you it really became our civilization, which is of course what this is all about. Evolution, Morpheus, evolution. Like the dinosaur. Look out that window. You had your time. The future is our world, Morpheus. The future is our time."

I, for one, welcome our new machine overlords.

>>52
That's こわい :<

>after we attain immortality

..annnnd i stopped reading.

>>54
True immortality may not be easy to achieve, and I don't think that's what >>51 meant, however I don't see why we wouldn't be able to eventually achieve pseudo-immortality with enough advances in our medicine and technology, it might be in our lifetimes or maybe not, but we're heading in that direction.

Snow Crash

>>55
It's always easy not to see why something shouldn't be possible when you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

>>57
Describe what would the impossible part be? Even though it would require a lot of scientific advances, and we might not be able to call ourselves "human" in the same sense of the word as today, what exactly makes you think pseudo-immortality is not achievable (in the sense that a person wouldn't have to worry about conventional health issues, maybe be able to make "backups" of themselves).