Proof of Existence

[dybmh]

You're selling yourself short.

Ascend???
Selling yourself short???

Recognizing an unintentional pun, +2.5%. PrettyPlease.

 

[Nakosis]

For the same reason I cannot be my car. While I may drive it and be in control of it, it is not me in my true nature. It wears out, and I dispose of it and get a new one (or I learn to fly ).

That also holds true for my mind and body. They are illusory. They are temporary vehicles that will eventually expire. I am not them.

Same holds true for my CNS. I am aware of it, therefore, it is not me.

I have gained this understanding through neti neti (not this, not this), which is the Vedic process of negation.

Neti neti - Wikipedia

I understand, an even shared this idea for a time, so while I'm not overly critical of it, it's just an idea though.

Everything you can be aware of is physical. Ok, so this set you up as non-physical since it's accepted you can't be aware of yourself. This IMO begs the question since it's already decided that anything you are aware of can't be you.

Different idea, I am the result of a physical process. I can be aware of the process that creates my consciousness.

I'm not saying one is correct and the other isn't. Just the idea itself affects our experience of reality and we rely on those experiences to decide what seems true to us.

 

[dingdao]

Ascend???
Selling yourself short???

Recognizing an unintentional pun, +2.5%. PrettyPlease.

92% You're getting into diminishing returns.

 

[WalterTrull]

I am aware of it, therefore, it is not me.

While I agree with most of your statements, I am an adherent to "Only the self is knowable".

 

[dingdao]

Uh oh. A Turing test experiment...

Ciao

- viole

We're engaged in an anti-Turing thought experiment. Don't knock it, it's how Einstein laid the groundwork for quantum entanglement. I bet he's rolling over in his grave.

 

[dybmh]

92% You're getting into diminishing returns.

Ok... I have an idea that's percolating....

It hasn't completely finished brewing yet... I'll reply once it's ready....

 

[dybmh]

Let's see, you need more proof, but I'm approaching diminishing returns...

That means I need to change tactics.

I'm thinking it needs to introduce randomness, it needs to be connected to the non-digital world,

It needs to be different from my previous evidence I have provided, but it can't be too different, because that could be forged by AI.

Something(s) big...

And... You did give me a hint of what you're looking for in a previous reply to another post.

Oh yeah... I've got a couple ideas.... But first

More coffee...

 

[sealchan]

Earthling wanted to prove the existence of the soul. Let's start with something much simpler.

Prove to me that you are not a bot.

I will quote those responses I find interesting.

Captcha rules!

What bot would say that?

 

[sealchan]

Actually, it would be easy to get a bot to respond with a nonsensical word like 'wertney-spot'.
Harder to make another bot identify the nonsense name, and then write a post like this one referring to wertney-spot in context, but still possible.

To pass this Turing test is increasingly difficult in any simple manner, but if you asked me a very specific and quirky question I could then respond to effectively that might do it.

But then, the issues are;
1) you might be the bot, not me!
2) I might not know the reference or answer. Saying 'What?' would sound suspicious. So maybe a series of quirky questions??

I think that Douglas Hofstadter agree that a series of creative metaphoric references interchanged between two conversants would quickly disprove bot/AI was a part of that exchange.

 

[sealchan]

Earthling wanted to prove the existence of the soul. Let's start with something much simpler.

Prove to me that you are not a bot.

I will quote those responses I find interesting.

I think I am a bot a lot, but it's not a thought I like a lot.
I hope you quote my little poem and show 'em all...
I'm not a bot.

 

[sealchan]

The proof would be multiple coincidences, multiple serendipities.

The more coincidences or serendipities, the more likely that I am not a bot.

Basically, we would need to get to know each other. Trade stories, tell each other jokes, share weird ideas we've had. And eventually, if we are lucky ( assuming you believe in luck ), it won't take too long for the likelihood that I am a bot would diminish under layer after layer of improbable coincidences.

Here's an example: You and I actually had the same idea about how to prove bot-status. But we approached it from different perspectives.

Take a look at this thread: Does A.I. have limits?

It was created before you joined.

And I was honestly thinking at the time about the Terminator movies, where the dogs were used to distinguish between the bots and the humans.

When I created the thread above, I was thinking: In the context of AI, how will be be able to tell the difference if they were biologically identical and dogs wouldn't work. Or if the AI had no biological form and only existed within the digital framework. If I can find the limits of AI, that would be a way to test for AI-ish-ness. Does that make sense?

Anyways... regarding testing for Bot-i-tude; Here's the list i've come up with.

How to tell AI from Human?

Humans suspend disbelief
Humans have fun
Humans forget, remember, and are surprised

I am not sure how AI can replicate these things effectively.
But I am not sure how humans could test for these with 100% certainty either.

Am I close?

After reading this, what's your confidence I am not a Bot?

Humans do metaphors better than bots...my idea is an exchange of creatively contrived metaphors that remain on topic.

 

[Quintessence]

The end result of this "game" is to prove the existence of something for which we cannot obtain direct evidence, think: electrons, radio waves, weak force, etc.

Yes, but why would being a bot entail non-existence? What do you mean by "existence?" Do you assume that for something to exist, there must be direct evidence of it? What exactly is direct evidence?

Personally, I never even ask the question "does X exist." The answer is always yes if I am able to ask the question. The real question to ask is "in what manner do I experience X?" or "in what manner does X exist?"

 

[dingdao]

Humans do metaphors better than bots...my idea is an exchange of creatively contrived metaphors that remain on topic.

80% The problem is that those two would need detailed knowledge in a common area.

 

[dingdao]

Yes, but why would being a bot entail non-existence? What do you mean by "existence?" Do you assume that for something to exist, there must be direct evidence of it? What exactly is direct evidence?

Personally, I never even ask the question "does X exist." The answer is always yes if I am able to ask the question. The real question to ask is "in what manner do I experience X?" or "in what manner does X exist?"

OK, time to define terms.
We are only discussing apparent life on the net.
The term "man made" is hazardous because it could include children.
The term "organic life" is probably where I want to go.
Do you want to argue for "electronic life" to describe AI?
How about "fictional existence" to include themes by Heinlein, et al.
The original intent was to define "existence" as any entity that exists outside of electrons only.
However, that technically includes fictional existence.
So, for the purposes of this discussion, you are said to exist if you are organic life.
99%

 

[syo]

Prove to me that you are not a bot.

I am a bot.

 

[dingdao]

"The Einstein Podolski Rosen Thought Paradox" was published in 1937. It was an attempt to disprove Quantum Mechanics. Instead John S. Bell saw it and expanded it into "On The Einstein Podolski Rosen Thought Paradox" in 1964. This is referred to as Bell's Theorem, the commonly acknowledged basis for Quantum Entanglement.

 

[dingdao]

I am a bot.

Sorry, I can't prove you are more intelligent then you are willing to show.

 

[syo]

Sorry, I can't prove you are more intelligent then you are willing to show.

?

 

[blü 2]

A bot could range from a small program designed to throw "canned" responses to inquiries (think Eliza) to (what was it) Deep Blue on Jeopardy!. What can you do that they cannot?

I can do the biological things ─

grow from zygote to adult

convert certain parts of animals and vegetables into nutrition ie bio-power, symbiotically harnessing microorganisms for the process,

with a suitable mate, reproduce my kind biologically

... that kind of thing.

 

[Salvador]

Since your the one who posted it, I can't trust it.
Next time how about the I75 exit for Troy, MI? The street is Big Beaver Road and the mile marker is 69.

When I registered for this forum or perhaps it was another forum, I had to do a captcha test to prove I wasn't a spam bot: I passed this test; which proves I'm human instead of a computer or robot.