|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
Tags | artificial intelligence , consciousness |
View Poll Results: Is consciousness physical or metaphysical? |
Consciousness is a kind of data processing and the brain is a machine that can be replicated in other substrates, such as general purpose computers. | 81 | 86.17% | |
Consciousness requires a second substance outside the physical material world, currently undetectable by scientific instruments | 3 | 3.19% | |
On Planet X, unconscious biological beings have perfected conscious machines | 10 | 10.64% | |
Voters: 94. You may not vote on this poll |
17th April 2012, 11:15 PM | #81 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,985
|
A sufficiently detailed simulation of galaxy behaves as a galaxy within the simulation. A sufficiently detailed simulation of a fusion reaction behaves as a fusion reaction within the simulation. Something that behaves consciously within a simulation is conscious in my book; just as a chip-level simulated calculator is still a calculator, even though I must push simulated buttons with a mouse instead of real buttons with my fingers and read the results on a computer screen instead of an LCD display.
|
17th April 2012, 11:22 PM | #82 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 436
|
Transcranial magnetic stimulation suggests that quantum events underlie signalling. Whether these are only significant when manifesting at a macro level, or whether we've only been able to observe them as such, I don't know. |
18th April 2012, 12:10 AM | #84 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,874
|
Ah... don't get all sentimental on us quarky :-)
We know you love the soil, quarks and bicycles but whales is a new one. :-) You may have feelings about the matter, but since these feelings are qualia they don't actually have an objective status. We can only objectively evaluate your expression of these feelings(your behavior) and all other "behavior" and not the feelings themselves. And based on this decide that your feelings on the matter are objectively relevant or not.This is no joke. It is apparently the objective scientific approach to justify saying that humans do "crazy irrational things" like save whales even though there is no objective rational reason to do it, its called heterophenomenologyWP. Surprise surprise it's a word coined by our friend Mr consciousness explained, D.Dennett. Of course as you pointed out the reason to save whales only becomes apparent after they were saved. So no problem it was possible to come up with an objective reason eventually. And it is now possible to simulate a world on a general purpose computer with objective rational reasons to save the whales. What is obviously missing is that the real world does not wait for and is not dependent on our invented mathematical models/simulations based on historical data. We as humans cannot wait either. We have and will continue to survive because of our ability to act on our irrational subjective qualia in realtime(ala Westprog). After the fact we learn about the correctness of our abilities and we accumulate objective data. The question remains as to the success of how we have used this data. In simulations it proves successful however in the real world the debate rages on. Evidence suggest that we have evolved qualia to give us the tools to survive in reality in realtime. There are certainly downsides to this ability, like all things have there upsides and their downsides. However the fact that we have survived so far suggest this ability has more upsides than downsides. Their is a recent trend to dismiss as illusionary and ignore qualia and only focus on a recent development in human evolution, the rational thought which enables us to create virtual worlds based on predictable historical data were survival can be logically programmed. The fact is we may not survive to enjoy the fruits of this experiment of living in a virtual world free from unpredictability since we remain completely and precariously dependent on the real unpredictable world. It's ironic ain't it? These discussions always remind me of Frank Tipler's book "The Physics of Immortality". The biggest challenge faced to achieve this ideal was dodging asteroid fields with a 4 square kilometer solar sail needed to reach the speeds required to colonies the universe fast enough before it started contracting to make it contract unevenly and in this way allow a supermachine sufficient space-time to have and infinite amount of thoughts thus giving the "impression" of immortality. I always laugh when I remember his ideas and then I get serious when I remember his appendices were these ideas were painstakingly mathematically proven. Of course he was using historical data and since we now have more data we can conclude contraction is not going to happen and Franks logic is rubbish. Apart from the practical difficulty of dodging asteroids with a very large mirror!!!! Empirical evidence does not lie. Talking theory based on historical data is the easy part. Oh and my last comment is on those chess and jeopardy computers everyone is so impressed with. I was never impressed with chess or any factual re-call game even when humans were good at them. Get me a robot that can survive in the real world for 70 000 years without help from humans and I will start paying attention. |
__________________
"Anyway, why is a finely-engineered machine of wire and silicon less likely to be conscious than two pounds of warm meat?" Pixy Misa "We live in a world of more and more information and less and less meaning" Jean Baudrillard http://bokashiworld.wordpress.com/ |
|
18th April 2012, 12:12 AM | #85 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 24,897
|
I think that is the same as option #1, with the proviso that current general purpose computers are not adequate for the task.
I voted #1, on the premise that a computer will probably some day be built which is adequate for the task.
Quote:
Quote:
Hans |
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills. |
|
18th April 2012, 01:22 AM | #86 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,631
|
Originally Posted by Mr. Scott
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leumas
So just to be clear: do you think there is any such thing as "output of consciousness" or not? |
__________________
...Forever shall the wolf in me desire the sheep in you...
|
|
18th April 2012, 02:59 AM | #88 |
Persnickety Insect
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sunny Munuvia
Posts: 16,343
|
Yes. It is entirely correct.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO |
|
18th April 2012, 03:49 AM | #89 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 5,295
|
Do you remember my initial objection?
You may be able to simulate consciousness, but have you actually created a new individual instance of consciousness? Or an elaborate puppet on a string? All the justifications put forward for simulated consciousness are not addressing consciousness at all, but rather intelligence. Are you now saying that intelligence beyond a certain point of complexity requires consciousness as a constituent part? |
18th April 2012, 04:58 AM | #90 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 9,264
|
That's part of the problem. Emotions seem to be required, in humans, to learn and categorize experiences.
However, it isn't what I'm getting at. What I'm getting at is the idea that any system complex enough to be capable of consciousness is complex enough to get stuff wrong and have internal conflicts. Just consider the fact that conscious people do philosophy, and hardly any agreement exists there. HAL's psychosis is explored (at least in Clarke's mind) as resulting from conflicting instructions: to be helpful, accurate, and informative, but also to conceal the purpose of the mission from the astronauts. Interesting idea. Maybe the bomb in Dark Star is a better exploration, with its focus on phenomenology, but I still have a bad taste in my mouth about how they ripped off the ending from Ray Bradbury. What I'm getting at is this: Humans, who seem to be conscious, can do things that computers cannot, at least now. I don't know if they are related to emotions, but they may be related so similarly weird stuff, like empathy and self-awareness. It seems to me from a mathematical/logical perspective that self-awareness, which many people think is a sine qua non of consciousness, evolved as a means of multiplying intelligence. The ability to model something outside the brain in a similar way to modeling something inside the brain or the brain itself, including the whole mirror neuron thingie, seems to me a neat basis on which to build entire categories of learning and reasoning. Generalizing self-to-others and others-to-self is a powerful thing to do, and self-awareness may be a way to go about it. But with this power comes the expense of making inappropriate generalizations, and do you want your computer to do that? Probably not. I see these commercials with people talking to Siri on their iPhone, and I am absolutely certain that's what people want, and I'm also certain that the commercials are largely fake or rely only on cases where it happens to get it right. I'm also certain that the requirements are way beyond what you can expect another human being to do. People spend a hell of a lot of time correcting misunderstandings. Just consider what I'm trying to explain now, because I don't think I was understood. People do this all the time but they put up with it because of other things about interpersonal relationships (which do have to do with emotion). But people seldom study that. I've studied a lot of linguistics, and it constantly irritated me how structural linguists ignore almost all of verbal communication, living in some idealized la-la land that doesn't even come close to modeling what they write in linguistics books and papers. So, the question is, would you want a computer that is only as good as another human being at understanding you? I'm guessing that the answer would be no, and that this would prevent people from actually thinking along the lines of making a conscious machine. Either it would be too irritating or too scary, and people would flip out before they sat down and wrote the code. |
__________________
"It probably came from a sticky dark planet far, far away." - Godzilla versus Hedora "There's no evidence that the 9-11 attacks (whoever did them) were deliberately attacking civilians. On the contrary the targets appear to have been chosen as military." -DavidByron |
|
18th April 2012, 05:44 AM | #91 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,640
|
Punshhh: my brain is made out of fatty protein tissue, which is made up of molecules, which are made up of atoms, which are made up of protons neutrons and electrons. If I were to organise these protons neutrons and electrons in some other fashion to construct an "artificial" brain, then provided it adequately reflected the complexity and power of my own brain and operated in a similar fashion, then that artificial brain would be just as conscious as you or me. It might be just a puppet on a string, if that's what you want to call it. But what makes you think you're so different?
|
18th April 2012, 06:08 AM | #92 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 715
|
Does consciousness even matter?
One of the posters above asked whether simulated consciousness is actual consciousness? Or is it merely a puppet on a stick?
It occurs to me the same question might be asked of us. If a decision is made on a subconscious level, and the conscious mind is merely there to have us experience having made the decision, isn't our conscious mind also some sort of puppet on a stick? Unless I've misunderstood something (not unlikely) recent research into consciousness found that using an MRI it was possible to predict a simply decision made by a person before s/he was aware of having made the choice. So perhaps our own consciousness mind is similarly a puppet on a stick? Of course, something is still making that decision. I assume that at some fundamental level its nothing more than sophisticated chemistry. If so, then an AI simulation of consciousness isn't out of the question. What's more, I disagree with the poster who said we have to fully understand consciosness first. We might get there by accident. It has happened before. |
__________________
I've been called a "Big Thinker", but curiously, only by people with a lisp. |
|
18th April 2012, 06:51 AM | #93 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 5,295
|
You have described a replica brain, fine I agree it may be conscious. A simulation is not a replica of a brain, it is a projected image on a screen, which can be interpreted by a viewer. The projection may be of a replica brain, but that brain would be in another box or a different part of the box from the simulation projector, not on the screen.
|
18th April 2012, 06:52 AM | #94 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 5,295
|
|
18th April 2012, 06:56 AM | #95 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 5,295
|
|
18th April 2012, 07:04 AM | #96 |
Under the Amazing One's Wing
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,546
|
Q: How is a computer-simulated conscious brain NOT like computer-simulated photosynthesis?
A: The brain and a conscious computer both output the same thing: control signals for the body. Computers routinely output control signals to animal and mechanical bodies. We can do this already. Is there something else the brain outputs that machines could not? |
18th April 2012, 07:05 AM | #97 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 436
|
|
18th April 2012, 07:11 AM | #98 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 5,295
|
|
18th April 2012, 07:15 AM | #99 |
Under the Amazing One's Wing
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,546
|
|
18th April 2012, 07:16 AM | #100 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 16,041
|
|
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." Isaac Asimov |
|
18th April 2012, 07:29 AM | #101 |
Under the Amazing One's Wing
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,546
|
I think that's a key factor of some people's anti-computationalist positions. They are protecting their belief in their immortal souls. If they buy it that consciousness is just information processing in a physical brain, it takes away their faith in the afterlife.
I'm not suggesting EVERY anti-computationalist is letting protecting their faith in the afterlife drive their arguments, but it explains well the mean spirited tone in some of their postings. I'm not as closed minded as I seem. I'm willing to consider evidence for the soul, if anyone could produce any. If you think a soul is required for consciousness, then just say so, will you? |
18th April 2012, 07:41 AM | #102 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 24,897
|
I don't, sorry.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Hans |
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills. |
|
18th April 2012, 07:41 AM | #103 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,874
|
|
__________________
"Anyway, why is a finely-engineered machine of wire and silicon less likely to be conscious than two pounds of warm meat?" Pixy Misa "We live in a world of more and more information and less and less meaning" Jean Baudrillard http://bokashiworld.wordpress.com/ |
|
18th April 2012, 07:52 AM | #104 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,874
|
|
__________________
"Anyway, why is a finely-engineered machine of wire and silicon less likely to be conscious than two pounds of warm meat?" Pixy Misa "We live in a world of more and more information and less and less meaning" Jean Baudrillard http://bokashiworld.wordpress.com/ |
|
18th April 2012, 08:02 AM | #105 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 5,295
|
And where is the complex intelligence? on the screen, in an attached camera lens or in a component attached somewhere round the back of the simulator marked "replica brain"?
Does it somehow dwell in all three? Or is it located in a virtual world which is in no exact location in the physical world? |
18th April 2012, 08:44 AM | #106 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,946
|
|
18th April 2012, 09:15 AM | #107 |
The Infinitely Prolonged
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space)
Posts: 15,612
|
No, I expect to judge AI progress on how long it takes my pencil to spontaneously declare "I think therefore I am"!
Seriously: A.I. is a class of mathematical computer models. We can't simulate consciousness, yet. But, we can estimate the boundries of what they can achieve with other types of models. We know from studying evolution, that the emergence of altruistic behavior is more fundamental than conciousness, not the other way around. So, we get to understand the circumstances by which altruism survives and thrives or dwindles and fails, without needing a truly conscious system to do it. Our estimates could be wrong. Perhaps Strong A.I. would work so differently from natural intelligence, that some of these early models of altruism won't apply. But, it's unlikely. |
__________________
WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be. SkeptiCamp NYC: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/ An open conference on science and skepticism, where you could be a presenter! By the way, my first name is NOT Bowerick!!!! |
|
18th April 2012, 09:32 AM | #108 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 436
|
|
18th April 2012, 10:01 AM | #109 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 5,295
|
|
18th April 2012, 10:46 AM | #110 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,985
|
I doubt there will be any change in what computers can do, only in processing speed and storage capacity. Even "quantum computing", if it ever becomes practical, will not change the functionality of computers. So your premise only makes sense if you think speed of operation is a necessary component of consciousness, enormous amounts of storage will be needed (more than is currently available), or some sort of data processing machine will be invented that can evaluate noncomputable functions.
I would say we could do it now if we knew how, it would require a lot of storage, and the result would be too slow to be of any interest. |
18th April 2012, 11:21 AM | #111 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 8,588
|
One day, when you figure out the answer to this question, you will look back at your mindset now and realize how childish and naive you were. In the meantime I suggest you consider the words at minutes 52:15 to 52:30 in this video Also ponder over these images Relativity (Escher) Dream Caused by the flight of a bee around a Pomegranate seconds before awakening (Dali) Metamorphosis of Narcissus (Dali) I also suggest you go to some library and read Shakespeare or Miguel De Cervantes or Robert Frost or Rudyard Kipling or Homer or even Sun Tsu. I also suggest you familiarize yourself with some science history and read about Isaac Newton and Leibniz and Descartes and Einstein and Fourier and Laplace and Pascal and Freud. You may even enjoy the writings of some philosophers like Voltaire and Diderot and Russell. Moreover, you may want to go to some museum and reflect over some art like Da Vinci's or Escher’s or Michelangelo's or Dali's. Finally you may want to have a nice night out in a good Comedy Club and enjoy some good old human humor instead of spending the night playing video games or watching Star Trek reruns.... maybe that might help. |
18th April 2012, 11:28 AM | #112 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 8,588
|
|
18th April 2012, 11:33 AM | #113 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 8,588
|
|
18th April 2012, 11:46 AM | #114 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,946
|
|
18th April 2012, 11:52 AM | #115 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 6,946
|
In a strict sense, someone who holds that consciousness is not based on computation.
In a weaker sense, someone who holds that consciousness is not based entirely on computation. I consider the latter a "weaker" sense because fundamentally it isn't possible for consciousness to be only partially based on computation, meaning people that think so just don't quite fully understand what computation entails. I don't know that there are many people with this position so it doesn't matter much, but I wanted to be clear. |
18th April 2012, 11:57 AM | #116 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 8,588
|
So you PixyMisa are "right now" able to produce a FUSION REACTION in your computer?
In reply to this I think you said it best…. “I have no words adequate to encompass the depth of your confusion.” I on the other hand have ONE WORD that is adequate to encompass the shallowness of your "monumentally simplistic" 'thinking' and the contemptibility of your arrogance. |
18th April 2012, 12:10 PM | #117 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,631
|
Well, it’s not a matter of defining “it” since the question is whether there is anything in terms of output to define in the first place (other than processing itself).
More specifically: If the “output of consciousness” would be considered to be analogous to what sugar is to photosynthesis … is it even meaningful to speak about consciousness in such terms, as some kind of substance it produces? Here’s the original quote again:
Originally Posted by Mr. Scott
|
__________________
...Forever shall the wolf in me desire the sheep in you...
|
|
18th April 2012, 12:16 PM | #118 | |||
Muse
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 607
|
State of the Art April 2012. Must see to be up to speed on this topic. ... "arrogance" checked ... check
BBC Horizon: The Hunt For AI
|
|||
__________________
LET'S START SAVING TAX MONEY AND GAINING TAX REVENUES! END THE BS POT WAR! |
||||
18th April 2012, 12:20 PM | #119 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 8,588
|
|
18th April 2012, 12:33 PM | #120 |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 8,588
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|