Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm simply tinkering with ways to express ideas that are notoriously difficult to put into words.
Which is laudable. The only reason I stepped in at all was to curtail what I was seeing as a use of this fact....... that they are notoriously difficult to articulate......... as a way to, intended or not, import a deeper meaning to something than is actually warranted.
I was pointing out merely that one should not do that, nor should one take seriously anyone that is caught doing that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
Most scientists, in casual conversation, are stark-raving mystics compared to me
Alas true. One need only read up on the fake sent in by the Randi Foundation to be studied by scientists. A fake that was given the mission brief that if ANY scientist in the study were to ask "Are you a fake?" he was to instantly come clean. But they never asked, and they fell hook, line and sinker for the charlatan paranormal abilities he was displaying. It was an embarrassment scientifically and a demonstration that while the scientific METHOD is probably the closest to perfect we have yet created as a species, scientists themselves sure as hell are far off the standard.
Still a funny story though and worth reading up on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
I would agree, insofar as human consciousness is concerned, but I see human consciousness as a higher-level phenomena merging from lower-level sentience
Exactly my point. And the book I mentioned explored the difference between us and those lover level sentient organisms, attempting to find an explanation of consciousness in those differences. And Language was one of the strongest elements that was highlighted in the result. As were mirror neurons and the ability for representation of not just other minds, but the minds representation of itself.
A full understanding of these two elements I feel would bring us pretty much most of the way to the finishing line on understanding human consciousness.
And my main point on the thread is there is nothing so far.... literally nothing at all of any kind at all anywhere..... that we understand about these things that is even remotely suggestive that the same attribute would be precluded to a machine or AI consciousness.
And therefore those on the thread espousing such a view are not just on shaky ground, they are on NO ground, and do not even have legs to stand on it even if they were. They are simply declaring made up bias as fact.
But notice I said "seems to be". Personally, I think that if there seems to be a self-referential perspective, then I have every logical right to believe that there is such a perspective, but some of you have complained that the waters of illusion could run so deep that there might, in fact, not even be a perspective where there seems to be a perspective. Frankly, I find that idea to be pointlessly counterintuitive and absurd, but I can't prove that you are wrong, so go ahead and knock yourself out (sorta literally, it seems). I still feel totally justified in positing the existence of a self-referential perspective, and using this hypothesis to explain the subjective nature of qualia.
It's like looking at cars while standing on a street corner and saying rubber tires "seem to be fundamental" or somehow special. In a way they are at that point so a line of logic using cars we see as the base axiom seems logical. Only when we explore more do we see the flaws. In this case, and indeed most philosophy, it is based on wording and speculation based on what is not known.
which is ok to a degree but at some point we have to anchor it in something. Which has been repeated many times in many ways. Around every three pages. I don't think you went down in "flames". When I crash and burn at a point on the track I look at what brought me down and see what needs to be adjusted. For some, not really you, all it takes is to open the eyes for it is only a thin vial between us and the truth.
Yes and it may be time to create a different word for the idea behind Qualia because the definitions including and referencing consciousness are not lining up .
Anyway a couple of points in opinion as usual ( for all these common sense questions which have been answered by people for centuries.
- Suggesting things are an illusion eliminates all boundaries and therefore terms in things to do with perception. Therefore suggesting everything is an illusion is nonsense. If everything was an illusion man wouldn't be able to distinguish the idea itself. The only way to make notice of an illusory is to contrast what is understood not to be illusory, relative to a position in observation. Everything would be relative to a position of observation. As soon as the idea is mentioned it contradicts use of the word itself. So its nonsence relative to any perceived rational view at all. Not only that but it suggests all would be an equal illusory reality which takes to another dream world from where it came in the first place. So the problem is the idea itself has no terms and cannot associate with anything. Once any argument comes about , it is applying terms, but terms are non-negotiable items in the premise of the idea. So the idea cannot be relative to anything and is therefore non-reflective. Reason is reflective by its very nature. Therefore the idea would be irrational. ( this has been understood for centuries.
- The movies have already touched on things to do with the science and mystery. I forget the name of the movie but it had to do with time and distance alongside things to do with associations or I guess what could be called entanglement.
- Some good points Nozz and as far as the conscious machine goes maybe your right it could be a conscious machine , but what kind of a conscious machine can relate to, other then another conscious machine ? maybe they are all, already conscious and share in their world of what is fundemental and believe electricity is the fundamental. ( notice the period) So it becomes a question of where, does conscious attribute loose its ability to use the name conscious. Plus there are some good analogies in the thread for explaining the common sence of things.
Last edited by Sophronius; 12-18-2014 at 10:32 AM..
...I would heartily recommend reading The Tell Tale Brain by VS Ramachandran as he explores from the perspective of a neuroscientist what makes us uniquely human...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
Exactly my point. And the book I mentioned explored the difference between us and those lover level sentient organisms, attempting to find an explanation of consciousness in those differences. And Language was one of the strongest elements that was highlighted in the result. As were mirror neurons and the ability for representation of not just other minds, but the minds representation of itself.
A full understanding of these two elements I feel would bring us pretty much most of the way to the finishing line on understanding human consciousness.
I think we are in almost full agreement about this, except for a really big core issue relating to the concept of qualia. Ramachandran (and all other cognitive scientists, so far as I know) admits that we are missing some fundamental pieces of the puzzle when it comes to understanding qualia. [BTW, I checked out The Tell Tale Brain yesterday and have read a few chapters so far. Thanks for the recommendation.] I found it amusing that he says something virtually identical to what I said a few pages back in this thread:
"…we are now at the same stage that chemistry was in the nineteenth century: discovering thebasic elements, grouping them into categories, and studying their interactions.We are still groping our way toward the equivalent of the periodic table but are not anywhere near atomic theory." [Ramachandran 287-288]
My point - and, I believe Ramachandran's point as well - is that a lot of new fundamental concepts were required to get us from that era of chemistry to modern quantum theory. I also took the analogy a bit further: Just as quantum theory explains why the elements of the periodic table are arranged as they are, I think that a future theory will explain why the correlates of consciousness are what they are. Say, for example, that pattern R is correlated with subjects claiming to see red (after subtracting idiosyncratic data related to individual variations). Thus we could take a random Joe off the street, scan his brain, and know that he is seeing red, even before he says so.
The physicalist identity claim is that the qualitative experience "seeing red" just is pattern R - analogous to saying "temperature just is average molecular motion." I am okay saying that, but there is, nevertheless, a subtle flaw in the analogy between "redness"/R <-->temperature/molecular motion. Average molecular motion comes fully equipped with all of the logical/conceptual bells and whistles needed in order to assemble the higher-level concept of temperature from the lower-level concepts involved in molecular motion. "Temperature" can be operationally defined in terms of the height of mercury in a column, which can then be explained in terms of the impacts of molecules banging into the mercury. No new fundamental translational concepts are needed. Momentum, etc. thought of in one way translates into momentum, etc., thought of in a different way. End of story. Most of you seem to have faith in the "promissory note" that future physics will somehow be able to do exactly the same thing, without any conceptual revolutions in the concept of "physical". I have no such faith. I have faith that the scientific method will prevail, and I have faith that physics will, indeed, eventually be sufficient to explain qualia (no supernatural elements need apply), but I expect some fundamental new theories will be required before we get there. I can't predict exactly what these conceptual revolutions will be, but I think I have an idea of what will provoke the new concepts, and I think I can point at least roughly toward the new ball park we will find ourselves playing in.
Very briefly: Finding the correlates of consciousness will not be the end of the story. Future science will not simply say "the qualitative experience of seeing red just is pattern R" and leave it at that. (Actually, we might do this, but only after our concept of "physical" has changed in a fundamental way, such that qualitative or proto-qualitative concepts are packed into the fundamental level.) Just as QM came along to explain why the chemical elements could be arranged as they are in the periodic table, a future theory of physics will come along to explain why pattern R is correlated with the qualitative experience of seeing red. But in order to do this, there will need to be - somewhere, somehow along the chain of explanation - some fundamental theoretical entities that are defined in terms of qualitative or proto-qualitative aspects or dimensions.
Suppose that you want to explain Y in terms of X. You list all of the properties of X and you get a, b, c, and d. Then you list all of the properties of Y, and you get e, f, g and h. Can you explain Y in terms of X? It does not seem promising at this point. Why not? Because you have not yet identified any properties that link the two. At this point, assuming you don't want to just give up, you have a few basic options. You can try to identify some previously overlooked property, say k, that applies to both X and Y, or you need to show that one of the properties you've already identified can be reconceived in term of properties "across the explanatory divide" (e.g., you might show that f is really b in disguise, or that f is really a combination of b and c, or whatever). If it can be shown, for example, that f is really a combination of b and c, then b and c can be understood as "proto-fs". So now, when you go back and list the properties of X, you can list them as "a", "proto-fb", "proto-fc", and "d". Now there is some hope of explaining Y in terms of X. You needed properties that bridge the conceptual gap between X and Y and now you have them - or at least you have some building blocks out of which you could conceivably construct them.
The fundamental elements of physics have properties like momentum, charge, spin, mass, etc. If you want to explain the subjective/qualitative experience of pain in terms that are reducible to fundamental physics, you will need to identify some sort of bridge properties. In this case, simply identifying correlates won't cut the mustard. Obviously, if the correlations themselves are just brute facts of reality, then no further explanations are possible and we are stuck with a fundamental mystery - "it just is what it is" - but I'm proposing that the correlations are not brute-fact identity, but rather, they are explainable relations between different aspects of reality. Thus, for my purposes, it is not good enough to just say that property f is composed of b and c, you need to show the logical relations - otherwise is it just a brute-fact correlation. I'm trying to "reverse engineer" qualia so that I can show how they emerge from neural activity, which emerges from chemistry, which emerges from the fundamentals of physics.
You might want to say that qualia are just an illusion. Okay. Pain is an illusion. I can accept that (I don't actually believe it, but I can accept if for the sake of argument). The supposed illusion of pain is still subjective/qualitative. I don't see where anything is gained by pointing to the possible illusory aspects of pain. The bottom line comes out the same: Reality is fundamentally proto-qualitative, which is just the seemingly tautological claim that we feel what we feel, even if somehow our concepts about feelings are based on illusions. If X exists, then the fundamental elements and laws of physics must somehow be combinable to be X-like or proto-X-like in some way.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 12-18-2014 at 10:21 AM..
Ramachandran admits that we are missing some fundamental pieces of the puzzle when it comes to understanding qualia.
And that is exactly where my point on this thread starts and stops. We simply have more things to learn about human consciousness. Period, full stop, end of.
So those people populating the thread with claims that machines or AIs can never be conscious are just talking fabricated nonsense and assumption. Because until we know how something works, we have no grounding upon which to claim it will not work in ANOTHER context.
The conversation really begins and ends RIGHT there for me and I think we have highlighted their failures in reasoning often enough, and pointed out that it is born of nothing more than a deep seated wish for consciousness to be something more than it is, unique and special to us, a spark of the divine. And the idea that it might be artificially replicable is made abhorrent by their world view and biases.
They are talking nonsense and assumption and it appears they are now routed.
Yes and it may be time to create a different word for the idea behind Qualia because the definitions including and referencing consciousness are not lining up .
Anyway a couple of points in opinion as usual ( for all these common sense questions which have been answered by people for centuries.
- Suggesting things are an illusion eliminates all boundaries and therefore terms in things to do with perception. Therefore suggesting everything is an illusion is nonsense. If everything was an illusion man wouldn't be able to distinguish the idea itself. The only way to make notice of an illusory is to contrast what is understood not to be illusory, relative to a position in observation. Everything would be relative to a position of observation. As soon as the idea is mentioned it contradicts use of the word itself. So its nonsence relative to any perceived rational view at all. Not only that but it suggests all would be an equal illusory reality which takes to another dream world from where it came in the first place. So the problem is the idea itself has no terms and cannot associate with anything. Once any argument comes about , it is applying terms, but terms are non-negotiable items in the premise of the idea. So the idea cannot be relative to anything and is therefore non-reflective. Reason is reflective by its very nature. Therefore the idea would be irrational. ( this has been understood for centuries.
- The movies have already touched on things to do with the science and mystery. I forget the name of the movie but it had to do with time and distance alongside things to do with associations or I guess what could be called entanglement.
- Some good points Nozz and as far as the conscious machine goes maybe your right it could be a conscious machine , but what kind of a conscious machine can relate to, other then another conscious machine ? maybe they are all, already conscious and share in their world of what is fundemental and believe electricity is the fundamental. ( notice the period) So it becomes a question of where, does conscious attribute loose its ability to use the name conscious. Plus there are some good analogies in the thread for explaining the common sence of things.
I agree sop.
"illusionary" doesn't really "remove boundaries". For "logistical" and "functional communication" considerations the idea of "boundaries" is needed. It doesn't mean "delusion", meaning we see it but it's not there. "illusion" just means it may be different than we think it is. It just means we need to be very careful were we assign them for use in making things like "laws" or forcing our views on others. One a side note, for me, There is the issue of "quantized" that would point to a fundamental boundary. Like a pool full of liquid water space time so to speak. But that's big maybe though.
And that is exactly where my point on this thread starts and stops. We simply have more things to learn about human consciousness. Period, full stop, end of.
Insofar as Mystic, so far as I can see, has not offered any sustainable argument against the idea of a robot being conscious, I would agree that this thread could have ended dozens of pages ago. But the title "Consciousness in a robot?" can be interpreted (with just a little bit of stretching) to imply a variety of questions:
(1) Could a robot be conscious? (I assume that this is the default interpretation for most of us, and, with one or two dissenting opinions, we seem to have an overall agreement that the answer is "yes.")
(2) How might we go about building a conscious robot?
(3) Could consciousness in a robot be like human consciousness in some ways? Or would it be radically different? And if it were radically different, then on what basis would we apply the term 'consciousness' to it? How do we even compare consciousness across species or across the organic/silicon divide?
(4) Assuming that we can, in principle, build a conscious robot, then how do know when we've achieved success? What criteria do we use to determine that a physical system is or is not conscious? Could a robot appear to us to be conscious without actually being conscious? Or the inverse: Could we build a conscious machine without realizing that we've built a conscious machine?
I'm sure we could add several more related questions to the list, but this is enough to make my point. From the very beginning, my answer to (1) was "Yes", so all of my posts have been focused on the related questions. If Mystic thinks I've missed, or misunderstood, his argument for answering "No" to question #1, then I'd invite him to restate his argument and I'll try to address it. Otherwise, I am personally still fascinated by the nuanced interpretations. Also, given the exponential pace of technological innovation, I suspect that we may be closer to finding some answers (and/or seriously needing to find some answers) than it might appear to the casual observer. Some very important missing pieces could be falling into place within the next few years.
BTW: I did create a thread in the Philosophy forum to discuss more general questions of consciousness. A couple of you followed me there, but no one else took the bait, and the thread died out. I might try to resurrect it: https://www.city-data.com/forum/philo...ciousness.html
Therefore suggesting everything is an illusion is nonsense.
Yes. The sentence "Everything is an illusion" is a self-defeating concept, for essentially the same reason that this sentence (let's call it "S") is self-defeating: "Every sentence is false." If S is true, then it must be false, and if S is false, then it is true. This isn't just a parlor trick or a trivial language game. It is a foundational structural feature of mathematics and logic. I'm basically pointing to this problem when I say that there are limits to how wrong we can be about the nature of our subjective/qualitative experience. When you strip away every conceivable way in which I could possibly be wrong about the nature of this particular feeling of pain that I'm experiencing right now (where the "this" is an indexical, introspective "inner ostensive pointing"), we end up with a kernel of logical certainty (aka, what philosophers call the "raw feel" aka the "quale"). Once the concept of "quale" is properly understood, the sentence "This quale does not exist" becomes a self-defeating statement. The "object" of reference in the sentence is not really an "object" at all; it is a constituent of the subject who utters the sentence, and thus it is a logical cornerstone of the utterance itself. (The referent is referring to the logical source of the reference.)
So then, given that the quale (let's call it Q) exists in the moment of utterance, philosophically minded people are inclined to wonder about the nature of Q's existence. For example, does Q exist necessarily or contingently? My strong impression is that sometimes Q exists, and sometimes it doesn't, thus Q seems to be contingent. Given that Q does not necessarily have to exist, but sometimes it does exist, what determines whether or not Q exists in a given moment? Does this Q exist only here and now, or could this same Q exist as a logical cornerstone of other utterances? And we're off to the races.
(2) How might we go about building a conscious robot?
The most promising approach I've been appraised of and impressed with sees the brain less as a computer and more as a pattern-matching engine, specifically a pattern mismatch detection engine. And which runs a simulation of exactly how the brain functions at a low level to match patterns. The human prefrontal cortex has already been successfully modeled in a way that allows generic pattern matching algorithms to be run through the simulation. Indeed, trial and error tuning of the simulator to match known brain behaviors has yielded insight into some details of how the brain handles certain situations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
(4) Assuming that we can, in principle, build a conscious robot, then how do know when we've achieved success? What criteria do we use to determine that a physical system is or is not conscious? Could a robot appear to us to be conscious without actually being conscious? Or the inverse: Could we build a conscious machine without realizing that we've built a conscious machine?
The earliest in-depth thinker on this, as usual, was Alan Turing, the subject of a forthcoming biopic, The Imitation Game. The title refers to a turn of phrase in Turing's 1950 paper, Computing Machinery and Intelligence, where he sidestepped most of the conversation we're having here and cut to the chase: rather than wondering if computers can think, he asked, "are there imaginable digital computers which could do well in the imitation game?"
The test is interested strictly in how the AI behaves in verbal interaction and whether an observer can distinguish the behavior from that of a human that can be communicated with only by written notes or similar mechanism (e.g., teletype machine, interactive terminal, or modern texting). As such it doesn't answer the questions posed in this thread, but I submit that if it walks and quacks and smells and tastes like a duck ... it's a duck, for all practical purposes.
Considering it was promulgated 64 years ago, when there were only a handful of football field-sized vacuum tube computers and before even the era of the teletype machine, it has really withstood the test of time.
For an example of how this might work in the foreseeable future, I think the AI that goes into space with the human characters in Interstellar is about right. That AI is housed in a not remotely anthropomorphic robot, basically a bunch of articulated rectangles, but the crew (and the film's audience) readily accepts it as a colleague. A colleague without civil rights or a sense of self-preservation beyond whatever role it's commanded to serve in the mission, but a colleague nonetheless.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
