Thread

1. delichon · 1790003645 · focus · HN ↗

   > Indeed, the chatbot is less real than the character, because the character is the product of another mind, while the chatbot's words are the product of complex mathematical operations conducted over a massive database of all the words humans have uttered, arranged by their frequency in relation to one another.

   How is a fictional character the product of someone's mind, but a character generated from a massive database of words from other people's minds is not?

   1. WarmWash · 1790004104 · focus · HN ↗

      Silicon math can never be chemical goo math!

      1. lolakutty · 1790010953 · focus · HN ↗

         Wrong assumption that the chemical goo is only doing math....

         1. hardbass · 1790011617 · focus · HN ↗

            What's the non-math part you think? All of currently known physics is turing computable as far as I am aware.

            1. lolakutty · 1790012507 · focus · HN ↗

               currently known physics is not good enough..

               It is quite an arbitrary classification. What is so special about "current" knowledge...

               1. hardbass · 1790012729 · focus · HN ↗

                  If you think current physics is insufficient but future physics might be sufficient, I can accept that but its still an unfounded belief. If you truly believe something "more" is needed, then you are placing a bet that always lost for centuries. Bets in anything supernatural or aphysical have always and consistently failed till now.

                  1. lolakutty · 1790013107 · focus · HN ↗

                     Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

                     Not my words.

                     1. hardbass · 1790013272 · focus · HN ↗

                        That magic means a different thing from supernatural magic.

                        1. lolakutty · 1790014469 · focus · HN ↗

                           Oh, What does it mean then?

                           You are so amusing....

                           1. hardbass · 1790014650 · focus · HN ↗

                              Its a purely physical mechanism but one that is currently beyond our understanding. "Magic" magic is belief in souls, eg brains have aphysical magic.

                              1. lolakutty · 1790014809 · focus · HN ↗

                                 Why do you think "souls" can't have some physical mechanism that is beyond our current understanding?

                                 1. hardbass · 1790014907 · focus · HN ↗

                                    If you think "souls" have some physical mechanism then they are not souls by the definition I am using. We would then agree, though I do not yet think we have found reason for new physical laws to be required, however that can of course be a possibility.

                                    1. lolakutty · 1790015879 · focus · HN ↗

                                       >they are not souls by the definition

                                       Kindly share that concrete definition..

                                       1. hardbass · 1790015962 · focus · HN ↗

                                          It should have been clear from our discussion when I said "souls" I meant belief in the non-physical. Magic juice in the brain that is unexplainable by physics at all.

                                          Being unexplainable by current physics but explainable by future physics is not a "soul" by that definition.

                                          1. lolakutty · 1790017952 · focus · HN ↗

                                             > non-physical.

                                             Now, what is your definition for this?

                                             1. hardbass · 1790018175 · focus · HN ↗

                                                Go ask the people who believe in it. I for one cannot understand how something aphysical can affect our thoughts and decisions. But some think consciousness resides outside of physical systems entirely.

                                                1. lolakutty · 1790019231 · focus · HN ↗

                                                   But you said it, so you should have a definition, or else what did you mean to communicate by saying it?

                                                   Or are you just parroting cool sounding words and phrases?

                                                   1. hardbass · 1790019405 · focus · HN ↗

                                                      Define consciousness

                                                      1. lolakutty · 1790019645 · focus · HN ↗

                                                         All humans intrinsically understand it what that word refer to. So it is ok if we cannot define it in words. It conveys the idea..

                                                         But "non-physical"? I don't have a clue what it means...Why don't you tell me..

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.