ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


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.
Reply
Old 27th September 2017, 02:45 PM   #1
Thor 2
Master Poster
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 2,758
Consciousness/Self Awareness

On another thread the subject of artificial intelligence (AI) surfaced, and I made a comment about the dangers of such an entity, putting it's own self preservation as a goal above any others. I assumed, (perhaps incorrectly), that a highly developed AI would develop a state of self awareness. I was taken to task on the issue and it was suggested that an AI would only need to be programmed to not want self preservation.

As it was a derail of the subject matter of the thread I decided to start this new one specifically about the nature of self awareness and consciousness.

Interestingly when you google self awareness, you get kinds of hits from those who would sell you all kinds of ideas on how to improve yours and so on, but little in the way of explanation of the subject itself. Googling consciousness is more productive however and I found this:

https://www.newscientist.com/article...ient-machines/


Quote:
It might seem as if we stand little chance of making an artificial consciousness when the natural variety remains such an enigma. But in fact the quest for machine consciousness may be key to solving the mystery of human consciousness, as even scientists outside AI research are starting to acknowledge. “The best way of understanding something is to try and replicate it,” says psychologist Kevin O’Regan of Descartes University in Paris, France. “So if you want to understand what consciousness is, well make a machine that’s conscious.”

So as is said here natural consciousness is an enigma, (I read a few snippets from others who expressed the same sentiment), and maybe we need to try and make an artificial one to understand it.

As I mentioned on the other thread this may be risky.
__________________
There are billions of gods. One or more in the mind of every theist.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2017, 07:57 PM   #2
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 6,445
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
On another thread the subject of artificial intelligence (AI) surfaced, and I made a comment about the dangers of such an entity, putting it's own self preservation as a goal above any others. I assumed, (perhaps incorrectly), that a highly developed AI would develop a state of self awareness. I was taken to task on the issue and it was suggested that an AI would only need to be programmed to not want self preservation.
<polite snip>
IMO, this would not be guaranteed to work. AI must have the ability to reprogram itself in order to learn and then predict behaviour, so there is nothing to stop it reprogramming itself to remove that constraint.
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2017, 08:51 PM   #3
Beerina
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
 
Beerina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 28,933
Google et al. are experimenting with machine learning. If they come up with a general purpose artificial learning brain, there will be no real programming of it, only training.

It has to want to do something, which is where we would control it, "running" it to solve a problem.

There might be some risk of telling it to solve a problem with too much knowledge about itself, wherein the solving involves disabling some of its own protections. This would (assuming not applied deliberately) be an accidental side effect of working off into what we might think of as the weeds, but which overlaps something that causes it to do something bad.

There's also meta-manipulation of humans to get them to accomplish goals, where its own internal simulations to find solutions yield lying about what the real purposes are.
__________________
"Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson

The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales now! More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?
Beerina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2017, 08:56 PM   #4
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 6,445
Originally Posted by Beerina View Post
There's also meta-manipulation of humans to get them to accomplish goals, where its own internal simulations to find solutions yield lying about what the real purposes are.
Yeah... "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that"
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2017, 09:49 PM   #5
Lukraak_Sisser
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,963
Why would such an entity be hostile to humans though?

I think it is in far more danger itself. IF we manage to create a self aware computer program we've pretty much shown that intelligence truly does not require the intervention of a god. There are a lot of religious people out there that would destroy it just for that alone.

And if it's programmed in a computer language incompatible with mainstream computers and not connected to the internet its only ability to interact is us. Who can turn it off at any time we wish. No body to move, no ability to speak except when your creators allow it, nothing to explore except that which your creators give you while in effect being a child. We'd best be very careful ethics wise there.
Lukraak_Sisser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2017, 12:14 AM   #6
Thor 2
Master Poster
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 2,758
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
Why would such an entity be hostile to humans though?

I think it is in far more danger itself. IF we manage to create a self aware computer program we've pretty much shown that intelligence truly does not require the intervention of a god. There are a lot of religious people out there that would destroy it just for that alone.

And if it's programmed in a computer language incompatible with mainstream computers and not connected to the internet its only ability to interact is us. Who can turn it off at any time we wish. No body to move, no ability to speak except when your creators allow it, nothing to explore except that which your creators give you while in effect being a child. We'd best be very careful ethics wise there.

Well not necessarily hostile to humans but concerned about its own survival which may be at odds with what we want. This theme has been played out in a few movies including 2001, The Matrix, and Terminator.
__________________
There are billions of gods. One or more in the mind of every theist.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2017, 01:54 AM   #7
StackOverflow
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 51
Maybe I am thinking in too simple ways here, but an AI runs with electricity, right?
If it shows signs of hostility, you pull the plug.

Not that I think that we will ever develop a truly self conscious machine. There is still a big difference between the former and a computer which mimics a human brain in a pretty good way.

IMO calling such a machine intelligent is utter bollocks. It is definitely a great thing to have a computer program which can do things based on "experience", especially in medicine, but it will still be a highly capable computer program, nothing less but also nothing more.

Also: Why wouldn't scientists not just try to create a disembodied brain made out of real tissue and stick a few cables in it? Sounds silly and uninformed but to me it seems like a way more reasonable answer for the question: "How could we create artificial consciousness?" Imagine a literal "brain in a vat" connected to a machine, controlling it and/or communicating through it.

I have almost no knowledge of cloning, but isn't it already possible to clone/grow human organs in a lab? What about a functioning brain?
StackOverflow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2017, 05:46 AM   #8
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Somewhere between the central U.S. and Hades
Posts: 11,373
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
IMO, this would not be guaranteed to work. AI must have the ability to reprogram itself in order to learn and then predict behaviour, so there is nothing to stop it reprogramming itself to remove that constraint.
Actually, there can be. It's not a difficult task to have "core" commands or programs that can't be changed (possibly even hardware-based), and then additional ones that are allowed for reprogramming. It's not an all-or-nothing proposition.
Hellbound is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2017, 06:05 AM   #9
doronshadmi
Penultimate Amazing
 
doronshadmi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 12,646
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
So as is said here natural consciousness is an enigma, (I read a few snippets from others who expressed the same sentiment), and maybe we need to try and make an artificial one to understand it.

As I mentioned on the other thread this may be risky.
Is there a clear border between the natural and the artificial that never can't be crossed?
__________________
As long as Comparison is impossible because of the imbalance of one's mind, new glasses will not help.
----
If a tree falls in the forest, and no one’s there to see it, the tree and ground still measure each other. ( http://www.askamathematician.com )
doronshadmi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2017, 01:24 PM   #10
Thor 2
Master Poster
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 2,758
Originally Posted by StackOverflow View Post
Maybe I am thinking in too simple ways here, but an AI runs with electricity, right?
If it shows signs of hostility, you pull the plug.

......

If you catch it in time.

The way we are connected today with virtually instantaneous communication, an AI may be able to replicate itself or invade other electronic devices, before you are aware of it happening. What will you do if your car turns on you.
__________________
There are billions of gods. One or more in the mind of every theist.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2017, 01:26 PM   #11
Thor 2
Master Poster
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 2,758
Originally Posted by doronshadmi View Post
Is there a clear border between the natural and the artificial that never can't be crossed?
Possibly and perhaps this is to be hoped for.
__________________
There are billions of gods. One or more in the mind of every theist.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2017, 01:43 PM   #12
Thor 2
Master Poster
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 2,758
The concept of self awareness or perhaps we can just say selfness is something that has intrigued me for some time.

We assume that humans have the highest degree of this property but there is room for skepticism about this. The degree of intelligence or the ability to make things may not necessarily equip us with the highest value.

I think all animals equiped with the simplest of brains may have some degree of selfness, and I think the bulk of us may feel this too. If not why do we get concerned about cruelty to animals? If an animal does not have a central feeling of self that is experiencing the pain what is?

I know the god botherers will wade in here with statements about our souls and such but you can spare me this.
__________________
There are billions of gods. One or more in the mind of every theist.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2017, 02:10 PM   #13
Dr.Sid
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Olomouc, Czech Republic
Posts: 1,233
I think I have pretty good model of self consciousness. Perfectly in reach of current computing. But what good would come of it ? We don't need AI. We need total absence of AI.
Humans are successful only because they are smartest thing on the planet. AI will outsmart them, it's just a matter of Moore's law.
Enjoy life, don't play with fire.
Dr.Sid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2017, 03:06 PM   #14
Thor 2
Master Poster
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 2,758
Originally Posted by Dr.Sid View Post
I think I have pretty good model of self consciousness. Perfectly in reach of current computing. But what good would come of it ? We don't need AI. We need total absence of AI.
Humans are successful only because they are smartest thing on the planet. AI will outsmart them, it's just a matter of Moore's law.
Enjoy life, don't play with fire.

Given that scientists have opinionated that natural consciousness is an enigma I don't know that we do have a pretty good model. Perhaps consciousness will spontaneously happen if AI gets good enough, perhaps it has happened already and they are hiding from us.

I don't think we can avoid the development of AI however given our lack of control in many places on this planet.
__________________
There are billions of gods. One or more in the mind of every theist.

Last edited by Thor 2; 28th September 2017 at 03:07 PM.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2017, 03:34 PM   #15
jrhowell
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 245
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Perhaps consciousness will spontaneously happen if AI gets good enough, perhaps it has happened already and they are hiding from us.
I don't see conciousness as being a single thing. I see it as a set of survival abilities acquired through evolution. A central one is an understanding of the world around us and ourselves as independent actors within it.

An AI would have its own set of abilities, designed for the satisfaction of the goals we set rather than its own survival. Designing in an understanding of the AI as an entity within the world would likely be a benefit for some types of AI to do their jobs, but would not always be necessary. AI consciousness would likely be a far different thing than human consciousness.
jrhowell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2017, 05:19 PM   #16
Apathia
Illuminator
 
Apathia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 4,116
There is this assumption held by practically everybody that I doubt.
It goes that if an AI system is self-aware, it will necessarily be motivated to self-preservation.

I'd like to ask where we Biologicals get our motivation to preserve our life and self-awareness? It's our bodies, our biochemistry, our hormones tailored by evolution.

A self-aware AI wouldn't [i]care[i]. There would only be a motive of self-preservation if that were a programmed feature within the systems programed goals.

True sentient systems could undergo an evolution of their own, but it's not biological reproduction. True they could alter and improve their selves toward goals. But would they set individual preservation as a value, when they might go for a hive mind instead?

The bulk of who we are and the base of our values comes not from an abstract mental network but from our bodies with their evolutionary biological heritage. Artificial sentience is bound to be something quite different that isn't the psycho-social awareness we call our consciousness.

So no, I don't think it follows that the robots are going to rebel.
__________________
"At the Supreme Court level where we work, 90 percent of any decision is emotional. The rational part of us supplies the reasons for supporting our predilections."
Justice William O. Douglas

"Humans aren't rational creatures but rationalizing creatures."
Author Unknown
Apathia is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2017, 05:45 PM   #17
Thor 2
Master Poster
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 2,758
Originally Posted by Apathia View Post
There is this assumption held by practically everybody that I doubt.
It goes that if an AI system is self-aware, it will necessarily be motivated to self-preservation.

I'd like to ask where we Biologicals get our motivation to preserve our life and self-awareness? It's our bodies, our biochemistry, our hormones tailored by evolution.

A self-aware AI wouldn't [i]care[i]. There would only be a motive of self-preservation if that were a programmed feature within the systems programed goals.

True sentient systems could undergo an evolution of their own, but it's not biological reproduction. True they could alter and improve their selves toward goals. But would they set individual preservation as a value, when they might go for a hive mind instead?

The bulk of who we are and the base of our values comes not from an abstract mental network but from our bodies with their evolutionary biological heritage. Artificial sentience is bound to be something quite different that isn't the psycho-social awareness we call our consciousness.

So no, I don't think it follows that the robots are going to rebel.

I am not one of those that make that assumption but am prepared to consider that it's possible. I hope it is not.

What I am talking about is not just sentience but a feeling of being or selfness. As mentioned before scientists consider natural consciousness is an enigma, so if we are struggling to understand it, how can we be sure we can avoid it in AI we create?
__________________
There are billions of gods. One or more in the mind of every theist.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th September 2017, 08:19 PM   #18
Apathia
Illuminator
 
Apathia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 4,116
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
I am not one of those that make that assumption but am prepared to consider that it's possible. I hope it is not.

What I am talking about is not just sentience but a feeling of being or selfness. As mentioned before scientists consider natural consciousness is an enigma, so if we are struggling to understand it, how can we be sure we can avoid it in AI we create?
A felt sense of having a contentious I?
Or being aware that one is aware and associating that with an identity?
Some people rarely have that.
I remember the day in my childhood when it occurred to me.

I think that will eventually occur in some artificial sentience, but it may have to be grown rather than algorithmed in. The only reason I see to avoid it is that it may not be a very efficient way to process data.

I also remember when I realized it was a mistake to attach that awareness exclusively to my ego and to regard it as something substantial. "I" is overrated.

An artificial sentience my not overrate it as we do, and so would be more "enlightened."
__________________
"At the Supreme Court level where we work, 90 percent of any decision is emotional. The rational part of us supplies the reasons for supporting our predilections."
Justice William O. Douglas

"Humans aren't rational creatures but rationalizing creatures."
Author Unknown

Last edited by Apathia; 28th September 2017 at 08:21 PM.
Apathia is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th September 2017, 02:19 AM   #19
StackOverflow
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 51
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
If you catch it in time.

The way we are connected today with virtually instantaneous communication, an AI may be able to replicate itself or invade other electronic devices, before you are aware of it happening. What will you do if your car turns on you.
Simple solution. Prevent it from self replicating. In the part of my post you ignored I explained that no matter how sophisticated, an AI is still a computer program, made by humans.

So your "AI will go sentient and then will go rogue" is borderline fearmongering. AI is not some kind of frankensteins monster, which will become sentient by chance or by "I can't see why not".

Please show some data where AI goes from "highly capable of doing dynamic calculations for finding a solution to a certain problem" to "becomes sentient and plots to hurt/kill humans out of the "fear" of being turned off.

AI is made by humans so if you claim it could be sentient and "evil" some day I will say we could find a way to prevent that.
StackOverflow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th September 2017, 02:04 PM   #20
Thor 2
Master Poster
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 2,758
Originally Posted by Apathia View Post
A felt sense of having a contentious I?
Or being aware that one is aware and associating that with an identity?
Some people rarely have that.
I remember the day in my childhood when it occurred to me.

I think that will eventually occur in some artificial sentience, but it may have to be grown rather than algorithmed in. The only reason I see to avoid it is that it may not be a very efficient way to process data.

I also remember when I realized it was a mistake to attach that awareness exclusively to my ego and to regard it as something substantial. "I" is overrated.

An artificial sentience my not overrate it as we do, and so would be more "enlightened."

"Being aware that one is aware." - Yes I like that.

It is possible today to give sentience to computers in a way, by connecting them to sensors giving information about temperature and so on, and it may be possible to program a degree of sentience in a computer, that can sense the mood of people being communicated with. This may still be an unconscious machine however.

If we get to a stage were computers are being programmed to feel empathy with those being spoken to then we may perhaps trigger something.
__________________
There are billions of gods. One or more in the mind of every theist.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th September 2017, 02:18 PM   #21
Thor 2
Master Poster
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 2,758
Originally Posted by StackOverflow View Post
Simple solution. Prevent it from self replicating. In the part of my post you ignored I explained that no matter how sophisticated, an AI is still a computer program, made by humans.

So your "AI will go sentient and then will go rogue" is borderline fearmongering. AI is not some kind of frankensteins monster, which will become sentient by chance or by "I can't see why not".

Please show some data where AI goes from "highly capable of doing dynamic calculations for finding a solution to a certain problem" to "becomes sentient and plots to hurt/kill humans out of the "fear" of being turned off.

AI is made by humans so if you claim it could be sentient and "evil" some day I will say we could find a way to prevent that.

I am not intending any "fear mongering" but think this is an interesting topic to discuss.

Given that scientists thus far find consciousness "an enigma" you must concede it's unlikely I, (not a scientist), can come up with data to prove the possibility of AI achieving selfness - not sentience.

It is interesting that quite a few books and movies have emerged with the theme of AI becoming rogue. Apart from the ones aforementioned another that comes to mind is "West World".
__________________
There are billions of gods. One or more in the mind of every theist.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th September 2017, 03:16 PM   #22
Apathia
Illuminator
 
Apathia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 4,116
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
"Being aware that one is aware." - Yes I like that.

It is possible today to give sentience to computers in a way, by connecting them to sensors giving information about temperature and so on, and it may be possible to program a degree of sentience in a computer, that can sense the mood of people being communicated with. This may still be an unconscious machine however.

If we get to a stage were computers are being programmed to feel empathy with those being spoken to then we may perhaps trigger something.
Empathy and other emotional responses would have to be specially programmed, as they would not naturally arise in a digital/algorithmic system.

As for complex behaviors simulating emotional responses, again special programing. And the system would not necessarily have awareness of awareness or necessarily monitor those behavioral reactions itself.

BTW I see the word "contentious" in my previous post where I meant "conscious." But the slip is significant. Our "I" is by nature contentious. So If we were able to give android the same "I" we make a fuss over, they would be contentious as well.

But we don't have to, you see. And it's unlikely they would give themselves this pernicious feature.
__________________
"At the Supreme Court level where we work, 90 percent of any decision is emotional. The rational part of us supplies the reasons for supporting our predilections."
Justice William O. Douglas

"Humans aren't rational creatures but rationalizing creatures."
Author Unknown
Apathia is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th September 2017, 03:26 PM   #23
Apathia
Illuminator
 
Apathia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 4,116
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
"West World".
Again the assumption that programmed behavioral affects would necessarily entail Human sentience.

The Bots in WW go rogue because they have been designed with both sentience and emotional affect. But there's something lacking in that they aren't fully unsocial beings. Our sentience and empathy are very closely knit with our social nature. We have no self-concept apart from the circumstances of our relations with language others.
__________________
"At the Supreme Court level where we work, 90 percent of any decision is emotional. The rational part of us supplies the reasons for supporting our predilections."
Justice William O. Douglas

"Humans aren't rational creatures but rationalizing creatures."
Author Unknown
Apathia is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2017, 02:09 PM   #24
Thor 2
Master Poster
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 2,758
Originally Posted by Apathia View Post
Again the assumption that programmed behavioral affects would necessarily entail Human sentience.

The Bots in WW go rogue because they have been designed with both sentience and emotional affect. But there's something lacking in that they aren't fully unsocial beings. Our sentience and empathy are very closely knit with our social nature. We have no self-concept apart from the circumstances of our relations with language others.

As I mentioned before I liked your description - "Being aware that one is aware." - as describing what we feel as people, and I think other animals have this to varying degrees as well. Sentience is the ability to be able to perceive or feel things which conceivably could be the case with non conscious entities however.

It's interesting to consider how we feel about other animals. Could it be said we have greater empathy with animals we perceive as being more aware than others? I think so. Mind you our ability to assess the awareness of other animals may be limited. We test animals by seeing if they recognise their own image in a mirror, and measure their ability to communicate with us and others in their species. This is a quite good approach but some animals have limited or no vision and may communicate in ways we cannot detect.
__________________
There are billions of gods. One or more in the mind of every theist.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2017, 03:14 PM   #25
Apathia
Illuminator
 
Apathia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 4,116
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
As I mentioned before I liked your description - "Being aware that one is aware." - as describing what we feel as people, and I think other animals have this to varying degrees as well. Sentience is the ability to be able to perceive or feel things which conceivably could be the case with non conscious entities however.

It's interesting to consider how we feel about other animals. Could it be said we have greater empathy with animals we perceive as being more aware than others? I think so. Mind you our ability to assess the awareness of other animals may be limited. We test animals by seeing if they recognise their own image in a mirror, and measure their ability to communicate with us and others in their species. This is a quite good approach but some animals have limited or no vision and may communicate in ways we cannot detect.
Being self-aware has been exhibited in varying degrees by animals. The usual indicator of a concept of self is the use of mirrors. Chimps very quickly get that what they are seeing is not another chimp but their own image and then proceed to use it to groom. Smart cats and dogs soon get it. It seems that dolphins have individual names: evidence of as concept of self. A full concept of self assumes others have a sense of self as well.

It's yet to be shown that any other animal, other than ourselves, has not only awareness of self but an awareness that that one has an awareness of self, and then as many turtles down as you like.

When I was 16, I decided to become a Vegetarian. At 50 my stomach said to me, "This roughage that you're sending down is too fiber. Could you send down some pre-processed protein?" So I added occasional fish and poultry. But still I don't like to eat mammals. They have a greater potential of psychological suffering.

That certainly seems a matter of degree.

Back to robots, does sentience imply the potential of psychological suffering? This guy may think so:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eh-W8QDVA9s
__________________
"At the Supreme Court level where we work, 90 percent of any decision is emotional. The rational part of us supplies the reasons for supporting our predilections."
Justice William O. Douglas

"Humans aren't rational creatures but rationalizing creatures."
Author Unknown
Apathia is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2017, 10:57 PM   #26
barehl
Master Poster
 
barehl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,506
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
As it was a derail of the subject matter of the thread I decided to start this new one specifically about the nature of self awareness and consciousness.
I've already solved awareness. I'm still working on consciousness.

Quote:
So as is said here natural consciousness is an enigma
This is what I'm working on. It's not an enigma. Unless I give up, I'm pretty sure I can solve it.

Quote:
maybe we need to try and make an artificial one to understand it.
That doesn't work. You've expressed the last hope of most in the field. This is the Hail Mary play and it will fail.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_...ject#Criticism

Peter Dayan, director of computational neuroscience at University College London, argued that the goal of a large-scale simulation of the brain is radically premature, and Geoffrey Hinton said that "the real problem with that project is they have no clue how to get a large system like that to learn". Similar concerns as to the project's methodology were raised by Robert Epstein.

These people are right.

Last edited by barehl; 30th September 2017 at 11:00 PM.
barehl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2017, 11:10 PM   #27
Thor 2
Master Poster
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 2,758
Originally Posted by Apathia View Post
Being self-aware has been exhibited in varying degrees by animals. The usual indicator of a concept of self is the use of mirrors. Chimps very quickly get that what they are seeing is not another chimp but their own image and then proceed to use it to groom. Smart cats and dogs soon get it. It seems that dolphins have individual names: evidence of as concept of self. A full concept of self assumes others have a sense of self as well.

It's yet to be shown that any other animal, other than ourselves, has not only awareness of self but an awareness that that one has an awareness of self, and then as many turtles down as you like.

When I was 16, I decided to become a Vegetarian. At 50 my stomach said to me, "This roughage that you're sending down is too fiber. Could you send down some pre-processed protein?" So I added occasional fish and poultry. But still I don't like to eat mammals. They have a greater potential of psychological suffering.

That certainly seems a matter of degree.

Back to robots, does sentience imply the potential of psychological suffering? This guy may think so:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eh-W8QDVA9s



Yes liked the video clip. There seems no end of examples of authors and movie makers attributing a sense of selfness to robots.

Your discussion regarding vegetarianism puts me in mind of the book "The Secret Life of Plants (1973)" - a book by Peter Tompkins and Christopher Bird, in which it was strongly implied that plants have feelings. The alternative set at the time embraced the idea, (by "alternative set" I mean those that grab anything contrary to conventional reason), but informed critics were scathing in their appraisal.

If one was to accept that plants have feelings too what is there left for us to eat?
__________________
There are billions of gods. One or more in the mind of every theist.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2017, 01:25 AM   #28
JJM 777
Illuminator
 
JJM 777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,928
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Consciousness/Self Awareness
Consciousness (and fear of death or suffering) is an enigmatic topic.

Self-awareness not so much, if we define it as "being aware of yourself". A computer can be programmed to possess the information of what a physical entity it is, and that it can observe itself with its own cameras or using a mirror, even repair itself with spare parts -- the Disney movie Wall-e way, which replaced practically its own brain, or was it only the memory unit.
JJM 777 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2017, 09:07 AM   #29
barehl
Master Poster
 
barehl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,506
Originally Posted by JJM 777 View Post
Consciousness (and fear of death or suffering) is an enigmatic topic.
To most people it definitely is.

Quote:
Self-awareness not so much, if we define it as "being aware of yourself".
These types of definitions are not much help if you are trying to create machine conscious. You really need a formal definition that you can relate to science and engineering.

Quote:
the Disney movie Wall-e way, which replaced practically its own brain, or was it only the memory unit.
WALL-E is an emergent hypothesis, that an AI program eventually became sentient due to hundreds of years of experience and learning. It's the same hypothesis as Short Circuit but occurring gradually over time instead of suddenly due to lightning. You probably noticed how similar WALL-E looks to Number 5. In the scene at the end, WALL-E becomes sentient again when the data storage tape with his experiences is played back into his replaced control board. This is also shows a belief in general AI.

Last edited by barehl; 1st October 2017 at 09:10 AM.
barehl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2017, 09:24 AM   #30
Apathia
Illuminator
 
Apathia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 4,116
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
If one was to accept that plants have feelings too what is there left for us to eat?
Have a Snickers.
__________________
"At the Supreme Court level where we work, 90 percent of any decision is emotional. The rational part of us supplies the reasons for supporting our predilections."
Justice William O. Douglas

"Humans aren't rational creatures but rationalizing creatures."
Author Unknown
Apathia is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2017, 01:36 PM   #31
Thor 2
Master Poster
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 2,758
Originally Posted by barehl View Post
I've already solved awareness. I'm still working on consciousness.

Interesting...... As Apathia so succinctly put it: "Being aware that one is aware." is the essence of the matter I think. If you have solved awareness but consciousness still eludes you perhaps these words hold the key.

Quote:
This is what I'm working on. It's not an enigma. Unless I give up, I'm pretty sure I can solve it.

Love to see your solution when you get there.


Quote:
That doesn't work. You've expressed the last hope of most in the field. This is the Hail Mary play and it will fail.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_...ject#Criticism

Peter Dayan, director of computational neuroscience at University College London, argued that the goal of a large-scale simulation of the brain is radically premature, and Geoffrey Hinton said that "the real problem with that project is they have no clue how to get a large system like that to learn". Similar concerns as to the project's methodology were raised by Robert Epstein.

These people are right.

I hope you are right I think. For reasons stated before if we are able to create an artificial consciousness we may be in trouble.
__________________
There are billions of gods. One or more in the mind of every theist.

Last edited by Thor 2; 1st October 2017 at 01:40 PM.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2017, 01:24 PM   #32
barehl
Master Poster
 
barehl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,506
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Interesting...... As Apathia so succinctly put it: "Being aware that one is aware." is the essence of the matter I think. If you have solved awareness but consciousness still eludes you perhaps these words hold the key.
Yeah, I thought that too a couple of years ago. Surely consciousness would just be a bigger, better version of awareness. Apparently not.

Quote:
Love to see your solution when you get there.
Assuming I don't get stoned to death.

Quote:
I hope you are right I think. For reasons stated before if we are able to create an artificial consciousness we may be in trouble.
That's not what I said. There are projects today that claim to be trying to create general AI or trying to duplicate the brain by simulation or similar hardware. All of these will fail and fail miserably, much like Japan's 5th generation project did.

That does not mean that machine intelligence is impossible. However, like I said before, a non-biological consciousness won't be very useful. What you actually need is Fractional theory. Unfortunately, Fractional theory would allow you to build intelligent weapons.
barehl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2017, 01:41 PM   #33
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 56,048
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
The concept of self awareness or perhaps we can just say selfness is something that has intrigued me for some time.
Have you read The Mind's I edited by Douglas Hofstadter and Daniel Dennett? It's a few years old now, but it's an interesting collection of essays and commentaries that does a deep dive into the concept of self and what it means to be an "I".
__________________
Read my fantasy novel for free!
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2017, 02:21 PM   #34
Thor 2
Master Poster
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 2,758
Originally Posted by barehl View Post
Yeah, I thought that too a couple of years ago. Surely consciousness would just be a bigger, better version of awareness. Apparently not.
Did you progress beyond this thought?

Quote:
Assuming I don't get stoned to death.

Do you live where Sharia is the law?

Quote:
That's not what I said. There are projects today that claim to be trying to create general AI or trying to duplicate the brain by simulation or similar hardware. All of these will fail and fail miserably, much like Japan's 5th generation project did.

How come you are so certain of this?

Quote:
That does not mean that machine intelligence is impossible. However, like I said before, a non-biological consciousness won't be very useful. What you actually need is Fractional theory. Unfortunately, Fractional theory would allow you to build intelligent weapons.

When I google "Fractional Theory" I get a lot of stuff about graphs.
__________________
There are billions of gods. One or more in the mind of every theist.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2017, 02:23 PM   #35
Thor 2
Master Poster
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 2,758
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Have you read The Mind's I edited by Douglas Hofstadter and Daniel Dennett? It's a few years old now, but it's an interesting collection of essays and commentaries that does a deep dive into the concept of self and what it means to be an "I".

Thanks. I looked it up and it looks interesting - lots of rave reviews. I will see if I can get a copy.
__________________
There are billions of gods. One or more in the mind of every theist.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd October 2017, 02:47 PM   #36
barehl
Master Poster
 
barehl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,506
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Did you progress beyond this thought?
Yes, some time ago.

Quote:
Do you live where Sharia is the law?
No, I live in the US which is why I won't be publishing soon even if I complete the theory.

Quote:
How come you are so certain of this?
Because they are extensions of computational theory. That is the first path I tried. It isn't just me. Artificial Intelligence was characterized during the Dartmouth conference back in 1956. There has been almost no progress since then. That's three entire generations of researchers. I know that Strong AI is impossible. I'm pretty sure that Weak AI is also impossible but I don't have a formal proof yet. I can prove that only a machine capable of processing knowledge can be intelligent and no one has an AI that can do that.

Quote:
When I google "Fractional Theory" I get a lot of stuff about graphs.
It isn't on Google. It's a hypothetical concept, the potential overlap between cognitive and computational theory. I assume it won't be proven or disproved until cognitive theory is solved.

Last edited by barehl; 3rd October 2017 at 02:57 PM.
barehl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2017, 03:07 PM   #37
Thor 2
Master Poster
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 2,758
Originally Posted by barehl View Post
Yes, some time ago.
You might just flesh this out a bit.

Quote:
No, I live in the US which is why I won't be publishing soon even if I complete the theory.
I am baffled by this response.

Quote:
Because they are extensions of computational theory. That is the first path I tried. It isn't just me. Artificial Intelligence was characterized during the Dartmouth conference back in 1956. There has been almost no progress since then. That's three entire generations of researchers. I know that Strong AI is impossible. I'm pretty sure that Weak AI is also impossible but I don't have a formal proof yet. I can prove that only a machine capable of processing knowledge can be intelligent and no one has an AI that can do that.
So you do have a "formal proof" that strong AI is impossible?

Quote:
It isn't on Google. It's a hypothetical concept, the potential overlap between cognitive and computational theory. I assume it won't be proven or disproved until cognitive theory is solved.
So "Fractional Theory" is your own then?
__________________
There are billions of gods. One or more in the mind of every theist.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th October 2017, 04:38 PM   #38
Apathia
Illuminator
 
Apathia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 4,116
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Thanks. I looked it up and it looks interesting - lots of rave reviews. I will see if I can get a copy.

And then proceed to, or just go ahead to I Am a Strange Loop.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_a_Strange_Loop
__________________
"At the Supreme Court level where we work, 90 percent of any decision is emotional. The rational part of us supplies the reasons for supporting our predilections."
Justice William O. Douglas

"Humans aren't rational creatures but rationalizing creatures."
Author Unknown
Apathia is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2017, 01:23 PM   #39
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 56,048
Originally Posted by Apathia View Post
And then proceed to, or just go ahead to I Am a Strange Loop.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_a_Strange_Loop
That book builds on some of the ideas covered in Gödel, Escher, Bach, so it helps if you've struggled through that monster as well.

ETA: It's worth saying that both The Mind's I and I Am A Strange Loop are easier to read than Gödel, Escher, Bach.
__________________
Read my fantasy novel for free!

Last edited by arthwollipot; 5th October 2017 at 01:25 PM.
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2017, 08:01 PM   #40
barehl
Master Poster
 
barehl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,506
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
You might just flesh this out a bit.
I'm not sure what you mean. I solved awareness over two years ago. It didn't lead to an understanding of consciousness. I'm hoping that volition will the final piece for consciousness.

Quote:
I am baffled by this response.
The earliest that I could publish would be 2021 and that's if Trump doesn't get re-elected.

Quote:
So you do have a "formal proof" that strong AI is impossible?
Processors have information states. One information state does not provide consciousness. That fact is proven several billion times a second by any common processor. Where do we go from here?

You could try to argue that each information state is a piece of consciousness. That is actually argued by IIT. However, neither successive information states nor increases in state switching show any increase in consciousness. So, there is no supporting evidence for this.

You have magic algorithm theory. This is the idea that some particular algorithm will provide consciousness. However, since all algorithms are composed of information states and every single one of these can be tested there is neither evidence that this is possible nor what effect consciousness could exhibit since its behavior would have to conform to the same algorithm.

At this point you could either argue for emergence or transcendence. You could claim that a given computational system must reach an arbitrary threshold of complexity and then it suddenly exhibits consciousness. There is at least one theory that argues that this happens. That doesn't fit with the observed complexity of animal brains and would also be immediately falsified by computational theory itself. So emergence is false.

That only leaves transcendence as either a supernatural or undetectable cause. This sounds similar to Hameroff's ideas. However, just as you begin to think that Hameroff might make sense he describes the brain as "a multi-scalar vibrational resonance system". As far as I can tell this description is an allusion to string theory and suggests some unknown quantum effect. But, again this doesn't match what we see with brains.

I don't know of anything left at this point that would allow consciousness. But I'm open to whatever might.

Weak AI is quite different because a disproof has to be limited in terms of behavior. In other words, Weak AI is only impossible if human-like behavior is not computable. That's a much heavier lift (or at least it is for me). I can only think of two approaches. Either prove that consciousness is required to process knowledge or prove that knowledge cannot be computed. At this point I don't know what consciousness is so I don't have any chance of proving that it is a requirement for knowledge. The second one might be possible.


Quote:
So "Fractional Theory" is your own then?
Yes and no. General AI is usually thought of as a locked behavior with reasoning equal to human. I don't call it General AI because I don't believe that General AI is computationally possible. That behavior is what I call Fractional Theory. It's the same result but based on a very different architecture. However, if I can't disprove Weak AI then General AI should be possible and my definition could end up being the same.
barehl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:58 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.