Richard Dawkins "Robots will become conscious" ft Hamza Tzortzis (2020-08-01) ​

0:00:00 [Music]
0:00:08 how are you guys doing
0:00:09 i'm joined with the esteem
0:00:11 [Laughter]
0:00:13 with the real man with the champ
0:00:17 with the heavyweight champion
0:00:23 what are you talking about yeah too much
0:00:25 tea
0:00:26 too much chili yeah yeah yeah but he
0:00:28 couldn't be here today
0:00:31 [Laughter]
0:00:35 how are you joking man
0:00:38 how are you doing okay well good good to
0:00:39 hear from you good to see you
0:00:41 well we're coming back to the new
0:00:42 atheists you delivered to one of them
0:00:44 maybe seven years ago
0:00:46 um a pretty good spanking
0:00:49 [Laughter]
0:00:51 yeah leo what's his name again leon
0:00:53 krauss what's his first name
0:00:55 i forget lawrence krauss
0:00:59 how do you feel about that debate
0:01:03 you know
0:01:04 [Laughter]
0:01:08 it was good given the circumstances and
0:01:11 my learning at that time
0:01:13 given the circumstances and the learning
0:01:16 my pathway of development at that time
0:01:20 obviously there's many things i think i
0:01:22 could have said that was
0:01:25 more articulate it was better
0:01:28 in terms of the way the audience would
0:01:29 understand it and to
0:01:31 really portray that islam is true and
0:01:34 that atheism is false
0:01:36 but generally speaking i think it was a
0:01:37 very very positive debate
0:01:40 on on balance but i'm going to do a
0:01:42 video in sha allah with
0:01:44 our beloved brother zeshan smile to
0:01:47 jannah on
0:01:48 seven years on from the debate and we're
0:01:51 gonna
0:01:52 do a bit of an assessment and analysis
0:01:53 of it i think that probably was the most
0:01:55 uh popular atheist muslim debate in the
0:01:58 last
0:01:59 30 50 years that i know i think it still
0:02:01 is from a numbers point of view
0:02:03 oh there's no doubt about that so it
0:02:04 would be good to get your insight on
0:02:05 that absolutely but talking about famous
0:02:07 atheists
0:02:08 we wanted to speak about something that
0:02:10 richard dawkins has been coming out
0:02:12 with his dear tai that he comes out with
0:02:14 you know he's got a title
0:02:17 um and speaking about which is ai
0:02:19 artificial intelligence let's just watch
0:02:21 quickly some of the stuff that he said
0:02:22 about
0:02:23 a.i and giving ai robots
0:02:26 rights and then we can comment on that
0:02:29 we reach a profound philosophical
0:02:32 difficulty
0:02:34 i am a philosophical naturalist uh i am
0:02:37 committed to the view
0:02:39 that there is nothing in our brains that
0:02:42 violates the laws of physics there's
0:02:43 nothing that could not in principle
0:02:46 be reproduced in technology it hasn't
0:02:49 been done yet we're probably quite a
0:02:50 long way away from it
0:02:52 but i see no reason why in future we
0:02:54 shouldn't reach the point
0:02:55 where a a human-made robot
0:02:59 is capable of consciousness
0:03:02 and of feeling pain this is profoundly
0:03:05 disturbing because it kind of goes
0:03:06 against the grain to think that uh
0:03:08 that a machine made of metal and
0:03:11 and silicon chips um could feel pain but
0:03:15 i
0:03:15 i don't see why they would not and so
0:03:18 that this
0:03:19 moral consideration of how to treat
0:03:22 artificially artificially intelligent
0:03:24 robots
0:03:25 will arise in the future and it's a
0:03:28 problem which
0:03:29 philosophers and moral philosophers are
0:03:31 already talking about so as you can see
0:03:34 he obviously thinks that on his
0:03:36 worldview materialism
0:03:39 that philosophical philosophical
0:03:41 naturalism that he thinks that
0:03:43 um robots or ai can have conscious
0:03:47 consciousness yes uh and that because of
0:03:50 this
0:03:50 they should be given rights what is your
0:03:52 response to that
0:03:54 well i don't want to go into the whole
0:03:56 rights and
0:03:57 the whole morality stuff okay the reason
0:03:59 being because that is
0:04:01 dependent on your understanding of ai
0:04:04 being conscious
0:04:05 and what do you mean by a.i being
0:04:07 conscious yes and that's why i have my
0:04:08 phone out it was not to be rude because
0:04:09 i have notes on this yeah
0:04:12 the first thing we need to address i
0:04:13 think is richard dawkins says that he's
0:04:16 a philosophical naturalist
0:04:17 now i find that very interesting bro
0:04:19 because
0:04:20 philosophical naturalism is not really
0:04:23 scientific per se and he comes across as
0:04:25 someone who promotes some kind of public
0:04:27 scientism right
0:04:29 that science is the only way to render
0:04:33 the truth about the world in reality
0:04:34 okay maybe that's a hard form of
0:04:36 scientism let's make it a bit more
0:04:37 softer
0:04:38 maybe he says science is one of the best
0:04:41 ways to render the truth about the word
0:04:42 in reality
0:04:45 however philosophical naturalism is more
0:04:47 of a philosophy
0:04:49 rather than anything scientific so he
0:04:52 says he's a philosophical naturalist
0:04:53 what does that mean
0:04:55 that means that there is no divine there
0:04:57 is no supernatural
0:04:58 everything can be explained by physical
0:05:01 processes or reduced to physical things
0:05:02 in some way
0:05:04 now that is very interesting because
0:05:05 that's a faith
0:05:07 remember he says i am committed to now
0:05:10 the atheist the prominent atheist
0:05:12 philosopher
0:05:13 michael rules he says you know if you
0:05:15 want a concession
0:05:16 naturalism is is a faith because you
0:05:20 have to believe it as a lens
0:05:22 uh in order for you to see through in
0:05:26 order to understand the world in reality
0:05:28 so he already comes with the
0:05:29 presupposition
0:05:31 that there is no god he already comes
0:05:33 with the presupposition
0:05:35 that everything can be explained by
0:05:36 physical processes
0:05:38 he that's his starting point those are
0:05:41 his lenses
0:05:42 you know in which he sees through to
0:05:44 understand reality
0:05:45 so he's admitted something here this is
0:05:48 my faith
0:05:49 i'm a philosophical naturalist so
0:05:51 therefore even though i know nothing
0:05:52 about ai
0:05:54 i'm going to assume that ai is going to
0:05:56 be conscious and i'm going to assume
0:05:57 that it must be given rights
0:05:59 that is a really unnuanced ridiculous
0:06:02 way of starting a
0:06:03 a a a video about ai the discussion
0:06:06 shouldn't presume philosophical
0:06:08 naturalism to be true and when you watch
0:06:09 the whole video
0:06:11 you see that really they are presuming
0:06:13 philosophical naturalism to be true
0:06:15 and in the context of ai and
0:06:17 consciousness they're presuming
0:06:19 a physicalist understanding of
0:06:21 consciousness
0:06:22 which basically means that consciousness
0:06:25 can be reduced to or is identical in
0:06:27 some way
0:06:28 to physical processes so how do you
0:06:30 define consciousness and
0:06:32 what needs to be in place for
0:06:33 consciousness to work oh my god
0:06:36 because i think we need to for you know
0:06:38 cover this ground
0:06:39 okay this is a big question but let's
0:06:42 apply it to the ai scenario
0:06:44 so i think what they're trying to say is
0:06:45 that
0:06:47 ai machines or computer programs or
0:06:50 robots whatever the case may be
0:06:52 they are going to be indistinguishable
0:06:54 to human beings in some way
0:06:56 okay when it comes to consciousness when
0:06:59 it comes to
0:07:00 intelligence when it comes to
0:07:03 interaction to the point where richard
0:07:05 dawkins even says
0:07:07 even concerning pain right and this is
0:07:10 the point that we need to zoom in on
0:07:12 we don't have a problem with certain
0:07:14 aspects of consciousness such as
0:07:16 thoughts or you know cognition
0:07:19 or intelligence right because these are
0:07:22 these are connected to consciousness as
0:07:24 well
0:07:24 what we're talking about here is that
0:07:27 can artificial intelligent
0:07:29 machines can they have
0:07:32 inner subjective conscious states
0:07:36 can they have something called
0:07:39 intentionality
0:07:40 okay which is now this is quite broad in
0:07:42 the philosophy of the mind but generally
0:07:44 speaking intentionality means and is
0:07:46 connected to meaning
0:07:47 it means that your
0:07:50 reasoning is about or of something else
0:07:54 okay so say i am reasoning say i'm
0:07:57 reasoning about
0:07:58 muhammad hijab i'm talking about
0:08:00 muhammad hijab and i'm reasoning
0:08:02 reasoning about you i know that i'm
0:08:05 reasoning about something other than
0:08:08 myself and other than the just the
0:08:11 the the sounds and the words that i'm
0:08:13 using it is
0:08:14 of and about something external to me
0:08:19 now we can safely say that robots or am
0:08:22 machines don't have an ability to do
0:08:24 that
0:08:24 because really robots and machines about
0:08:28 just rearranging of symbols right the
0:08:30 symbols
0:08:31 don't know that those symbols are about
0:08:34 or of something external to the symbol
0:08:36 itself
0:08:37 right because fundamentally computer
0:08:38 programs are based on zeros and ones
0:08:40 right
0:08:41 fundamentally so do the zeros and ones
0:08:44 do they know
0:08:45 that they are addressing an entity a
0:08:48 conscious sentient entity called
0:08:49 muhammad hijab
0:08:51 do so do they have intentionality no
0:08:54 it's just zeros and ones and this is
0:08:55 arrangement of zeros and ones
0:08:56 the zeros and ones are not of and about
0:09:01 muhammad hijab or rather the zeros and
0:09:03 ones don't know
0:09:05 they are referring to something called
0:09:07 muhammad hijab that's external to them
0:09:09 right so this is
0:09:10 generally speaking uh intentionality and
0:09:13 it relates to meaning and that's a
0:09:14 really good point that is a good point
0:09:15 but the thing is it's
0:09:16 very vast and there's a lot of
0:09:17 discussions oh that's a good way of
0:09:19 putting it because you're saying that
0:09:21 robots will only be able to interact
0:09:23 with
0:09:25 symbols directly but wouldn't know
0:09:27 wouldn't be able to give meaning to
0:09:28 those symbols
0:09:29 good so this is the point here so
0:09:30 computer systems just manipulate
0:09:33 symbols they can't attach meaning to the
0:09:35 symbol so this is
0:09:36 syntax and semantics so let me give an
0:09:39 example
0:09:40 um the difference between syntax and
0:09:41 semantics so we have here three
0:09:42 sentences right
0:09:44 yeah one in greek one in english
0:09:47 and let's do one in turkish right so
0:09:49 it's i love you
0:09:51 all right which is greek i love you and
0:09:54 you have
0:09:55 seni seville which is i love you in
0:09:57 turkish now as you can see the three
0:09:59 sentences have the same
0:10:00 semantics they have the same meaning but
0:10:03 they have different symbols
0:10:05 so what do we learn from this well take
0:10:06 this if i were to give you
0:10:08 all of the symbols of greek and teach
0:10:11 you how to arrange them
0:10:12 in the correct way with the right spaces
0:10:15 right in the right
0:10:16 kind of grammatical formula whatever the
0:10:18 case may be
0:10:19 by virtue of you doing that would you
0:10:21 know the meaning no
0:10:22 exactly so that shows there's a
0:10:24 difference between just
0:10:26 merely rearranging symbols and
0:10:28 understanding the meaning connected to
0:10:30 the symbols and attaching meaning to the
0:10:31 symbols right
0:10:33 so there's an interesting argument that
0:10:34 i think uh john professor john cell he
0:10:37 developed and i've adapted it here
0:10:39 is number one computer programs are
0:10:41 syntactical
0:10:42 so they're based on syntax number two
0:10:45 minds have semantics
0:10:47 number three syntax by itself is neither
0:10:50 sufficient nor constitutive
0:10:52 for semantics four therefore computer
0:10:55 programs by themselves
0:10:57 are not minds for example just imagine
0:11:00 an avalanche bro
0:11:01 there's an avalanche in some famous
0:11:03 mountains say in the alps in france
0:11:05 right
0:11:06 and the avalanche when it basically
0:11:09 creates its mess all of a sudden you see
0:11:11 rocks
0:11:12 that are arranged and it says you know
0:11:15 my name is muhammad hijab
0:11:17 and i'm over six foot five and i love
0:11:20 wrestling
0:11:20 and i'm a debater right so
0:11:24 now the mere arrangement of those
0:11:27 symbols right
0:11:28 so the mer arrangement of those symbols
0:11:31 does the avalanche
0:11:32 know the meaning no exactly
0:11:35 so the main arrangement of the symbols
0:11:37 itself doesn't give rise to the meaning
0:11:40 so if an if if a c right if if the tide
0:11:43 was coming in and out and as a result of
0:11:45 the tide moving
0:11:46 uh you see an arrangement of sand that
0:11:48 says i love my mother i love my parents
0:11:51 does the sea know the meaning of those
0:11:53 symbols
0:11:54 no so the mere arrangement of those
0:11:56 symbols in a particular way
0:11:58 doesn't necessarily give rise to meaning
0:12:00 because the c doesn't know how to attach
0:12:02 meaning to the symbols and the avalanche
0:12:04 doesn't know how to attach meaning
0:12:05 to the arrangement of rocks that for us
0:12:07 has meaning right
0:12:09 does that make sense um okay so this is
0:12:11 good
0:12:12 so you can't ever prove that do you
0:12:13 think there's ever a chance no sorry so
0:12:15 here's the point the point is
0:12:16 ai machines yeah they're just complex
0:12:18 syntactical arrangements
0:12:20 they can never you're saying that it's
0:12:21 not possible for them to they can't
0:12:23 attach me to
0:12:24 the symbols yeah why not
0:12:27 because of what we just discussed so for
0:12:29 example if an avalanche were to come and
0:12:32 somehow arrange a bunch of symbols that
0:12:35 says
0:12:35 i love smile to jannah it's the best
0:12:37 channel in the world please subscribe
0:12:38 now
0:12:39 yeah right it doesn't know the meaning
0:12:41 of that that's meaningless anyway
0:12:46 but do you see my point yeah so let's
0:12:49 break this down further so your question
0:12:51 really has opened the door to professor
0:12:54 john cell's
0:12:55 famous chinese room experiment you ready
0:12:56 for this experiment yeah okay heard of
0:12:57 this before but just go for it again
0:12:59 yeah so so say this is a room this this
0:13:02 pillow
0:13:03 right can you see this pillow sir
0:13:06 this pillow is a room you are in this
0:13:08 room hijab okay
0:13:09 on the side you're inside you're inside
0:13:12 yeah yeah you're right with that i'm
0:13:13 okay good
0:13:14 so you're in this pillow but it's a
0:13:17 roman we call it the chinese room
0:13:19 in this room there is a rule book but
0:13:21 it's only in the english language
0:13:23 i'm alright yeah and the rule book says
0:13:25 when you see this chinese symbol
0:13:27 and this chinese symbol then you
0:13:31 give this chinese symbol you don't know
0:13:33 what the symbols mean it's just giving
0:13:34 you a
0:13:36 symbolic representation right here are
0:13:38 the chinese characters when you see this
0:13:39 chinese character and this chinese
0:13:40 character then
0:13:41 give us or give outside of the room this
0:13:44 chinese character yeah
0:13:45 okay outside of the room are
0:13:48 chinese speakers for example yeah and
0:13:51 they give you questions okay this is an
0:13:53 adapted version of the thought
0:13:54 experiment but it still works
0:13:56 they give you questions in chinese yeah
0:13:59 so
0:13:59 they don't know who you are but you take
0:14:02 the questions in chinese and you read
0:14:04 the english rule book
0:14:05 and you say okay i've seen this chinese
0:14:06 character i have no idea what it means
0:14:08 but i've seen this chinese character and
0:14:10 this chinese character and the rule book
0:14:12 says i have to give this chinese
0:14:13 character
0:14:14 so you're giving all the right answers
0:14:16 out so for the people outside of the
0:14:18 room
0:14:19 do they think you know chinese yes
0:14:21 exactly
0:14:23 but do you know chinese no exactly so
0:14:26 this chinese room through experiment
0:14:27 represents what happens to the ai
0:14:28 machine
0:14:29 they just have syntactical arrangement
0:14:32 this is a manipulation of symbols
0:14:34 not meaning now there is a response to
0:14:36 this it's called the systems reply john
0:14:38 cell
0:14:38 calls it the systems reply some people
0:14:41 say yeah you
0:14:42 as muhammad hijab may not know the
0:14:43 meaning but the system itself
0:14:46 knows the meaning and john so replies
0:14:48 and says well how can that be the case
0:14:50 because there is no way of the system
0:14:51 attaching meaning to the symbols in the
0:14:53 first place
0:14:54 yeah and you could even extend the
0:14:56 thought experiment by saying that this
0:14:58 whole system could just be in your brain
0:14:59 mr muhammad hijab yeah
0:15:01 you could know how to manipulate all the
0:15:04 symbols
0:15:05 and always give the right answer but
0:15:06 does that mean you know the meaning
0:15:09 of the language no you just know how to
0:15:12 basically put different things together
0:15:13 now for example i could teach you right
0:15:15 now greek right so if someone says
0:15:19 boss ise okay yeah boss is fine
0:15:38 my
0:15:46 [Laughter]
0:15:52 there you go do you know what do you
0:15:53 know what i'm saying yes yes
0:15:58 you don't know what i'm saying yeah so
0:16:00 you just said to me
0:16:02 how are you i said i'm very good how did
0:16:03 you know i just
0:16:09 hey for the audience you know what i'm
0:16:11 saying yeah so i could i
0:16:13 don't know what i was guessing okay
0:16:14 that's a guess exactly so the point here
0:16:16 is
0:16:16 i'm just giving you symbols but in the
0:16:18 form of sounds
0:16:20 and i'm teaching you what sound to give
0:16:21 me back just because you know
0:16:24 the kind of syntactical symbolic
0:16:26 arrangement whether it's written format
0:16:28 or in in in in in in sound in
0:16:32 waves whatever right it doesn't mean you
0:16:34 know the meaning
0:16:35 right meaning so i could train you to
0:16:37 come to my house
0:16:38 my mom's house and she may have like she
0:16:41 may give you like five sentences
0:16:43 right and i could train you to respond
0:16:46 in a particular way that may
0:16:48 make her realize that you think that she
0:16:50 thinks that you know greek to the point
0:16:52 i could we could manipulate the whole
0:16:53 thing and say
0:16:54 after those five sentences and you
0:16:55 responded so well you could say in greek
0:16:58 oh i need to go my mom's calling me uh
0:17:00 yeah so you could escape the rumor
0:17:01 you're not you're not questioning any
0:17:02 further
0:17:03 so the point i'm trying to say is we we
0:17:05 can train you
0:17:07 to come across as knowing greek but that
0:17:09 you have no idea what's going on
0:17:10 you know just by virtue of you've just
0:17:13 arranged
0:17:14 uh you just know the programs you just
0:17:16 you just do you see my point
0:17:17 yes so that's why is that so you said
0:17:20 intentionally
0:17:21 yes so let me just go back into my notes
0:17:23 because there's another response to the
0:17:24 chinese uh room experiment which is very
0:17:27 important for us to
0:17:29 um yeah so so concludes having the
0:17:32 symbols by themselves
0:17:33 just having the syntax is not sufficient
0:17:36 for having the semantics
0:17:38 merely manipulating symbols is not
0:17:41 enough to guarantee
0:17:42 knowledge of what they mean okay
0:17:46 so obviously there is
0:17:49 lots of discussion concerning this issue
0:17:51 in the philosophy of that what's really
0:17:52 interesting in the quran yeah yeah
0:17:55 when when the malaika when the angel
0:17:57 said allah says
0:18:06 he taught adam all the nouns all the
0:18:08 names and then he
0:18:10 and then adam reflected it back to the
0:18:12 angels but the ones who use m
0:18:15 s met give me news literally from neba
0:18:18 give me news of what this these words
0:18:20 are if you are truthful
0:18:22 so it's it's not just regurgitation
0:18:25 it's telling me what this is about it's
0:18:27 about meaning as well
0:18:28 yes well some of the exegetes they even
0:18:32 said that
0:18:32 this is not just labels or terms
0:18:36 and nouns this is also the concept of
0:18:38 things
0:18:40 which is about meaning which is very
0:18:43 very interesting and the abstract nouns
0:18:45 yeah but yanni the kind of exegesis of
0:18:49 the ayah here is it wasn't just that it
0:18:50 was about the concept behind these
0:18:52 things
0:18:52 yeah which is very deep so you know if
0:18:55 you want more information they go to
0:18:57 sapience institute.org go to read and
0:18:59 you go there's answers there's an answer
0:19:01 called
0:19:02 does ai undermine religion we'll put it
0:19:04 in the description yeah
0:19:05 and you've got more information on what
0:19:06 we just spoke about but just to
0:19:08 summarize
0:19:09 you computer programs don't really have
0:19:11 intentionality so ai machines don't have
0:19:14 intentionality
0:19:15 the symbols that they have in their
0:19:16 programming the symbols don't know
0:19:19 that it's about something or of
0:19:20 something outside of the symbol
0:19:22 itself right it's just a symbol and
0:19:26 that is connected to meaning and we know
0:19:28 that computer programs manipulate
0:19:30 symbols not semantics it's syntactical
0:19:32 arrangements not
0:19:34 semantics and we gave the example of the
0:19:36 three
0:19:37 different ways of saying i love you i
0:19:39 love you sargabo
0:19:41 seni severum this has one meaning but
0:19:43 different symbols and if i gave you all
0:19:44 the right symbols of the turkish or
0:19:46 greek language to put them in the right
0:19:47 way
0:19:48 just by virtue of arranging them in in
0:19:49 the correct way to produce
0:19:51 the words equivalent in that language of
0:19:54 i love you you would never know it means
0:19:55 i love you
0:19:56 because you just know the symbols
0:19:57 there's no way of you attaching meaning
0:19:58 to the symbols right
0:19:59 and then you ask me what does it mean
0:20:01 what is meaning which was a very
0:20:03 very deep question and that opened the
0:20:05 door to the chinese room thought
0:20:06 experiment
0:20:07 and the chinese room thought experiment
0:20:08 actually shows that actually
0:20:10 you can manipulate computers manipulate
0:20:13 the symbols
0:20:13 but it doesn't necessarily mean that
0:20:15 they have the semantics right it's not
0:20:17 just it's by virtue you being able to
0:20:19 manipulate the symbols doesn't
0:20:21 mean that you now know the meaning and
0:20:24 this
0:20:24 differentiates between soft ai sorry
0:20:27 weak ai and hard ai
0:20:29 so weak ai is yes computer programs can
0:20:32 be very intelligent
0:20:34 they may even pass the turing test the
0:20:36 turing test is basically this
0:20:37 uh kind of test that was developed it's
0:20:40 like a game
0:20:40 that this computer human being are
0:20:42 having a discussion and there's an
0:20:44 outsider
0:20:45 um that basically needs to try and
0:20:47 differentiate which one's the computer
0:20:48 which one's the human something like
0:20:49 that
0:20:50 but that's not a very good test and
0:20:51 there's a lot of contentions behind it
0:20:53 anyway but the point is you may even
0:20:54 pass the turing test you may talk to an
0:20:56 ai machine and think
0:20:57 it's a normal human that doesn't mean
0:20:59 now that that ai machine
0:21:01 is conscious in the way that we just
0:21:03 spoke about it just means that they're
0:21:04 manipulating the symbols really really
0:21:06 well
0:21:06 even when they're talking about things
0:21:07 like machine learning in ai right
0:21:10 machine learning is just complicated
0:21:12 syntactic arrangements
0:21:13 with more complicates and tactical
0:21:15 arrangements and they're just reduced
0:21:17 fundamentally to zeros on ones which
0:21:18 don't have intentionality right
0:21:21 so yeah so this difference between hard
0:21:24 and soft ai so
0:21:26 soft ai is they could be very
0:21:27 intelligent more intelligent human
0:21:28 beings and we've seen it on popular
0:21:30 media and there's a really good uh
0:21:32 youtube
0:21:33 video by smart janna on you know the
0:21:35 conspiracy of
0:21:36 ai and stuff like that and you see
0:21:38 computer programs can be far more
0:21:40 intelligent than human beings
0:21:41 but that doesn't mean they're conscious
0:21:42 in the way that we just discussed that
0:21:43 they have inner subjective
0:21:45 conscious states that they can feel pain
0:21:47 that they now can attach meaning to
0:21:48 symbols
0:21:49 so if they can't have that type of
0:21:52 consciousness
0:21:52 why are you even talking about rights in
0:21:54 the same way that you talk about human
0:21:55 rights that's my point
0:21:57 so don't come across with the
0:21:58 physicalist philosophical naturalistic
0:22:01 presupposition here that yes one day
0:22:03 they are going to have
0:22:05 uh rights you know what i did say to
0:22:07 zichard a few hours ago i said
0:22:09 in 10 to 20 years you're going to have
0:22:11 people marrying robots
0:22:13 yeah and when you turn a robot off and
0:22:15 with the intention not to turn it back
0:22:17 on kind of thing
0:22:18 it's going to be like murder that's the
0:22:20 gist of our conversation so i think
0:22:22 that's going to happen you had japanese
0:22:24 well nothing wrong with japanese people
0:22:25 but there was a japanese person
0:22:27 he married a manga cartoon a manga
0:22:31 cartoon bro
0:22:35 yeah no no i don't know you don't know
0:22:37 what mega cartoon is this is a cartoon
0:22:39 he married a cartoon anime it's like
0:22:41 anime yeah
0:22:42 would you believe it so there's a
0:22:44 difference between hard ai and soft ai
0:22:47 so soft ais computer programs in air can
0:22:49 be very very intelligent and even it may
0:22:51 even pass the turing test that you could
0:22:52 sound like a human being as sound
0:22:54 conscious
0:22:55 but you will never truly be conscious
0:22:57 because ai machines
0:22:59 there is no such thing as hard ai just
0:23:00 from a philosophical point of view
0:23:02 because of intentionality because of
0:23:04 syntax and the semantics discussion that
0:23:06 we just had
0:23:07 and yes this discussion continues
0:23:08 there's lots of debates on this you know
0:23:10 we're not giving you the fullness
0:23:11 picture
0:23:12 but it's a good starting point for you
0:23:13 to understand that fundamentally
0:23:15 you know you have to understand when you
0:23:16 watch videos like this they come with
0:23:18 some philosophical lenses and
0:23:19 presuppositions
0:23:20 as makuu says the faith of philosophical
0:23:23 naturalism
0:23:24 they have to presume that physicalism is
0:23:26 true
0:23:27 they have to presume that philosophical
0:23:28 naturalism is true and therefore say
0:23:30 yeah
0:23:30 maybe they can become conscious in the
0:23:32 way that we're
0:23:33 discussing and therefore we should give
0:23:35 them rights but before you get there
0:23:37 let's have the real philosophical
0:23:38 discussion can they really be conscious
0:23:40 in the way that you're thinking
0:23:42 is philosophical naturalism true from
0:23:44 this point of view and is physicalism
0:23:46 true as an approach to the philosophy of
0:23:48 the mind and that's the debates that's
0:23:50 continuing
0:23:50 and hopefully giving you some insights
0:23:52 for you to do further research and go to
0:23:53 the
0:23:54 link below or wherever you know to read
0:23:56 a little bit further concerning uh
0:23:58 does ai undermine religion with that
0:24:01 guys
0:24:02 thank you for watching happy birthday
0:24:05 with that guys
0:24:06 make sure you do what the man says
0:24:10 and um go yes go down to the enchanted
0:24:13 description there's lots of things that
0:24:14 come out the book that i've written
0:24:15 called
0:24:16 scientific deception new atheists also
0:24:18 free of charge on the sapiens
0:24:20 institute so make sure you go and
0:24:21 download that is free of charge
0:24:23 i'll put another description a link in
0:24:24 the description for that there are
0:24:26 things that are coming out three of our
0:24:27 webinars that we're doing on a weekly
0:24:29 basis
0:24:30 uh that are free of charge so everything
0:24:31 there is going to be once again free of
0:24:33 charge
0:24:34 so make sure you go and visit that
0:24:44 website
0:24:50 you