Ghideon

That is because you chose to use some random words from contemporary English. Interesting how these historic "symbols" that keeps occurring in various forms from various individuals only makes sense in the individuals' native language.

Thanks, this is useful for further discussion, it rules out categories of counter arguments that one could think of. Do we agree on the following statement? "Under the assumption that we agree that Artificial Consciousness is a logical contradiction given the definitions in your article then any introduction of counter arguments from the natural sciences is pointless; such arguments do not apply."

I agree. An one addition; I don't think the brain has a "pause button" or a "global clock" that allows for a well defined state even if history wasn't an issue. Here the computer analogy may work as an illustration? A single computer typically allows a snapshot to be persisted and the state can be recreated on a different machine. In a large network with many computers and many concurrent network connections it gets tricky. Assuming constant network traffic and concurrent changes to local computers it may not be simple to take a global snapshot that correctly represents the complete state including signals in transit between computers.

That is correct. (it is a vertical drop*, the information in the question is enough to find images and videos of the ride on the net @DODOma ) * "drop tower" or "big drop" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drop_tower

Thank you for the clarification. Based on our discussion and the article: 1: Any counterargument rooted in empirical or natural science can be dismissed by referencing the foundational definitions and claims of the article. 2: The article's definitions and interpretations coherently rule out the possibility of artificial consciousness. Thus, any philosophical or logical counterargument can be dismissed, provided the article's foundational premises are accepted as correct. (I trust this sheds light on the relevance of the analogies I introduced earlier.) Side note: I haven't formally studied philosophy and seldom post in this section of the forum, so I appreciate your patience if my argumentation seems methodical.

I have looked at the article and other sources and got curious about science behind why it artificial consciousness is impossible. Your answer I'm trying to understand if that is a matter of definitions and logic. And, if so is the case, ruling out that there is any physical law making artificial consciousness impossible.

Thanks for your input. Can you provide a scientific basis or reference for the idea that artificial consciousness is impossible?

No, I have a serious interest in the topic and the root cause in science that makes artificial consciousness impossible. I'm looking for further information about the science, the basic foundations. Your answer implies that "Artificial Consciousness" is a definitional contradiction and I tried an analogy to illustrate (lets drop the analogy if you find it irrelevant). If possible I want to distinguish between philosophical interpretation and a direct scientific refutation of the possibility of artificial consciousness. Note that I am not arguing against or in favour of your claims, I am engaging in the discussion to get knowledge and insights.

Please explain the connection between the analogy I used and fart jokes.

Thanks for your reply. Trying to understand some more from the simple one above; is the following a correct way to express how Artificial Consciousness Is Impossible according to your arguments? "From the definitions of "Artificial" and "Consciousness" it follows that Artificial Consciousness is impossible". An analogy from mathematics would be: From the definitions of "Negative" and "Natural number" it follows that negative natural number is impossible.

Just curious, can you refer to a scientific law or theorem that makes artificial consciousness impossible? Examples, analogies to illustrate my question: 1: Due to Turing's proof, it is an established fact in theoretical computer science that it's absolutely impossible to create a general algorithm that solves the halting problem for all possible program-input pairs. 2: According to the laws of thermodynamics, it's impossible to cool a system to absolute zero or below. In your opinion, is there an equivalent statement regarding the impossibility of artificial consciousness?

You're right! (I intentionally avoided complex numbers. From another thread, I noticed that the OP might benefit from understanding the basics before diving into complex solutions.)

When referencing chatgpt (and similar tools) it is advisable to include version and/or edition to be used. The development is rather quick and there are different capabilities in various editions (free, paid, beta releases...). Open AI has (recently) added python capabilities to ChatGPT. This, in my opinion, allows for possibly better output from an LLM for the type of questions OP asked (given that a reasonable prompt is used as input) since the LLM output can be based on the output from the running python code. (I notice that OP has left this topic to pursue other interests, this response is more of a general observation)

Assuming \(x \in \mathbb{R} \) then \( \sqrt[x]{x}=100 \) has no solution

\[ \frac{a}{b} \] \[ \sqrt[x]{x}=y, x \in \mathbb{R} \] Text \( \sqrt[x]{x}=y, x \in \mathbb{R} \) some more text

Thanks for the list and the book suggestion! That is a good suggestion as well. I'm also thinking of adding "Optimization" (one example: gradient descent). Note: I've not added Turing machine to the list; I see Turing as more foundational to computing in general and not a top candidate in the context of LLMs. But I'm open for suggestions and opinions.

Large Language Models (LLMs) like GPT-4 and its predecessors are, as far as I know, built upon a foundation of mathematical and computational concepts, some of which were established long ago. I've been asked to do a short presentation about LLMs and I'm thinking of including a timeline of mathematical concepts to give some context to the audience. Can you suggest significant discoveries that could be included? There is likely no exact answer and I would value your opinion. For a short list I have these as a starting point: -Probability Theory -Foundations of Calculus -Vectors and Matrices (Linear Algebra) -Neural Networks -Information Theory (entropy) (and maybe some recent things like Word Embeddings and Transformer Architecture ) I'll need to do some research to assign reasonable time stamps to the concepts.

As far as I know absurdity arise when there's a discrepancy between what is expected and what actually occurs. The expectation can arise from context, personal experience, knowledge or preferences. Example: In a scientific discussion on a science forum the opening post in this thread is absurd. Example: Once @Phi for All moved the thread to the lounge and your followups are added the context changes; any attempt at a "formal" or meaningful answer (including this answer) could be considered absurd.

Quick advice @grayson After solving the syntax issues pointed out by @Sensei you might want to take a step back and take a look at the design. It is not likely that the code you have written helps you with the task you presented.

What you have posted is not a database. Given the piece of code you've shared above as a prompt, it's likely that ChatGPT—a machine learning model trained on a large dataset to assist with natural language understanding and generation—would produce an output saying, 'No, this is not a database.'

The GitHub link I gave you above has a licens file; may be the quickest option to check if that licensing suits your needs. Also make sure to check the site where you access the images.

Another note @grayson: large scale processing of someone else's content may be profited unless you have an explicit permission.

google suggests: A list with 10000 words, maybe useful as a starting point: https://www.mit.edu/~ecprice/wordlist.10000 A larger list (466k words): https://github.com/dwyl/english-words Notes: -verify licensing before using -"inappropriate" is for you to define and handle -You need a lot more than just English words (se my note above) to get going with your project

Before digging into technical aspects; don't you need some context to tell what's appropriate and what is the definition? Quick example: nut: usually large hard-shelled seed nut: a small usually square or hexagonal metal block with internal screw thread (yes, there are more homonyms; some of which may be inappropriate depending on context)

Just curious, are you creating something like CLIP interrogator? (The CLIP Interrogator is a tool to optimize text prompts to match a given image) With some more understanding of your goals I may be able to share some tips on this